[Marxism] RE: Explosion in Iraq Mosque

Calvin Broadbent calvinbroadbent at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 6 12:06:06 MST 2004

Calvin Broadbent wrote:

"What makes you think America wishes to or rather intends to create jobs
in Iraq?"

Marv Wrote:
>Reply: They don't intend to create jobs directly except in a very
>limited way, nor of course is thgere any altruism involved. But the
>occupiers understand the relationship between joblessness and unrest, so
>they would like to see jobs created in the interest of stability, and
>they see foreign investment as being the vehicle for doing that. That is
>what I wrote. And of course they don't want to see the workforce
>unionized, both for ideological reasons and because they don't want to
>deter foreign investors.

What foreign investment? You mean American and British investment? That 
seems to be the only real investment that is likely. There is joblessness 
all over the world, and subsequent restlessness- why then, do you think, do 
the ruling (occupying) class not curb this unrest by creating jobs? Rather 
than doing this, they pump taxes into prisons and cops. American taxes will 
pay for prisons and cops for Iraq too.

Calvin wrote:

"I agree that the Americans might like to pull their troops out
tomorrow - although a permanent American military presence in Iraq might
also be quite desirable for the reason you mentioned- long-term military
domination of the region and the likelihood of further imperialist war
on sovereign arab countries."

Marv Wrote
Reply: These objectives aren't incompatible. The US would like to pull
the mass of it's invasion forces out and let the Iraqis do the dying,
but it still wants and intends to leave permanent bases behind which it
can use on short notice to fly in and deploy military forces in the
region, as needed. Under Rumsfeld, it's stepped up this basing strategy
worldwide, as Chalmers Johnson and others have noted.


Calvin wrote:

"All Iraqis have borne the brunt of the occupation, not least the
long-suffering Shi'a majority, concetrated in the South of Iraq outside
the 'Sunni Triangle'. Your analysis seems to echo the Bush line that it
is Ba'athist remnants who are organising resistance to the occupation."

Marv Wrote:
Reply: Not at all. I was referring to the ARMED resistance which is
based both on secular Baathists -- who still enjoy popular support and
are hardly "remnants" -- and Sunni fundamentalists in Baghdad and the
"triangle". If you'll reread my post, you'll see that. I also alluded to
the widespread Shia discontent with the occupation which, for
understandable tactical reasons, hasn't translated into armed resistence
or sustained and systematic street mobilizations against the
Americans -- including in the case of the militant Sadr faction. The
Shias and Kurds, unlike the Sunnis, believe the occupation is giving
them the opportunity to strengthen themselves politically and their
leadership is pushing the US to wrap up their political (but not their
military) presence. As good negotiators with a keen sense of the
relationship of forces, I think the Shia leaders are using the threat of
mass demonstrations and possible armed actions very effectively in
pursuit of their objectives.

Are the Shi'a really so homogeneously constituted politically? If so, do 
they really believe the occupation is going to give them more political 
power? On what basis, given that the US has not granted elections? Do you 
believe it was so-called Sunni fundmentalists that blew up the mosque? Or do 
you still think it was al Qaeda? I still don't see the logic in either of 
these groups having carried out the atrocity. I suppose time will tell who 
the likely culprits were (or presumably that's what the silent list majority 
are thinking).

all the best

Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection 

More information about the Marxism mailing list