AWTW on Iraqi resistance tactics

[1949]

From A World to Win News Service

Iraq: Held Hostage by America

Revolutionary Worker #1255, October 17, 2004, posted at rwor.org/a/1255/awtw_iraq_hostages.htm

The following is from A World to Win News Service:

October 4, 2004. A World to Win News Service.Some things need to be set straight about the question of seizing and killing hostages in Iraq.

Some ways of fighting the resistance advance the people's struggle, and others do not. Kidnapping and killing innocent civilians is more than counterproductive. It is dehumanizing and degrading for all concerned and has nothing to do with the liberation of a people and all humanity. It reflects the politics, ideologies and goals of non-revolutionary forces. A main problem with the hostage-taking is that for a small part--maybe only a handful--of the anti-occupation forces, it is not just a mistaken tactic. It is typical of the way they see fighting this war and their own aims.

It is clear that there are contradictory trends and organizations involved in the anti-U.S. resistance. Even among the forces raising religious banners, for a great many this is simply the closest flag at hand and one they think can unite genuine patriots. For others it is the essence of their political project of religious rule. Anyone who doesn't see the importance of the ideology and politics of the various resistance forces should take a look at Iran, where the ruling fundamentalist clerics executed thousands of revolutionaries after they took power. They have been doing their best to work out a stable, long-term deal not only with the European imperialist powers but the U.S. itself. They cooperated with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and now they are going so low that they enthusiastically promised to take part in the U.S.'s upcoming Cairo conference to help the occupation of Iraq. (emphasis added -1949)

The question of killing hostages is not an abstract one of which acts of violence are legitimate. No matter what the Iraqi resistance does, some people will never agree that it is legitimate for the oppressed to resort to any violence to get rid of their oppressors. The point is the political content and aims of such acts. If the aim is really to drive out the most powerful imperialists in world history and not just force the occupiers to make some deals about who gets to be their puppets, then resistance forces need to unite the vast majority of the people of Iraq, of all nationalities and religions, unite as much as possible with the peoples of the region as a whole, and mobilize the support of the people of all countries. All this is possible because it really corresponds to the people's interests.

It must be asked: What were the outlook and interests behind the kidnapping and execution of a dozen Nepali kitchen workers, by far the biggest hostage-killing? Were they killed just because it was easy to kill them since the occupiers don't care what happens to the help? The main benefit of this act went to the king of Nepal, who tried to stir up narrow, religious sentiments and use them against the country's Maoist-led people's war that in many ways is a part of the same anti-U.S. struggle as that of the Iraqi people. (emphasis added -1949)

Why were the "two Simonas"--the Italian aid workers--seized and threatened with death? At least one of them is a proven friend of the Iraqi people. Simona Torreta first went to Iraq in 1996 to work in a project to counteract the effects of the U.S.-led economic blockade. She came back in March 2003, in the midst of the U.S.'s "shock and awe" aerial bombardment. The kidnappers went straight to her office and asked the two women to identify themselves, so there seems to have been no mistake about their identity. When released, Torreta told the media, "I distinguish between terrorism and resistance. The guerrilla war is justified, but I am against the kidnapping of civilians."

Whose interests were served by that kidnapping--those of the people or of Berlusconi and the Italian capitalists trying to expand their share of empire in the face of some of the strongest opposition to the war in Europe?

After American captive Nick Berg was beheaded, his parents continued to bravely oppose the war and the U.S. government. British hostage Ken Bigely's brother has also spoken out against the war and Blair, despite a raid on his home in Amsterdam by armed British and Dutch intelligence officers meant to shut his mouth. Doesn't all this show the enormous sympathy for the Iraqi cause even in the invaders' homelands, and the possibility of mobilizing that potential strength and bringing it even more strongly to bear against the war? Hasn't the potential for this been repeatedly glimpsed even (and maybe especially) in the streets of those countries?

At the moment of their country's greatest humiliation at the hands of the new crusaders, many thousands of Iraqi fighters are writing a glorious chapter in its history. This is the main character of the resistance, and no isolated, reactionary acts of blind vengeance--and perhaps also provocations by who-knows-which intelligence services--can change that.

