tirsdag, december 09, 2003
VIETNAM ANALOGY DOESN'T HOLD UP
"Despite the ongoing attacks and the growing antipathy toward the occupying forces, it is important to recognize the flawed nature of the analogy with U.S. involvement in Vietnam that many on the left have invested so much of themselves in. The conflict in Vietnam was inherited from French colonialism, not eagerly and unilaterally embarked upon. At its height, it involved a prodigious commitment of U.S. military personnel, while the Iraq war is remarkable for the relatively few numbers of troops involved.
The chief difference, however, lies in the nature of the forces combating the U.S. soldiers. In Vietnam, the U.S. faced both guerrilla and regular forces operating under a centralized leadership with one aim: to bring the country under a unified political rule that, however authoritarian, had considerable popular support. The combatants in Iraq are linked to a discredited political regime with little hope of making a comeback. Their persistent and bloody attacks seem focused on simply making Iraq as unstable and as close to ungovernable as possible rather than attempting to win the confidence of the country's people.
In this respect, the situation in Iraq much more closely resembles the current one in Afghanistan than it does Vietnam circa 1970. In Afghanistan the remnants of the Taliban are succeeding in making the south and east of the country dangerous places for humanitarian workers and UN representatives, but have little prospect of returning to a position of power over the whole country."
(Editorial, News & Letters, December 2003)
Iraq and the Third Camp
"There is taking place a triangular struggle for the world. Three responses to the ending of "the short twentieth century" and its political and economic architecture.
The first, emergent for over a century but unleashed since the end of the Cold War, is the United States of America. The U.S. is now the world's hyperpower with a grand strategy to reshape global political and economic relations in its favor and in the interests of global capital.
The second - which cannot be reduced to mere "blowback" -is an entirely reactionary and frequently terroristic Jihad fundamentalism seeking the defeat of the "infidel" world of women's rights, democracy, secularism, sexual self-determination and individual liberty.
These two forces crashed into each other, with the al-Qaeda terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The turbulence has capsized parts of the left. To right itself the left needs to turn toward the perspective of a "third camp": the burgeoning global working class leading the progressive social movements of global civil society.
During the Cold War the third camp opposed both Russia and the U.S. in the name of all the democratic forces struggling for peace and democracy. The contemporary meaning of third camp socialism is the refusal to be enlisted into some new "Great Contest" as cheerleader or critical supporter of either reactionary camp, and the elaboration of a positive and practical political alternative to both."
(Alan Johnson, New Politics)
Occupation of Iraq: What happens now?
"We opposed the war and we opposed Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime; we "take sides" only to support movements for genuine liberation. Iraq is sinking into chaos and the rule of fiefdoms and mafias. Now feminist groups are demanding a say in the new government and denouncing U.S. attempts to court religious leaders by holding out the possibility of an "Islamic democracy." The U.S.'s claim that its war on Iraq will bring democracy is as big a lie as its claim to have "freed the women of Afghanistan."
(Editorial, News & Letters, Juni 2003)
"Despite the ongoing attacks and the growing antipathy toward the occupying forces, it is important to recognize the flawed nature of the analogy with U.S. involvement in Vietnam that many on the left have invested so much of themselves in. The conflict in Vietnam was inherited from French colonialism, not eagerly and unilaterally embarked upon. At its height, it involved a prodigious commitment of U.S. military personnel, while the Iraq war is remarkable for the relatively few numbers of troops involved.
The chief difference, however, lies in the nature of the forces combating the U.S. soldiers. In Vietnam, the U.S. faced both guerrilla and regular forces operating under a centralized leadership with one aim: to bring the country under a unified political rule that, however authoritarian, had considerable popular support. The combatants in Iraq are linked to a discredited political regime with little hope of making a comeback. Their persistent and bloody attacks seem focused on simply making Iraq as unstable and as close to ungovernable as possible rather than attempting to win the confidence of the country's people.
In this respect, the situation in Iraq much more closely resembles the current one in Afghanistan than it does Vietnam circa 1970. In Afghanistan the remnants of the Taliban are succeeding in making the south and east of the country dangerous places for humanitarian workers and UN representatives, but have little prospect of returning to a position of power over the whole country."
(Editorial, News & Letters, December 2003)
Iraq and the Third Camp
"There is taking place a triangular struggle for the world. Three responses to the ending of "the short twentieth century" and its political and economic architecture.
The first, emergent for over a century but unleashed since the end of the Cold War, is the United States of America. The U.S. is now the world's hyperpower with a grand strategy to reshape global political and economic relations in its favor and in the interests of global capital.
The second - which cannot be reduced to mere "blowback" -is an entirely reactionary and frequently terroristic Jihad fundamentalism seeking the defeat of the "infidel" world of women's rights, democracy, secularism, sexual self-determination and individual liberty.
These two forces crashed into each other, with the al-Qaeda terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The turbulence has capsized parts of the left. To right itself the left needs to turn toward the perspective of a "third camp": the burgeoning global working class leading the progressive social movements of global civil society.
During the Cold War the third camp opposed both Russia and the U.S. in the name of all the democratic forces struggling for peace and democracy. The contemporary meaning of third camp socialism is the refusal to be enlisted into some new "Great Contest" as cheerleader or critical supporter of either reactionary camp, and the elaboration of a positive and practical political alternative to both."
(Alan Johnson, New Politics)
Occupation of Iraq: What happens now?
"We opposed the war and we opposed Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime; we "take sides" only to support movements for genuine liberation. Iraq is sinking into chaos and the rule of fiefdoms and mafias. Now feminist groups are demanding a say in the new government and denouncing U.S. attempts to court religious leaders by holding out the possibility of an "Islamic democracy." The U.S.'s claim that its war on Iraq will bring democracy is as big a lie as its claim to have "freed the women of Afghanistan."
(Editorial, News & Letters, Juni 2003)
