On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:13:27 -0000 "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > some good points on the background to Saddam's capture by James > Heartfield. > > My initial attempt - > > Bush appeared to be unusually cautious in his victory televison > broadcast, which seemed to be crafted towards Iraqis rather than US > electors. That is at least one achievement of Saddam's resistance > and > that of the wider Iraqi people.
I think that is certainly the case, especially after Bush got burned politically over his landing on the aircraft carrier, with the banner "Mission accomplished." You may also recall, that when Saddam's sons were killed, all sorts of commentators were claiming that would mean the end of the insurgency. As we know things didn't quite work out that way. My suspicion is that with the passing of the months, Saddam's role in the insurgency, such as it was, had become increasingly diminished. He was probably more concerned with saving his own skin than with directing guerilla operations against coalition forces. Another point. It may well be the case that with the capture of Saddam, the door may be opened to the entrance of new forces into the insurgency now that there is no chance that it can lead to the return of Saddam to power. Many of the Shi'ites seem to have been holding back from joining the insurgency for that very reason. Now at least some of them may now feel less inhibited about joining it. > > But if the allied invasion of Iraq was illegal, so was the capture > of > its leader. Well of course. And I wonder what sort of trial if any he might receive. Any sort of trial that is more than just a simple show trial would most certainly involve Saddam's legal team seeking to subpoena all sorts of officials from the Carter, Reagan, and Bush I administrations. If that sort of thing was to be allowed the results would be most painful to the US and especially for the current Administration many of whose officials were very much involved in aiding Saddam's regime in the past, when he was a US ally in good standing, and to that extent are complicit in some of his worst crimes. > > Behind the repeated degrading images of the prisoner with his mouth > being examined and his hair in disarray - worse than images that > caused indignation when it was US military who had been captured and > paraded in front of the cameras - was the question of whether this > means total victory. > > Bush was wise to say ``The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean > the > end of violence in Iraq", presumably excluding allied troops from > ever > being the perpetrators or provokers of violence themselves. > > The trial will have to be on the grounds of crimes against humanity > rather than being on the wrong side in geopolitics. Saddam would > have > much to reveal. Precisely my point, especially if his attorneys can subpoena US officials, past and present, who were involved in aiding his regime. > > And the worse crimes were in the context of conflict and instability > - > as so often happens in history - in which the US and the west had a > major part - > the war against Iran, where Iraq was the ally of the US, and the > events after Iraq's defeat in which the Saddam regime brutally > supressed an uprising. > > Yes according to the prevailing conventions of international law for > Iraq to invade Kuwait was a breach of sovereignty, but in the > context > of the history of Mesopotamia over thousands of years it was hardly > illogical. For Britain and the US to invade in the 21st century > required them to show, that unlike the majority of the Security > Council they turned out to be right about WMD if you accept the > questionable logic on which Blair persuaded Bush to debate with the > UN. > > Presumably in preparation for an authoritative trial the Bush > administration will have to hope that second level commanders will > reveal many details of WMD more shocking than battlefield chemical > weapons. > > At his news conference Maj Gen Odierno revealed that he thought that > it unlikely that Saddam had been personally directing the > (increasingly effective) resistance to the allied occupation. That > presumably reflects the prevailing view among the top levels of the > US > military in Iraq and may be very significant. > > After the inital psychological blow of Saddam's capture to those > personally loyal to him, it is even possible that his capture > will lead to a more sustained campaign of military resistance > against > the occupying forces and the imposition of a US led finance > capitalist > economy. For some Saddam will be a martyr and hero, but his capture > may make it in fact easier for all Iraqi nationalists to network on > the basis of anti-Americanism rather than support for the old > regime. > > An American rout in Iraq is still possible, however much it will be > smoothed over in the polite language of diplomatic exchanges between > the leading imperialist powers, who are all positioning themselves > carefully today in the way they phrase their enthusiasm for the > capture of Saddam. > > There are no ideal standards of justice that stand above material > history, whether identified by Kant or not. > > Concepts of justice are shaped by the balance of forces and are only > partially independent of material interest. But from the point of > view > of the democratic material interests of the working people of the > world although basic bourgeois legal rights are an important defence > against naked class oppression, what is even more important in this > context is that the US administration aided by its loyal allies such > as Britain should not be able to impose their will on a population > through shock and awe. > > Ironically and hopefully the most important result of the capture > of > Saddam might be that the working people of Iraq can find a basis for > uniting their diverse interests in favour of genuine independence > and > sovereignty. > > The assassination of Iraqis cooperating with the allied occupation > will be a test of whether such a unity can emerge, and unfortunately > suggests that even if the invasion ends in a rout for the occupying > forces, it will be Iraqis who will pay the biggest price. > > If we see some equivalent of "black on black violence" developing, > as > in the last days of the apartheid regime, we should ask what forces > are behind that, and why did it come about in the first place, when > the people of the two historic rivers need to be able to live in > peace > together, and engage in economic activity and rule their own lives > without being dominated by superpowers or global finance capitalist > corporations. > > Initial thoughts. > > Chris Burford > London > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