From last April through September, some 30 out of perhaps 130 mostly civilian foreigners taken hostage in Iraq are known to have been executed. By comparison, to cite only a few days out of one month in one city, almost daily U.S. bombing raids on homes in Falluja killed 20 people on September 2, 45 people September 16-17, nine people September 25, and a father, mother and their two children on September 30. American forces closed the month by firing on a car, killing two or three adults and four children. Embarrassed by Falluja hospital news footage on Al Jazeera television showing little kids and other family members whose bodies were blown apart by American rockets and bombs, the U.S. had the reporters kicked out of the country. Now the American military is bragging that they intend to impose their will on the town before the end of the year. They know what that means: "We could take the city... but we would have to kill everyone," the Iraqi general director of national intelligence warned when resistance fighters first drove U.S. troops out. ( New York Times , 8 July 2004)

According to Iraqi Body Count, an academic organization documenting deaths the occupiers don't care enough about to record, between 13,000 and 15,000 people have been killed since the war began. Whatever anyone wants to say about taking and killing hostages, for the scale of crimes and for sheer cruelty there really is no comparison. The hostage takers could never catch up to these "civilized" powers in a million years. (emphasis added -1949)

Further, it seems that most Iraqis themselves are very clear on this distinction. Take the example of the car bombing that killed 41 people, including 35 children, in the poor district of southwest Baghdad known as al-Ummal on September 30. According to reporters on the scene from Associated Press and BBC, U.S. trucks with loudspeakers combed neighborhood streets filled with kids as a school holiday neared the end, telling them to come and get free candy. This was billed as a celebration of the so-called reopening of a sewage treatment plant that was already operating. As a large crowd of children seeking their sweets gathered around a convoy of U.S. troops, one or more bombs went off. The soldiers must have considered the situation too dangerous to get out of their vehicles, since none of them were killed. "I blame the Americans for this tragedy. They wanted to make human shields out of our children. They should have kept the children away from the danger. The Americans are the first terrorists, and the people who carried out the attack are the second terrorists," said a father whose son lost his leg.

By all media accounts, friend and foe of the Iraqi people alike, this resolutely anti-American stand despite the contradictoriness of the situation is what characterizes the broad masses of Iraqi people. This is why the U.S. treats all men of military age and in fact all Iraqis as potential enemies, in Falluja, Samarra and throughout most of the country.

Our starting point is this: First, whatever the right and wrong of particular acts committed by anti-U.S. fighters, all this is taking place amid a just war against an invasion and occupation. Second, if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq, it will be free to attack elsewhere across the globe. It could be said that if American tanks have not been rolling across other borders and U.S. gunships have not been blowing up homes and murdering families in other countries, one major thing holding them back so far is that they ran into a lot more resistance in Iraq than they expected.

The Iraqi resistance fighters are in the front lines of resistance to U.S. imperialism in today's world. All this underlines the importance of how the resistance in Iraq is fought. For the Iraqi people and the people of the world, it will make a difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[redstar2000SE]

AWTW News wrote: Some ways of fighting the resistance advance the people's struggle, and others do not. Kidnapping and killing innocent civilians is more than counterproductive.

Well, yes and no.

So far, only the Philippines has withdrawn its troops from Iraq to save the life of a captured hostage. But since one has done so, others might.

Secondly, an unknown but substantial number of "innocent civilians" are in Iraq as subcontractors to the military occupation. This is part of a Pentagon effort to "farm out" the logistics of the occupation to as many private corporations as possible.

Other civilians are present in order to restore enough infrastructure to facilitate the production and export of Iraq's oil. We know who benefits from that.

Thirdly, it's unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect the Iraqis to run a "background check" on every westerner they might encounter. Evidently they do make an effort...quite a number of hostages have been subsequently released unharmed. But errors are inevitable in the course of a war of resistance...a few well-meaning humanitarians are certain to be captured and killed.

