Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)The politics of the WSWS are wholly relevant to their reliability as a source.[/b]
And as the WSWS' political positions and policies today are outstanding examples of the socialist ideology, their reliability as a source is pretty high.
Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)And you still haven't given any other source to contradict the Militant's statements.
You didn't give any reason for saying the WSWS was right and the Militant was wrong; you just said they were different and therefore the Militant was bad. Well, part of critical thinking is knowing your sources and their biases (every source has 'em.) At best, you don't know much about yours.[/b]
I said that because I assumed it was a truism. I don't think I need sources to prove the utter absurdity of the SWP's claims that the insurgency is "withering," but I'll quote one regardless:
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday that it could take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgency in Iraq ... He acknowledged that the insurgents' attacks 'are more lethal than they had been previously, they're killing a lot more Iraqis,' and he said the insurgency 'could become more violent' in advance of a referendum on a new Iraqi constitution and new elections in December." Defeating insurgency could take as long as 12 years, Rumsfeld says (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050626/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_wa_1).
Originally posted by Severian
You mention "the SWP's baseless name calling of groups it opposes."
Yeah, like calling the WSWS "antilabor." That's a baseless insult.
Originally posted by Severian
Oh, that's rich, when in fact it's the publishers of the WSWS which for decades engaged in baseless slanders that the SWP was a front for the FBI. A statement on these slanders signed by a large number of parties, including bitter factional rivals of the SWP.
It's a well documented fact that there were FBI informants in the highest leadership positions of the SWP, and that the majority of the SWP's leadership of the last 30 years, headed by Jack Barnes, has come from very suspicious backgrounds. It was Barnes who organized the expulsions, unprecedented in the SWP's history, on absurd charges of virtually everyone in the organization with a connection to the period of Cannon's leadership during 1981-1984. It was Barnes who personally denounced Trotsky's most basic views, and it's Barnes that presumably makes the SWP spew the pro-imperialist garbage it does today. It's not inconceivable that individuals with connections to the government would attempt to destroy a Trotskyist party organizationally and politically, and it was that concern that the SEP raised during the 1980s.
Originally posted by Severian
Did I stutter?
I asked that because your comment made no sense, not because I couldn't read it.
Originally posted by Severian
In context: "The Saddam Hussein regime had its main base of support among a wealthy layer of Sunni Arabs, who recognize that the January 30 elections could register a crowning blow to their former domination." And in fact those elections did put the last nail in the coffin of Sunni Arab domination. Shi'a theocratic and Kurdish nationalist parties, which showed they had the allegiance of most of Iraq's population, did mobilize for the elections and gain in power as a result. What facts you could possibly invoke to deny this...I don't know, because you don't even try.
I didn't dispute that the Shiites and Kurds gained more sectarian power, I disputed the SWP's presentation of a stage-managed election designed to legitimize the US occupation of Iraq as some popular blow against the rulers of the former dictatorship.
Originally posted by Severian
The Militant doesn't say the elections were democratic; I'd point out they didn't take place in an atmosphere of full democratic rights.
And where did they denounce the elections as anti-democratic? Not "an atmosphere of full democratic rights" is probably the most obscene euphemism for martial law and military occupation I've ever seen. You'd probably describe the Nazi occupations of Eastern Europe as "not an atmosphere of full respect for political freedoms."
Originally posted by Severian
But they were't merely a "farce". The WSWS' prediction that the U.S. would likely rig the elections in favor of Allawi is particularly laughable.
Elections held under conditions of martial law and the suspension of all civil rights, the exclusion of a substantion section of the country and under the guns of a foreign military occupation accountable to no one are without a doubt a farce. They were no more legitimate than the 1967 elections organized by the US in South Vietnam, described very similarly to how the SWP describes Iraq today:
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of the turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. ... The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the national election." Vietnam 1967 and Iraq 2005: using elections to justify criminal wars (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/viet-f05.shtml).
