[Marxism] Re: Why is 'Out Now!' weak?"

dwalters at marxists.org dwalters at marxists.org
Tue Aug 15 17:46:51 MDT 2006

J. Alam wrote:
"In summary, an 'out now' position in Iraq demands a level of political
consciousness that is leaps and bounds above an 'out now' position in
Vietnam. It would entail an acceptance of (1) breaking with Israel, (2)
breaking with Arab puppet regimes, (3) accepting the likelihood of
pan-Islamist movements coming to power, (4) relinquishing control over Arab
oil. That is why the case for immediate withdrawal will, in my opinion,
never gain traction among a majority of Americans *until and unless* (1-4)
are already very clearly on the horizon regardless of what we do, and our
intervention causes enormous American casualties.

J, I don't really think your summary is supported by the statements you make
before had or, at least, don't address at all the reason 'out now' is not a
good slogan in your opinion. First let me say you did motivate or explain the
differences between iraq and Vietnam rather well, at least in a sort of factual
way. But I think, in general, you, and others, are confusing the reasons a
revolutionary party or Marxists might have for supporting such a slogan now
with the objective needs of how to fight imperialism, which is STILL the main
issue, the state of the Iraqi resistance, notwithstanding.

To wit, perhaps you can explain the following:
Why would supporting "out now" require "breaking with Israel"? (point (1) above.
I think it means a tactical break, or a slight difference among friends, after
all, Israel proposes *nothing* for Iraq and can't except continued US
occupation. If what you state is true, then 'out now' increases in political
value since it raises the relationship of the U.S./Zionist relationship.

You say it would mean "breaking with Arab puppet regimes". Again, you are
talking about a 'break' in the most meakest of tactical senses, if this is even
true as more and more unease in theose puppet regimes are coming to the surface
with little opposition to demands for withdrawl (especially give the Shia
nature of the current regime, what's to like?)

Thirdly, you think it would mean "accepting the likelihood of pan-Islamist
movements coming to power". I thought we agreed that there is no such real
think as a "pan-Islamist". No one knows, as you pointed out, the nature of the
different resistance movements and make the assumption that it's automatically
a "pan-Islamist" movement. But the withdawl of US troops from Vietnam meant the
fall of Indochina and the US seemed to of survived that.

Lastly, you state that the "US won't relinquish control over Arab oil." They
don't control much now, nor did they before 1990 even, so what the diff?

David Walters

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the Marxism mailing list