On Empire And
Those Who Fight It
By Tariq Ali
16 March, 2005
Socialist
Worker
Two
years after the invasion of Iraq, writer and activist Tariq Ali spoke
to Socialist Worker about US strategy in the Middle East and the growth
of the Iraqi resistance to the occupation
The Iraqi resistance
is demonised by Bush and Blair as terrorists, supporters of Saddam Hussein,
Islamic fundamentalists and so on. Tell us what you think of the resistance.
Every resistance
movement against imperialism has been categorised as terrorist
the Mau Mau in Kenya were demonised and brutally tortured by the British;
the Algerian FLN by the French; the Vietnamese by the French and the
Americans.
Today Israels
Ariel Sharon refers to Palestinians as terrorists, Russias Vladimir
Putin crushes the Chechens in the name of fighting terror and Tony Blair
is assaulting traditional civil liberties in this country in the name
of fighting terror. Its hardly surprising that the Iraqi resistance
is characterised in the same fashion.
Obviously the means
used to drive out imperial occupiers are determined by the nature of
the occupation. The brutality of the US troops and systematic torture
they have used has been well documented. So how can the resistance be
beautiful?
During the Algerian
war a leader of the national liberation front, the FLN, was asked about
using terror against French civilians in cafe bombings in Algiers. He
replied, If we had an air force I promise you we would only target
French barracks, but till then...
How does the
struggle between imperialism and the resistance in Iraq compare with
the struggles against French colonial rule in Algeria or against the
US in Vietnam? Have the techniques of empire changed? Is the nature
of the resistance different?
The techniques of
empire have not changed at all. The tally in Vietnam was two million
Vietnamese dead and 50,000 US soldiers. The tally in Iraq today is over
100,000 Iraqis dead and 1,500 US soldiers. The proportions dont
change.
What has changed
is the world in which we live. With the collapse of the traditional
left there is a big vacuum. In Vietnam and Algeria the movement was
led by people who were either communists (Vietnam) or secular nationalists
(Algeria).
In Iraq today the
heirs of the Iraqi Communists whose leaders were hanged by the
British empire are crude collaborators on every level.
The armed resistance
is led by religious groups, ex-Baathists and in certain areas by Iraqi
nationalists. The political failure to create a national liberation
front is the Achilles heel of the resistance.
Zarqawis al-Qaida
group only entered the country after the US occupation. It is a tiny
minority whose tactics are denounced by most Iraqis opposed to the occupation.
There is also the
political resistance of Moqtada al-Sadr and his faction, which is based
in the Shia slums of Baghdad and the poor sectors of Basra and other
cities in the south of Iraq. He will demand the withdrawal of all foreign
troops and say no to permanent US bases in the country.
If the leading figures
in the United Iraqi Alliance, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and Shia cleric Ali
Sistani not to mention the fraudster Ahmed Chalabi cave
in, the resistance will spread to the south of Iraq.
In my opinion, to
demand and accept an election under the protection of an occupying imperial
army could only lead to further collaboration. Sistani models himself
on Gandhi, but India had a very different history to Iraq and Gandhi
called on the British to quit India at the height of the Second World
War.
The US administration
was split over who should lead Iraq. The first option was Iyad Allawi,
the second option is Sistani/al-Hakim/Chalabi. But the house of cards
could collapse quickly if a Sistani regime cannot deliver a rapid withdrawal.
Since 2003, we
have seen the two assaults on Fallujah, the rebellion in Najaf, the
elections and the installation of another interim government. How has
the Iraqi resistance developed and changed since 2003?
Fallujah is the
Guernica of the Arab world. A city was destroyed, its people killed,
tortured, dislocated, its children orphaned. Tragically, in contrast
to the first assault on the city, Sistani remained silent in November.
In other words the
bloc he heads acquiesced in the destruction of Fallujah in return for
power sharing. This event marks the first serious breach in the unity
of Iraq.
The elections were
initially regarded by Washington as a concession, though US journalist
Thomas Friedman argued strongly for them in the New York Times on the
grounds that it was best that Sistani crushed the insurgency rather
than the Americans. Just like its best if Abu Mazen crushes the
Palestinian resistance rather than Sharon.
In an occupied country
imperialism always divides and rules India, Africa, Vietnam,
Korea, Cyprus, Ireland and the Arab east are examples from the past.
The American empire will want a client regime in place and it will use
each group against the other.
Allawi against Sistani;
armed resistance groups against al-Sadr. That is why some elementary
unity on a political level is vital. If Sistani, as the voice of the
majority community, had denounced the destruction of Fallujah, it would
have created the basis for some form of unity. So the resistance, in
my opinion, has progressed little over the last two years. This is a
tragedy for Iraq.
There are several
elements to what the US is doing in Iraq military, political
and economic. To what extent is the resistance countering in these three
areas?
Militarily the resistance
has made the country ungovernable, including Baghdad, a city of several
million people. Economically the targeting of foreign companies and
the pipelines has been effective. Oil firm Halliburton is welcomed in
Basra, but not Baghdad.
This is the first
serious neo-liberal occupation and the third largest presence
after US and British troops is the privatised armies run by firms.
A few months ago
a South African mercenary was shot dead. It later emerged that he had
been one of the torturers of Steve Biko. I was in South Africa at the
time and many people rejoiced.
Can the resistance
win and what would this mean?
The withdrawal of
all foreign troops, no military bases and Iraqi control of Iraqi oil
would constitute a victory. But will the US allow this to happen?
Henry Kissinger
has called for the Balkanisation of Iraq. The only grouping ready for
this are the Kurds, provided they get the oil wells. Neither Turkeyfor
its own vile reasonsnor the rest of Iraq will accept this willingly.
So its a mess,
but the lack of an overall political project on the part of the military
and political resistance is a very serious weakness.
© Copyright
Socialist Worker. You may republish if you include an active link to
the original.