From: "Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: [R-G] Strategy for an international movement.
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:49:51 +1000


hi all

Chris wrote:
>Actually, and I thought this when I was a Leninist, the only way Iraq was 
> >going to defeat the US was through a mass uprising in Iraq (and prolly 
>the >whole mideast) which overthrew Hussein and resulted in a revolutionary 
>war >against the US.

you're probably right BUT if Saddam had kept control of his army the allied 
forces might have suffered enough casualties to induce revolt in the allied 
ranks and/or nearby countries. off hand i can't think of any significant 
revolts in professional militaries but there's always a first time. Current 
US/NATO military doctrine really shys away from infantry bloodbaths so who 
knows what might happen if they were faced with such a situation. the allies 
greater firepower, mobility and communications meant they were probably 
unbeatable in the desert but what if Iraq had mounted a serious defence in 
Kuwait City? armies tend to dread streetfighting as it is slow and bloody.

>However, I did not say a plague on both houses at that time
>because I felt that while Hussein's regime was deplorable, the US would 
> >actually do massive damage, murder more people and weaken the possibility 
>of >revolt against Hussein.  Arguably, all of that happened.

it's usually defeated armies that tend to revolt, Germany 1918, US in 
Vietnam, Iraq in 91. i'd say the two aren't unconnected the more passive 
refusal to fight hard leads to defeat and then turns into more open revolt, 
unfortunately the US military in Vietnam never quite reached that stage.

>I also did not go >beyond calling for the defeat of the US because I live 
>in the US, and I >could think of no stronger way to say no to nationalism 
>here than to >proclaim support for the defeat of the US, without ever 
>proclaiming support >for Hussein (since, as I said, I knew that Hussein 
>could never mobilize such >support.)
>
>That was then.  Now, I would largely say the same thing, except that I 
>would >say a plague on both states, but I would still call for the defeat 
>of the >US, in the same way I would support the defeat of a racist attack, 
>even if >the people leading the defense against the attack were Black 
>nationalists.

it seems to me that such logic fell down in the case of Kosovo. do you call 
for the defeat of Serbia cos it is oppressing the Kosovars or the defeat of 
the US/NATO because it is a much stronger power than Serbia? practically the 
best thing we can do is oppose the war machine of 'our' state and hopefully 
link up with traitors on the other side. the Yugoslav army reservists who 
mutinied in May/June? of 99 did the first part of that very effectively but 
unfortunately their actions weren't matched in the NATO countries except 
slightly in Italy and Greece. and while were on the subject of Kosovo i 
suspect it is no accident that the turn to armed revolt there came not long 
after the near revolution in Albania in 97. not just because there were lots 
of guns suddenly available but also to encourage nationalism among the 
recently rebellious Albanians.

>Our task is therefore three-fold: To call for the defeat of 'our' state, 
>and >to point out that the only way for that to happen requires (at least) 
> >massive opposition internally and the overthrow of capital in the country 
> >under siege (unless one is looking for a Vietnam or Cuba, where victory 
> >simply means picking up a new dictator.)

to merely call for the defeat of 'our' state is just empty rhetoric (not 
that i'm saying you did this Chris) practical opposition to it has to be 
organised. the fact that there was so little in the NATO countries during 
the Kosovo war is testament to the weakness of the proletarian movement.

peter

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---