And the fact that you could label the idea that a government of war criminals (sorry, "liberators" in the SWP's eyes) would rig elections in a country it brutally occupies and is widely hated as "laughable" speaks volumes about your real view of US imperialism.
Originally posted by Severian
On this as in other respects the Militant's predictions have panned out better.
This statement is so far from reality I'm not going to waste my time responding to it.
Originally posted by Severian
And you say "focuses exclusively on civilian casualties allegedly caused by anti-US forces." Allegedly? As I asked YTMX, what planet are you from?
Only a complete moron or a propagandist for US imperialism would accept the US or its Iraqi puppet regime's claims at face value. In the situation reported in that article, there was a substantial possibility of the involvement of pro-US Iraqi factions or even US intelligence agencies. Attempts by an occupying power to discredit those fighting it by carrying out crimes in its name have been a reality of military occupations throughout history. Who's responsible for the attacks on civilians covered in that article isn't black and white, so I used the term allegedly.
Originally posted by Severian
And as I said to Free Palestine, the communities targeted by that terrorism might react very angrily to the suggestion it's so insignificant that no article should "focus exclusively" on it, even when it's a new phenomenon.
And the millions of Iraqis who live in a country devastated by US imperialism would probably react very angrily to the suggestion that the negative consequences of the US occupation are so insignificant that they should be virtually ignored, but whatever. I never said that terrorism doesn't deserve coverage. I said that the only time the SWP reported on civilian casualties in the period I looked at was when they could be blamed on those fighting an imperialist occupation of their country, and that that's indicative of a blatant pro-US and pro-war bias similar to that of the right-wing US media.
Just imagine if a newspaper during the Vietnam War had completely ignored all of the civilian casualties caused by the Johnson administration's military actions there throughout the month of January, 1968, and the only time the issue was brought up was when the civilian casualties could be blamed on the NLF. Any socialist would consider that newspaper a mouthpiece for US imperialism in Vietnam. Why shouldn't the Militant be labelled the same with regards to Iraq?
Originally posted by Severian
In contrast, there's nothing new in the fact that fighting in urban areas does produce civilian casualties; the Militant is not obligated to constantly repeat information which is available from other sources. It exists to fill in the gap of news that isn't reported elsewhere, not to be anyone's sole source of news. ("If anyone read only the Militant", you say at one point.)
This is mind boggling. It's fine to totally ignore the negative consequences of the US occupation of Iraq because they're reported elsewhere? I'm not surprised that you don't even try to deny that an unabashedly pro-US and pro-war view is what people would get if they read nothing but the Militant. Apparently you're not ashamed to admit that people should turn towards more critical and independent periodicals for something more than the recitation of the Bush administration's lies.
Originally posted by Severian
Well, gee, considering that it was the insurgency, not the U.S., which was carrying out an openly stated policy of targeting Iraqi civilians to keep them from voting, thereby declaring war against the majority of Iraq's population...that kinda seems like a significant new development.
I'm not dealing with whether that statement was justified. I'm dealing with the fact that the Militant refused to make far more justified statements on civilian casualties that might make the US occupation look less than spectacular in the month of January 2005 and focused exclusively on civilian deaths that could be blamed on the Iraqi resistance. That's an indisputable example of the SWP's censorship of the facts (some would call it lying) to defend the image of US imperialism in Iraq.
Originally posted by Severian
Finally? The Militant's editorial position has always been to oppose the occupation and call for immediate withdrawal.
I've already said that the SWP is formally opposed to the Iraq war. Their newspaper's demonization of the victims of imperialism and frequent praise of the victimizers shows how serious their opposition really is.
Originally posted by Severian
This is a news article, and unlike most left papers the Militant does make a distinction between the two. Hence the lack of comment.
Incredible. You're now repeating, word-for-word, the rationalizations of US media hacks for their total lack of journalistic standards as an excuse for the Militant's articles. I hate to break it to you, but journalism is not uncritically repeating the statements of one side -- that's what's known as propaganda. It's about finding out the truth and reporting it, which is what the WSWS has consistently done while the Militant has spent its time wanking to pictures of George Bush.
