Ken: Thanks for your reasoned remarks, which illustrate a willingness to engage with the present situation.
As I've already said, my recent usage of "imperialism" was not supposed to be definitive, and I agree with your comments on this. > THe issue is the status > of those who side with imperialist occupiers when there are obvious > resistant forces at work. Another issue is the extent to which the resistance is supported by the Iraqi people. As I've said before, it doesn't take many insurgents to make an insurgency, and in the absence of elections and reliable opinion polls, no-one knows what they think of (e.g.) Hakim as opposed to Sadr. > Groups that side with the occupiers are prima facie quislings. Even if it is > merely a tactical move it is exceedingly dangerous and liable to result in > loss of any credibility. Agreed. But once that idiotic invasion opened Pandora's Box, Iraq became a no-win situation for most of the major players. A lot of people on the left seem to start from the assumption that there is never anything worse, more reactionary, or more opposable than imperialism, ignoring the specifics and never looking back; in some cases turning a blind eye to the deeply reactionary character of the "anti-imperialists". Or asking what is the likely alternative to the colonial regime in question. If anti-imperialists had an inkling of the horror that would follow hard on the heels of the decolonisation of India in 1947, they may well have begged British forces to stay there a little longer. (And maybe some did, I haven't checked this out.) I don't think there's much doubt that a sudden withdrawal of US forces would cause the various resistance factions to focus their attacks not only on the "quislings", but also each other. Civil war, in other words. Therefore US forces serve as a unifier of the Iraqi people: (1) in the perverse form of an increasingly-hated imperial army, (2) as a source of massive aid/investment, and (3) as an obstacle to a debilitating civil war. regards, Grant.