If you -- a non-Iraqi -- want to do something to "help the Iraqi people", I think the first thing you must admit to yourself is that you don't belong there under any circumstances until the occupation has been defeated and withdrawn. No matter what reason you go there and no matter what "good" you intend, your presence is an insult to a (temporarily) "conquered people".

If you choose to go there anyway, don't be shocked if you are greeted with something other than a big wet kiss.

Of course, the U.S. imperialists will use "hostage-taking" as a propaganda weapon against the resistance in the western media; but it's a two-edged sword. We have no way of knowing how many major western corporations have put their plans to "get involved" in Iraq on the back-burner for the time being...or how many junior executives have told their superiors "hell no, I won't go".

AWTW News wrote: The Iraqi resistance fighters are in the front lines of resistance to U.S. imperialism in today's world. All this underlines the importance of how the resistance in Iraq is fought. For the Iraqi people and the people of the world, it will make a difference.

I disagree. If they win, no one will much care how they did it. A catastrophic defeat for U.S. imperialism and its lackeys and quislings will have such a large positive impact on the world struggle that few are likely to quibble over the details.

Moreover, I think it's important to remember that the Iraqis have not asked for our advice. Nor are we "obligated" in some fashion to "endorse" or "repudiate" whatever they decide to do, now or in the future.

Our goal is defeat for U.S. imperialism -- if the Iraqis can manage to do that, then our purposes are served.

[flibi]

I am not going to comment on the tactics of the Iraqi fighters.

But it is very important, theoretically, to understand the relationship of means and ends.

Communists do not believe that "the ends justify the mean." Because if you apply reactionaryh means, you don't get to our goals -- which is liberation and then communist society -- summed up as eliminating the "4 alls."

Avakian digs into this in some detail in this essay:

What is Communist Morality
rwor.org/a/v20/980-89/981/moral1.htm

Hew specifically criticizes the pragmatic approach on "ends and means."

"In direct opposition to all this, communism is based on the understanding that humanity has reached the point where inequality is no longer necessary or tolerable; that it is impossible for human society to advance further without abolishing all social inequality; and that the accomplishment of this historic goal requires a radically new "code of morality"--communist morality--which gives expression to and serves the struggle to abolish all social inequality and oppression. In accordance with these principles, communism rejects pragmatic rationalization and the notion that "the ends justify the means"--it demands that, in the struggle for the final aim represented by the "4 Alls," the aims and methods, the ends and means, that are adopted at every point along the way toward that final aim must be in fundamental unity with that final aim.

This is not to say that everyone claiming to be a communist has always adhered to this principle--or to deny that genuine communists have fallen into pragmatism and other erroneous tendencies at various times. But the point is that this principle--concerning the fundamental unity of communist ends and communist means at every point in the revolutionary struggle--provides a standard for waging and leading that struggle and for distinguishing genuine communism from phony communism and other principles and practices that are opposed to the fundamental interests of the great majority of humanity.

I bring this up, because Redstar is arguing for exactly the wrong approach in this thread when he writes:

Redstar: "If they win, no one will much care how they did it. A catastrophic defeat for U.S. imperialism and its lackeys and quislings will have such a large positive impact on the world struggle that few are likely to quibble over the details.

Moreover, I think it's important to remember that the Iraqis have not asked for our advice. Nor are we "obligated" in some fashion to "endorse" or "repudiate" whatever they decide to do, now or in the future."

We are in the middle of a global process of overthrowing capitalism and building a whole new epoch of human history. We don't need some "invitation" from the people of iraq (or anywhere else) to examine events, analyze different political lines, and uphold a communisst approach.

Redstar writes: "Our goal is defeat for U.S. imperialism -- if the Iraqis can manage to do that, then our purposes are served."

This is part of what's wrong with his argument -- because OUR goals are not just this or that defeat for U.S. imperialism. Our goal is a specific kind of transformation (a specific kind of defeat) that brings the world as a whole closer to communist society.

if we lower our sights, if we simply become cheerleaders for any movement that emerges (even reactionary fundamentalists who are leading some resistance to the U.S.), and don't make important distinctions and fight for the emergence of genuine revolutionary communist forces -- if we do all that, we will not get where we want to go.