Originally posted by Severian
Readers of the Militant are expected to be able to make up their own minds as to whether to believe the U.S. military's standard-issue denials.
When the Militant reports the military's "standard-issue denials" (never described as such in the actual article) as far more credible than the alternative, the reader is meant to believe them. As you've already admitted, readers of the Militant shouldn't expect criticism of any kind of the Bush administration and US imperialism. It's their responsibility to get that information elsewhere.
Originally posted by Severian
I'm not sure why you think the effectiveness of the Stryker is a matter of political principle; it has, however, been a subject of some debate between the Bush administration and its critics within the ruling class. There's a much larger danger, on the left, and even among the readership of the Militant, of accomodation to the Democratic Party than of accomodation to the Bush administration. The Democrats' criticisms, of course, are merely tactical, they claim Bush has damaged the effectiveness of imperialism and its armed forces. The Militant has tended to emphasize that greater danger, spending more space on refuting the Democrats' claims than the Republicans'.
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? The bit about the "Stryker combat vehicle" was nothing more than a transparent attempt at public relations for the military and the US occupation. There was absolutely nothing there that even hinted at "refuting the Democrats' claims" or any kind of political statement.
Originally posted by Severian
A selective frame of reference, which tacitly admits US casualties have declined after the elections.
On that selective frame of reference, that's technically correct -- and should be expected, as the elections produced a significant increase in violence. On a more realistic time scale, like 12 months, US casualties have actually increased, as sources more honest than yourself -- like the Defense Department -- recognize:
"U.S. military deaths in Iraq increased by about one-third in the past year, even as Iraq established its own government and assumed more responsibility for battling the insurgency. ... At least 882 U.S. troops died in the 12 months through Thursday, up from 657 in the preceding year, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Defense Department numbers. Iraqis assumed sovereignty a year ago this week, part of a U.S. strategy to lessen the visibility of U.S. troops and shift more responsibility for security to Iraq forces." Pace of troop deaths up in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050701/ts_usatoday/paceoftroopdeathsupiniraq) -- my emphasis.
Originally posted by Severian
So much for the elections "deepening the crisis" (WSWS). And in any case nowhere near high enough to force a withdrawal.
Not only has the rate of US casualties actually increased over the last year, but that's hardly the sole measure of the deepening of the crisis facing the US. Others might be the decline in the military's fighting potential after two years of a bloody military occupation, the decline in domestic support for US policy there, the growing concern within the ruling elite about America's failure in Iraq and the increasingly noticeable shortfalls in US military recruitment.
Originally posted by Severian
YTMX said 30-40. How many of those are in reality anti-Shi'a and anti-Kurdish attacks...they make an easier, "soft" target after all? (And the shift towards those softer targets is not exactly a sign of strength, though it may in part reflect the tendency of U.S. forces to stay on base more since the elections.
"The number of attacks by armed insurgents averaged 57 a day for January and February; dropped slightly to 53 a day in March and April, and hit 70 a day in May. Figures are not yet available for June but there is no indication that armed resistance is abating." US military sinks further into the Iraqi quagmire (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/resi-j28.shtml).
Originally posted by Severian
Glad you mentioned that - it is an interesting development. SCIRI (main party in new Baghdad government) condemns U.S. negotiations with Ba'athists. They seem confident in their ability to defeat the Ba'athists. And not entirely U.S. puppets.
Are you actually using this as an argument? What the SCIRI thinks of the US' negotiations with the resistance is totally irrelevant to what happens on the ground, and they clearly made their condemnations with that in mind. The US says, and has always said, what goes on in Iraq with the anti-insurgency campaign and the security situation in general. What are you suggesting, that a political party's militia is going to unilaterally succeed where the world's strongest military force failed? Don't make me laugh.
Originally posted by Severian
Anybody who knows anything about the history of guerilla wars, knows they have a much harder time against domestic governments than foreign occupiers.
