About the Sunni Resistance, MG writes (in reply to me earlier):
Reslient, yes - but I'm not sure what you mean by "coherent" and why you objected to my saying the Sunni resistance is more limited than that which arose in Vietnam. Is there an organization in Iraq comparable to the NLF representing the whole of the Sunni resistance and what is its program?
How coherent can a clandestine resistance be for you to be happy? It has to be broken up in cells, dispersed, elements of it unknown largely to other elements of it. Much of it doing back-breaking labor during the day and then fighting the Am0ericans part-time, knowing full well that it might be blown to pieces or go home to their family in pieces. For crying out loud, it's a resistance that is in a life-and-death struggle with a well armed superpower. And yes, that Resistance does have a political existence. Some of it, like the Sadrists, has infiltrated the occupation's 'democracy' and outside of that system, it finds political expression in ways very similar to the Sadrists, through the association of clerics (variously translated). Also, some of it is actually part of the Sadrist bloc in the parliament that I first mentioned here. That is how the Sadrists have created a crisis (not much discussed right now in the US media) in the government of Iraq--it is a coordinated withdrawal of all cooperation by both the Sadrists and radical religious Sunni.
It would be even better if there were a united resistance not only of Sunnis, but one also representative of the Shia and Kurdish communities, with a well developed program combining the demands of the popular classes, and the national, religious and other social constituencies. The NLF was such an organization, and If there were a broader, united, and more ideologically coherent resistance movement of this sort in Iraq, then I wouldn't be making the distinction.
I'm saying you aren't giving the situation a chance enough for you to see the potential there. You are for whatever reasons and agenda--and have quite consistently done so as long as I have read your posts about this topic--over-interpreting the 'facts' known to us about Iraq. To me it seems quite obvious that it is class and social differences that divide the radical religionists from the more conservative and secular elements that either acquiese or cooperate with the occupation. Can't you see the significance in the possibility that the sort of Sunni who are fighting it out over Anbar Province are the very sort who would agree to a coalition with al Sadr in a post-US Iraq -- and it is the very thing that the US will do just about anything to avoid happening?
============================================== > It is simplistic to use the categories 'Shia', 'Sunni' and 'Kurd', as > I have pointed out to you numerous times before Marvin. First, a > bigger divide is religious vs. secular. For example, the Baathist > Party ran Iraq because relatively secular (but nationalist) elements > from all the three groups you list formed its mass core. The 'Sunni' > were as excluded from leadership as much as Shia or Kurd because of > the domination of Saddam Hussein's al Tikriti. Sorry, I don't recall my posting on this subject or you rebuking me about this before - but maybe.
We have a history on at least one other list. Sorry if I got your presence here confused with the other list. In any event, if these identities were ignored or
suppressed or superceded by nation or class or other categories under the Baathists - and you may be exaggerating the extent to which this was so - it's pretty clear that Iraqis now identify themselves (or are forced to identify themselves as such by others) as Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds and that they are politically organized along these lines.
And I'm saying that this is the NYT and CentCom version of Iraq and that you ought to know better if you want to make such extensive comments on Iraq. Do you know why such a significant minority of Kurds bitterly oppose separatism? Do you know why al Sadr will fight it out with Hakkim over keeping Iraq together. If you haven't even thought about such things, then why are you even bothering with this sort of analysis? That's unfortunate, and I
also wish they identified themselves along class lines, as many did when the Iraqi CP was an important force - you could say the same about most conflicts since the demise of the socialist movement - but that's one of the things the occupation has wrought.
Don't you get it? What separates the Sadrists from Hakim or Sistani? It's class for crying out loud. There was never any potential in Iraqi socialism (said with benefit of hindsight). They were US regime change puppets along with quite a few other factions of camp followers who emerged in the US occupied Iraq.
> > [CJ]The Sadrists might say they had no other choice. Militarily they were > unable to come to the aid of the Fallujahans, and they were not yet > ready to take on their Shia opponents while at the same time fight US > and UK troops on multiple battefronts... That's true. My reference wasn't to joint military action, for the reasons you point out and because political unity would have to be a prerequisite. Sadr spoke of the need and made moves in the direction of unity with the Sunni resistance after Najaf, but has done so less as the divisions have deepened between the two communities. Maybe his overtures were rebuffed by the Sunnis. The politics are sectarian on both sides.
In what system would they have found political unity possible? This is why, remember, al Sadr stayed directly out of the current government and only let his followers join if they so wished. He said that democracy and social reform were not possible so long as the US occupied and ran Iraq, and the militant Sunni agreed (and when they did get politically involved, they more often than not, went as a bloc with Sadr). Who consistently opposed 'federalism' in the constitutional debates? It was radical Sunni and radical Shia, together.
> Now they have true Resistance credentials, and they seem to be giving > indications that they are ready to deal with the rival Shia elements... Maybe, we'll see. You, Yoshie, Carrol and others are more confident in your ability to determine the causes and predict the outcomes of conflicts than I am.
I'd say stop reading the NYT and think for yourself on this. That is about all we have left on the left, at least I used to think so. CJ