[flibi]

Bob Avakian writes (in his book "preaching from a pulpit of bones" rwor.org/a/1240/bamorality.htm)

"One of the main accusations from those who oppose communism is that communists believe "the ends justify the means"--that anything is permissible so long as it can be said to be helping to move things toward the attainment of communism, eventually.

This is not only untrue, it is an inversion of the truth.

It is a principle of communism that the means must be consistent with and must flow from the ends (or aims). It is often necessary, and desirable, for communists to struggle for goals that are short of the final aim represented by the "4 Alls"--since this can contribute to the ultimate achievement of those "4 Alls"--but it is never acceptable for communists to uphold or fight for things, or to use means and methods, that are in basic opposition to that final aim.

Communism demands the most determined and daring search for the truth, even if that truth should make one uncomfortable in the short run, because the more one grasps the truth--the more one has a correct and as comprehensive as possible an understanding of objective reality--the more possible it is to transform objective reality in a direction that best serves the interests of humanity."

[redstar2000SE]

flibi wrote: I am not going to comment on the tactics of the Iraqi fighters.

Well, the AWTW News Service did do that and that's what I responded to.

flibi wrote: Communists do not believe that "the ends justify the means."

True. The Iraqis are not communists and are not fighting for communism. Maybe they "should" but that's not their goal.

flibi wrote: We are in the middle of a global process of overthrowing capitalism and building a whole new epoch of human history. We don't need some "invitation" from the people of Iraq (or anywhere else) to examine events, analyze different political lines, and uphold a communist approach.

No, you can always say anything you wish. But I repeat: the Iraqis did not ask your advice or mine on the best tactics to use in their struggle.

I rather doubt that they're even interested in your opinions or mine.

flibi wrote: This is part of what's wrong with his argument -- because OUR goals are not just this or that defeat for U.S. imperialism. Our goal is a specific kind of transformation (a specific kind of defeat) that brings the world as a whole closer to communist society.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Do you wish the Iraqis were Maoists? How does that differ from Trotskyists who piss and moan because the Iraqis are not Trotskyist?

Do you imagine that a major defeat of U.S. imperialism in Iraq will not bring the world as a whole closer to communist society?

flibi wrote: If we lower our sights, if we simply become cheerleaders for any movement that emerges (even reactionary fundamentalists who are leading some resistance to the U.S.), and don't make important distinctions and fight for the emergence of genuine revolutionary communist forces -- if we do all that, we will not get where we want to go.

How do you propose as a practical matter to "fight for the emergence of genuine revolutionary communist forces" in Iraq?

Frankly, I think that's simply rhetorical...unless you've been studying Arabic and checking airline connections. (If that's the case, pay careful attention to what I said in my first post about well-meaning westerners.)

Bob Avakian wrote: It is a principle of communism that the means must be consistent with and must flow from the ends (or aims). It is often necessary, and desirable, for communists to struggle for goals that are short of the final aim...but it is never acceptable for communists to uphold or fight for things, or to use means and methods, that are in basic opposition to that final aim.

I quite agree...but the Iraqi resistance is not communist in any sense.

Criticizing them because they don't "live up to our standards" is just wasting your breath.

They have their own standards.

[flibi]

you think there are no iraqis interested in AWTW's views? How do you know?

The issue is an assessment of tactics. We analyze them from our point of view.

Such tactics have a class character (whether the reactionary fundamentalists thinks so or not, whether they want our opinion on them or not.)

And, because the struggle in our world is not confined to this moment, because it is not confined to Iraq -- it is important for communists to analyse and assess tactics.

communists do political work (and in countries like Nepal wage war) -- and in both cases it is important to have an assessment of tactics in war -- what do we think about these tactics.

Do you think the Nepalese communists don't need to discuss it when the iraqi resistance chopped the head off a Nepalese worker?