You've got that backwards; puppet governments deprived of the support of their more powerful sponsors usually collapse pretty quickly. The idea that the Iraqi government's forces are somehow more militarily competent than the US, which provides virtually all of their funding, their equipment, their weapons and their training, is bizarre and completely illogical. Given that the Iraqi regime is completely dependent on the US for virtually everything, even the protection of its officials, I doubt it would last a matter of months in the event of a quick US withdrawal.
Originally posted by Severian
Yeah, the Sadrists proved that. A soldier's task, however, is not to die for his/her country, but to make the other side's soldiers die for theirs. The Ba'athists have been far more professional, skilled, and militarily effective.
The resistance (or "the Ba'athists" in Fox Newspeak) became more competent after fighting a guerilla war of more than two years. I'd be shocked if they didn't.
Originally posted by Severian
Ignore? Google search results for Sadr, site:themilitant.com. 3 pages.
So much for your stated intent of not misrepresenting the Militant's statements. Well, we know what's paved with good intentions. But maybe you were upset that the Militant didn't report the armed actions carried out by "the resistance movement led by al-Sadr" against the occupation during January...because there weren't any. Complain to Sadr, not the Militant, if you're disappointed by that.
What they ignored was the fact that al-Sadr's movement was at the forefront of the Iraqi resistance for around six months. The reason they did so was clearly because his participation in the national uprisingings of 2004 was a wrench in the SWP's propaganda machine demonizing as "Saddam loyalists" anyone who resists the US occupation by force.
Originally posted by Severian
OK, there weren't any editorials on Iraq in January. The next week, February 7, there was This editorial, "Freedom for whom? It's beginning and ending:
The fact that they produced no political statement on Iraq for an entire month is a sad enough indictment of the SWP, but their editorial here is a good example of how completely shallow their supposed opposition to US imperialism is. Most of their poorly written editorial is dedicated to reciting the Bush administration's "optimistic" (I'm getting tired of having to use the word propaganda to describe the Militant) view of Iraq, describing the elections as widely perceived as a victory for democracy -- they never say whether this is their view or not -- and demonizing those fighting American imperialism as Saddam-loving baby killers who are supposedly "more and more isolated." Given this description, which doesn't mention a single negative aspect of the US occupation, their call for the withdrawal of US troops sounds completely hollow.
What the SWP said in one of their 2003 editorials (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6713/671302.html) is without a doubt the closest they've ever come to stating their real views on Iraq: "The unfolding imperialist occupation of Iraq is not a major defeat for the working class."
[email protected]
Speaking of which, the SWP put forward the only working-class alternative to the big-business parties in the 2004 elections;
Now you're just lying. The SEP ran a campaign in the 2004 elections as well. The differences in their campaigns is probably shown in the differences between their election statements: compare the WSWS' Support the Socialist Equality Party in the 2004 US elections (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/stat-a28.shtml) with the SWP's feeble and politically empty statement, characteristic of an organization that had its day in the sun 40 years ago.
Free Palestine
The most active fighters in the resistance may very well be Sunni but to argue they are only motivated by a dissatisfaction with their sudden loss of privilege is an entirely unsubstantiated lie which denigrates both the resistance doing worthwhile work. "Loss of privilege" is not the issue. The sad fact of the matter is when you break international law and start an entirely unprovoked war on another sovereign country based on a platform of deceptions and outright lies, and then engage in a brutal occupation, massacring and torturing innocent civilians, the entire country will not greet you as 'noble liberators' but exactly what they are: brutal occupiers, and the whole country of Iraq wants them out, now.
Well said. It's beyond obscene to claim that the only conceivable motivation for the Iraqis to risk their lives to fight the US occupation is that they've "lost their priveleges." What happened to living in a country devastated by two years of a lawless and criminal occupation? That reality will always produce a thousand times the hostility to an imperialist power than the the American media's propaganda fantasies about "Saddam loyalists" having "lost their priveleges."