"... The moral quandary forced upon the left is epitomized by Phyllis
Bennis, an in-the-box wonk for the Institute for Policy
Studies. "Certainly," she allows, "the Iraqi people have the right
to resist an illegal occupation, including military resistance."
Which is, as they said in the 1970s, mighty white of her. "But as a
whole," she continues, "what is understood to be 'the Iraqi
resistance' against the U.S. occupation is a disaggregated and
diverse set of largely unconnected factions, in which the various
often-antagonistic armed movements (including some who attack Iraqi
civilians as much as they do occupation troops) hold pride of place.
There is no unified leadership that can speak for 'the resistance,'
there is no NLF or ANC or FMLN that can claim real leadership and is
accountable to the Iraqi population as a whole."
For most of World War II, the same was true of the French Resistance
(history grants them the upper-case "R") too. Communists, socialists
and even monarchists fought the Germans--and each other--until
Charles de Gaulle's center-right faction prodded, bullied and
ultimately muscled out his (more popular and more progressive)
rivals. There were, as in Iraq today, French criminal gangs who
fought solely for money. If this was 1943 and Bennis and other
mainstream liberals were anti-Nazi Germans, would they "support what
is called 'the French resistance'"?
As their Iraqi counterparts do today, the Free French carried out
what the press of the period called "terrorist attacks."
Kidnappings, assassinations and bombings were usually directed at
government officials, German troops, and French collaborators--but
civilians were also killed. So why does the antiwar left find the
Iraqis distasteful?
Gelderloos argues that the post-Vietnam American left is hard-wired
with reflexive pacifism, denying that violent militancy can ever be
a valid tactic, even when faced with horrific oppression. Liberals
frequently express disapproval of protestors who smashed windows at
the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, and the Earth
Liberation Front's (ELF) torching of SUVs at auto dealerships--even
though no one got hurt.
Knee-jerk non-violence partly explains the left's reluctance to
embrace the Iraqi resistance. Nationalism/patriotism is another
factor. Who wants to see more funerals of American soldiers? And who
wants to be smeared as the next "Hanoi Jane"? ..."
Bennis, an in-the-box wonk for the Institute for Policy
Studies. "Certainly," she allows, "the Iraqi people have the right
to resist an illegal occupation, including military resistance."
Which is, as they said in the 1970s, mighty white of her. "But as a
whole," she continues, "what is understood to be 'the Iraqi
resistance' against the U.S. occupation is a disaggregated and
diverse set of largely unconnected factions, in which the various
often-antagonistic armed movements (including some who attack Iraqi
civilians as much as they do occupation troops) hold pride of place.
There is no unified leadership that can speak for 'the resistance,'
there is no NLF or ANC or FMLN that can claim real leadership and is
accountable to the Iraqi population as a whole."
For most of World War II, the same was true of the French Resistance
(history grants them the upper-case "R") too. Communists, socialists
and even monarchists fought the Germans--and each other--until
Charles de Gaulle's center-right faction prodded, bullied and
ultimately muscled out his (more popular and more progressive)
rivals. There were, as in Iraq today, French criminal gangs who
fought solely for money. If this was 1943 and Bennis and other
mainstream liberals were anti-Nazi Germans, would they "support what
is called 'the French resistance'"?
As their Iraqi counterparts do today, the Free French carried out
what the press of the period called "terrorist attacks."
Kidnappings, assassinations and bombings were usually directed at
government officials, German troops, and French collaborators--but
civilians were also killed. So why does the antiwar left find the
Iraqis distasteful?
Gelderloos argues that the post-Vietnam American left is hard-wired
with reflexive pacifism, denying that violent militancy can ever be
a valid tactic, even when faced with horrific oppression. Liberals
frequently express disapproval of protestors who smashed windows at
the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, and the Earth
Liberation Front's (ELF) torching of SUVs at auto dealerships--even
though no one got hurt.
Knee-jerk non-violence partly explains the left's reluctance to
embrace the Iraqi resistance. Nationalism/patriotism is another
factor. Who wants to see more funerals of American soldiers? And who
wants to be smeared as the next "Hanoi Jane"? ..."
No comments:
Post a Comment