[kvm_mkdb]

An interesting commentary from an arab author, some excerpts:

Some weeks ago, Pentagon inmates were invited to a special in-house showing of an old movie. It was the Battle of Algiers, Gillo Pontecorvo's anti-colonial classic, initially banned in France. One assumes the purpose of the screening was purely educative. The French won that battle, but lost the war.

At least the Pentagon understands that the resistance in Iraq is following a familiar anti-colonial pattern. In the movie, they would have seen acts carried out by the Algerian maquis almost half a century ago, which could have been filmed in Fallujah or Baghdad last week. Then, as now, the occupying power described all such activities as "terrorist". Then, as now, prisoners were taken and tortured, houses that harboured them or their relatives were destroyed, and repression was multiplied. In the end, the French had to withdraw.

It is the combination of all this that fuels the resistance and encourages many young men to fight. Few are prepared to betray those who are fighting. This is crucially important, because without the tacit support of the population, a sustained resistance is virtually impossible.

The great poets of Iraq - Saadi Youssef and Mudhaffar al-Nawab - once brutally persecuted by Saddam, but still in exile, are the consciences of their nation. Their angry poems denouncing the occupation and heaping scorn on the jackals - or quislings - help to sustain the spirit of resistance and renewal.

Youssef writes:
I'll spit in the jackals' faces
I'll spit on their lists
I'll declare that we are the people of Iraq
We are the ancestral trees of this land

And Nawwab:
And never trust a freedom fighter/ Who turns up with no arms
Believe me, I got burnt in that crematorium
Truth is, you're only as big as your cannons
While those who wave knives and forks
Simply have eyes for their stomachs.

In other words, the resistance is predominantly Iraqi - though I would not be surprised if other Arabs are crossing the borders to help. If there are Poles and Ukrainians in Baghdad and Najaf, why should Arabs not help each other? The key fact of the resistance is that it is decentralised - the classic first stage of guerrilla warfare against an occupying army. Yesterday's downing of a US Chinook helicopter follows that same pattern. Whether these groups will move to the second stage and establish an Iraqi National Liberation Front remains to be seen.

Read the full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...103677,00.html

[lil'babykitten]

Another interesting topic....although I think you lost most of the readers when you mentioned it was an arab author

He raises a number of important points.
I always saw a significant Iraqi resistance as inevitable. It didn't happen straight away but nevertheless it certainly seems to be at a peak now. In a strange way I find it a little amusing to see some of the most senior administration officials with the supposed experience they have, completely baffled by what has and is happening.

I cannot see this resistance falling back under any circumstances other than if the US were to leave. Seriously. Does anyone think otherwise?

Of particular note from the article:

The Iraqi maquis have weakened George Bush's position in the US and enabled Democrat politicians to criticise the White House, with Howard Dean daring to suggest a total US withdrawal within two years. Even the bien pensants who opposed the war but support the occupation and denounce the resistance know that without it they would have been confronted with a triumphalist chorus from the warmongers. Most important, the disaster in Iraq has indefinitely delayed further adventures in Iran and Syria.

Too many innocent lives were lost in this war because of 'The Coalitions' miscalculations. The Iranian and Syrian governments should be grateful for the Iraqi resistance because had it have been a walk over there would have been no hesitation in entering these two countries next.

Now those who pursued this war need to think real hard about the situation they are in now and their future actions.

[thunderous_funker]

According to Iraqi opposition sources, there are more than 40 different resistance organisations. They consist of Ba'athists, dissident communists, disgusted by the treachery of the Iraqi Communist party in backing the occupation, nationalists, groups of Iraqi soldiers and officers disbanded by the occupation, and Sunni and Shia religious groups.

If that is true, it would explain a lot of things. It would also mean the worst of our fears is realized.

As for the UN acting as an "honest broker", forget it - especially in Iraq, where it is part of the problem. Leaving aside its previous record (as the administrator of the killer sanctions, and the backer of weekly Anglo-American bombing raids for 12 years), on October 16 the security council disgraced itself again by welcoming "the positive response of the international community... to the broadly representative governing council... [and] supports the governing council's efforts to mobilise the people of Iraq..." Meanwhile a beaming fraudster, Ahmed Chalabi, was given the Iraqi seat at the UN. One can't help recalling how the US and Britain insisted on Pol Pot retaining his seat for over a decade after being toppled by the Vietnamese. The only norm recognised by the security council is brute force, and today there is only one power with the capacity to deploy it. That is why, for many in the southern hemisphere and elsewhere, the UN is the US.

I must admit this surprised me. I guess my western bias has always lead me to think that the UN could be a suitable means for transitioning away from the Occupation. If this view is a widely held as the author claims, it would mean this entire exercise might be completely doomed.

What options would be left? Ignominious withdrawal? Civil war? Perpetual Gaza?

I can honestly say this isn't something I had considered and if the author is correct, it means the worst is yet to come.

The Arab east is today the venue of a dual occupation: the US-Israeli occupation of Palestine and Iraq. If initially the Palestinians were demoralised by the fall of Baghdad, the emergence of a resistance movement has encouraged them. After Baghdad fell, the Israeli war leader, Ariel Sharon, told the Palestinians to "come to your senses now that your protector has gone". As if the Palestinian struggle was dependent on Saddam or any other individual. This old colonial notion that the Arabs are lost without a headman is being contested in Gaza and Baghdad. And were Saddam to drop dead tomorrow, the resistance would increase rather than die down.

I've always thought this was the fundamental flaw in the WoT strategy to date. It is naive to think that these groups can be intimidated, cowed or simply beheaded. Continuing to operate under this misapprehension could really be disastrous.

Thanks for the link. It raises very troubling questions that I'm not sure have satisfactory answers.