I think the SWP has gone beyond the ‘enemy’s enemy’ standpoint to fully-fledged ‘red-brown’ politics. After all, they have the Saddam-admiring George Galloway as their leader in ‘Respect’. And Saddam’s Baathists make the BNP look like choir boys…

You are of course right about the SWP - these days they couldn’t spot an anti-fascist movement if it jumped up and bit them on the bum. In fact, my comment in the libel thread he links to makes that point in greater detail.

I don’t share your views on the occupation of Iraq, but I also recognise that others who similarlly oppose it are often coming at this from a simplistic “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” POV.

Gerard knows something about me, but as he lacks the courage to put his full name on his posts, I’ve no idea who he is. But the SWP spent the Bosnian war supporting its own Conservative government’s efforts to destroy Bosnia, so the question of who are the real “cheerleaders for imperialism” are is one they might wish to avoid…

The SWP marched alongside Serb fascists against the Kosovo war, and alongside Islamofascists against the Iraq war. Ten years after the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims, carried out with the complicity of the British government and its supporters on the left, the latter are still denigrating the genocide victims as ‘Islamofascists’, even while they support the real Islamofascists in Iraq !

Funny how blowing up Shiite civilians in Iraq makes you a ‘resistance to imperialism’, but defending your home town in Bosnia from ethnic-cleansers makes you a ‘reactionary nationalist’ – that ‘revolutionary left’ logic never ceases to amaze me…

As for the smear that Izetbegovic was an ‘Islamofascist’ – this has been refuted by Evan Kohlmann in his book ‘Al Qaida’s Jihad in Europe’. You can read my review at the following link:

http://www.democratiya.com/details.asp?id=1

What a funny thought. You clearly never met the man … unless of course by “Islamofascist” you mean “far too polite and philosophical to run a book group let alone a country under attack.” As for “his Mujaheddin,” was that some kind of backing group?

I disagree with equating the SWP and BNP, but that is no reason to besmirch an honourable, if somewhat ineffectual, former Bosnian President. Insult each other by all means, but leave Alija out of it please ;-)

For what it’s worth I cannot bring myself to recognise the occupation and its remote control Iraqi government as a step towards democracy, but I also oppose the sectarian barbarism of the insurgents.

s fr yr qtn f th SWP wth th BNP - y’v xpsd yrslf thr mt.

Prhps y’d lk t xpln yr spprt fr th slmfscst ztbgvc nd hs Mjhddn n Bsn?

In the words of the Anti-Nazi League: “Every time a racist speaks it gives confidence to the thugs who attack and murder blacks and Asians. This is why we say ‘No Platform for Nazis’. It is why we oppose the BBC and other TV stations showing BNP election broadcasts. It is not harmless or a defence of free speech to let a Nazi speak out. It is disastrous.”

So it is perfectly OK for the SWP to rouse a rabble to silence a rival group of extremists, despite the inevitable violence that results. This is ‘No Platform for Nazis’. Yet when the SWP - who have done more than any other British group to sabotage resistance to fascism in the Balkans and the Middle East – are sued for libel for telling lies, then this is a violation of their right to free speech !

God forbid that one should use the ‘bourgeois courts’ when one can resort to street violence…

http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/15/libel-and-the-left/

his new site claims, ‘Democratiya aims to contribute to a renewal of the politics of democratic radicalism by providing a forum for serious analysis and debate. We will strive to be non-sectarian and ecumenical, and our pages are open to a wide range of political views, a commitment to pluralism reflected in our advisory editorial board.’

He forgot to add…

‘But if we don’t like what you say about us we’ll sue.’

At any point where this question comes up, the correct answer is “in circumstances where ‘the Coalition’ effort is not being led and crafted by corrupt political hacks who don’t give a damn what you think.”

If you are against war as a method in democracy promotion, if you recognize the mess the coalition has created in Iraq, what need is there to support either the war coalition or their policies? Instead, this would call for opposition, specifically to the policies promoted by Democratiya, and their version of a new left ideology, to prevent it going wrong a second time.

But yes, there is though a somewhat more objective need to fulfill the obligations created by the (IMO failed) policies of the war coalition.

The question then is, is that what is happening now in Iraq a proper way of dealing with those responsibilities? I doubt it. But since it is not a simple choice, you could easily accept the current process and its outcome as legitimate (having the seal of approval of both the UN, and the current Iraqi government), while simultaneously being opposed to it, because it remains a fucked up process.

In the current situation, the argument about what to say to Iraqi’s when things go wrong after a withdrawal, is a bit daft given that you could use that argument against any position taken in this discussion.

Since May there have been more than 400 civilian deaths a month in Iraq (*), so the civil war is already there. And who is answering for that?

How does your agenda for inaction relate, say, to me (or you, hint hint) getting off my butt and pestering my MP about Britain’s failure to lobby hard for the cancellation of Saddam’s odious debt?

Points 1 through 4 may be important considerations but they clearly don’t apply to “anyone saying or writing anything about Iraq”.

Not to mention the fact that “all-out civil war” remains a distinct possibility even if coalition forces remain in Iraq. Quintin’s list of issues should reflect that, IMHO.

My purpose in posting on this was just to point people to the journal, and my motive was merely to be friendly to Alan, Gideon and some other collaborators in the project. My brief remarks were simply intended to make clear that a bit of friendly publicity doesn’t imply endorsement.

The points you raise are all perfectly reasonable ones. I would register a reservation about (3) though. It is simply this: that an open-ended commitment to “stay the course” can itself become part of the problem as the various parties build reliance on an indefinite foreign presence into their strategic calculations.