Democratiya

Shouldn’t they be called “Labour Friends of Headchoppers in Iraq”?

Iraqi Defence Minister Sadoun al-Dulaimi –

“We are warning those who have given shelter to terrorists that they must stop, kick them out or else we will cut off their hands, heads and tongues as we did in Tal Afar..”

Yup, looks like it. I bet Harry “Headchopper” Hatchett is in on this.

Surely, Chris, the point is not what we hope may happen, but what we argue for or against in our own tiny corners of the political arena. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the US-led invasion of Iraq and toppling of the Ba’ath regime, whatever the lies told to justify it before or after the event, and whatever the incompetence and even crimes of coalition officials or military personnel since the invasion, the issues confronting anyone saying or writing anything about Iraq are still the following (just for starters):
1. Do we, as outsiders, especially in the countries with troops in Iraq, accept the validity of the elections and the institutions they produced? If not, in what conceivable circumstances could more valid ones occur?
2. Do we support the attempt currently under way to put a popularly ratified constitution in place? If not, in what conceivable circumstances could a more authentic one be arrived at?
3. Should the US-led coalition, or any individual member of it, withdraw now – or at some predetermined date in the future – irrespective of the ability of the existing elected Iraqi bodies to survive? If the answer is yes, what should our government/s say to the people and politicians of Iraq (apart from offering asylum to the defeated in the predictable all-out civil war, who ironically enough would in all probability be today’s homicidal jihadist zealots and former Saddam loyalists, given the demographic weight of their Sunni base in the overall population)?
4. How might events in Iraq unfold following a coalition withdrawal, and how might the governments of the world – starting with Iraq’s neighbours – be expected to relate to them?
…
It would be easy to continue…

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.

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.

All nice questions, but what is the point?

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?

I’d like to remind people here about Quintin Hoare’s use of the libel laws against the Bookmarks bookshop

https://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.’

Given Quintin’s idiotic point made above (3) it seems he is perfectly capable of tarnishing his own reputation without assistance.

“the Islamofascist Izetbegovic and his Mujaheddin in Bosnia”

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.

Sorry Marko, it was late and I was not trying to imply that you had said anything to warrant his insult to you.

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.