Do you think communists in the US aren't asked (every day!) what they think of these approaches, about terrorism, about suicide bombers etc.?

You may think the views and actions and morality and goals of communists don't matter (or that they aren't the point). that is your business.

but some things are true and objective -- whether they are understood by you or not.

[redstar2000SE]

flibi wrote: You think there are no Iraqis interested in AWTW's views? How do you know?

It seems to be unlikely, given the general character of Iraqi society at this time.

One thing you might want to keep in mind when considering predominately Muslim countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia: politics is much more a matter of family/clan associations than it is elsewhere.

In other words, political affiliations do not arise or change as a result of an individual's intellectual "conversion" to a particular set of ideas...but are much more likely to be determined by pre-existing family/clan ties.

The principal motive is the advancement of the family/clan.

There may be a very small number of westernized Iraqi Maoists...but frankly I doubt it.

And unless there is an Arabic version of the AWTW News Service, it wouldn't matter anyway.

Very few people are ever "won over" to an idea that's printed in a language they can't read.

I would surmise that most of the Nepalese "Maoists" probably think Maoism simply means land to the peasants.

flibi wrote: Such tactics have a class character (whether the reactionary fundamentalists think so or not, whether they want our opinion on them or not.)

That's an interesting opinion: that tactics have a "class character". Ultimately, there's probably some truth in that assertion...but I wouldn't want the task of tracing the connections -- particularly in a country permeated with medieval theologies.

Think about it: how exactly what you go about demonstrating the class origins of a particular tactic?

In some cases, it might not be all that difficult -- workers use strikes, for example.

But hostage taking is an age-old tactic that goes back to "oriental despotism" if not earlier and has been used by many classes over the centuries (the Paris Commune took hostages among the bourgeoisie and ultimately executed them, as did the Bavarian Soviet).

If the purpose of the AWTW dispatch was to give the Iraqi fundamentalists "a good talking to" -- in a language they can't read -- well, it's up to you to how you want to waste your time.

flibi wrote: Do you think the Nepalese communists don't need to discuss it when the Iraqi resistance chopped the head off a Nepalese worker?

Of course they should "discuss" it: they should have a line that says no scabbing for U.S. imperialism!

That is, they should tell the Nepalese people that under no circumstances is it acceptable to seek or accept work in Iraq, period.

In this historical period, collaboration with U.S. imperialism is always wrong.

flibi wrote: Do you think communists in the US aren't asked (every day!) what they think of these approaches, about terrorism, about suicide bombers etc.?

Indeed we are. My answer is: they want U.S. imperialism out of their country.

Their methods may not be the ones that you or I would choose...but it's their country and their struggle -- and, if I may be so bold as to suggest -- they know the situation there far better than we do.

What I see here, flibi, is that (once again) you're scratching your itch to "provide leadership"...only this time it's in a situation where you (and I) are necessarily ignorant of the "on the ground" realities.

You (and the AWTW people) are speaking in a vacuum.

In addition, there's a subtext of "distrust of the Iraqi masses" that runs through your discourse; if the tactics of the resistance are really bad ones, then the Iraqi people will lose confidence in the present resistance and it will collapse (and later re-emerge in a more advanced form).

Indeed, that could happen.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that the resistance has broad and growing popular support and is daily inflicting casualties on the forces of U.S. imperialism and its lackeys/quislings.

That's "good enough" for me.

Finally, I wonder if what really concerns those folks at AWTW and yourself is "an image problem" -- you find it distasteful that people might associate the tactics of the Iraqi resistance with you simply because you support their struggle against U.S. imperialism.

I think your worries are needless and misplaced. It's obvious that you don't do or favor suicide bombings or hostage-takings and executions -- the only people who would make that kind of connection are hard-core anti-communists...who believe that communists are "not above suspicion of cannibalism".

No "disclaimer" is going to satisfy them...so it's pointless.

The correct approach, in my view, is to discuss communist tactics in situations where they are genuinely relevant...and leave it to the Iraqis to figure out their road to national liberation.

So far, they're doing pretty damn good.