The “Iraqi Resistance� and Worker-communists

[Edelweiss]

Note from the editor: Che-Lives.com is in no way affiliated with the WPIraq. We are re-publishung this article because we see it as an very important contribution on the ongoing discussion about the stance of the inernational Left towards the Iraqi resistance.


Dear...

May 18,2004

“The situation in Nasiriyiah today May 18th is relatively calm. The Mahdi Army fled the fight against coalition forces, leaving behind tens of its members either dead or wounded. There is widespread resentment in the city towards the war and current street battles. Amidst the recent fighting, the Mahdi army looted the museum, which was full of antiquities. Their justification was even worse than their deed. They say antiquities are earthy treasures, which belong to Mahdi and his army. Some of the stolen artifacts were found the following day in the city bazaar. It has been reported that the occupation forces are planning to sack both the police director and the governor for cooperating with terrorists. It is reported that these two figures who are members of the al-Dawaa party, provided the Mahdi army with weaponry and vehicles for transportation.” These are excerpts of a report by one of my comrades in Nasiriyiah who is a member of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq. The report sheds lights on some of the practices of the Mahdi army- Moqtada’s gangs.

It clarifies the dark scenario, which is unfolding in Iraq whose starring roles are played by occupation forces and the Islamic terrorist gangs, murdering and looting bands formed from the followers of reactionaries like Moqtada. What came in this report are trivial incidents in comparison to what ordinary people in Iraq undergo amid the domination of these gangs and their impact on the destiny of Iraqi society and due to the escalation of terrorist conflict between occupation forces, the Mahdi Army and other militias.

The crimes carried out by these gangs start from launching campaigns against unveiled women, bombing liquor shops and cinemas, calling on their followers to kill communists, seculars or simply anyone who opposes their dominance. The criminal activities of al-Sadr’s gangs are becoming more diverse and have started from the very first day the US troops entered Iraq.

The current confrontation between al-Sadr’s group along with other terrorist Islamic groups and American troops does not stem from a policy that America wants to protect Iraqis from terrorism. It is also stupid to portray this conflict as an armed struggle by the Islamic groups for the rights of people in Iraq and dismiss the US forces and the allied troops who are the violators of these rights. We are facing a terrorist conflict between two international poles of terror that have taken Iraq as a battle ground to settle their reactionary accounts.

The Islamic groups backed by Iran have practiced terrorism from day one of the US occupation as their only method of imposing themselves and asserting their rigid political and religious programs and influence on the people of Iraq eager for a free and secure life.

All of the crimes against humanity that were brewing in plain view of the US authority, while they did absolutely nothing to deter these groups and put a limit to their crimes. Al-Hawza paper, the mouthpiece of al-Sadr’s group, which was later banned by the American civil authority for vilifying the coalition forces, had often threatened communists and secularists with murder.

Despite these overt methods of instilling fear and terror, the US forces had not even exerted pressure on the Islamist publication to put an end to the threats. Instead, the coalition forces attacked the offices of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq, which was forced to arm its members with light defense arms to defend themselves against attacks by Islamists.

Over the last year, the American authority turned a blind eye at campaigns of random and haphazard killing by Islamists against those who they accused of being Baathists. This authority did not pay any attention to the frequent complaints by followers of other faiths who have extremely suffered at the hands of these gangs. They did not even think about defending women who have now come in the fire range of Islamists. The frequent visits by the heads of Iranian intelligence to the city of Basra and their meetings with the leaderships of collaborating Islamic groups didn’t pose a problem for the British forces. They have not responded to calls of help by people asked to pay ransoms to these gangs under various excuses. All these actions did not concern these “liberation” and “freedom-fighting” forces which watched them as if nothing has happened. This sick neutrality towards violence continued up to the day these terrorist groups turned their guns on the Americans. We do not have to elaborate on the real drives behind America’s war against the Islamists.

The people of the entire East have been suffering a bitter reality, which came as a result of continued collaborations between the US government and the Islamic forces with a common interest of terrorizing people and progressive forces. This is a fact, which is clearer than to need any clarification. This is not my point behind writing this article. What is crucial in relation to this bloody conflict is the way we understand the essence and motives of forces commonly known today as the “Iraqi resistance.”

There is a lethal illusion in this regard. There is a widespread illusion among the international Left in relation to the “Iraqi resistance”. The positions range from a modest support to an open approval accompanied with celebration for every operation carried by this “resistance.”

From a rabid defense of the actions of this resistance to an attempt to beautify the face of the forces involved. Thus, it has become commonplace for the American and European Left to blame communists in Iraq for standing against these “resisting” forces and for viewing the resistance as one player of a terrorist and reactionary conflict.

The manifestations of this illusion are diverse and we find ourselves obliged to answer those holding these illusions. These illusions are based on wrong and non-revolutionary theoretical and political views. I will try here to criticize, in the main, these illusions and clarify what is taking root in Iraq and the nature of the political stand we, the Worker-communists of Iraq, adopt about this issue.

“The foreign occupation legitimizes resistance and leftists should support the resistance regardless of the nature of its leadership. As long as there is an occupation, there will be resistance and communists participating in the national movement to achieve the tasks of democratic national revolution along with other national forces and spectrums.”

The very definitions of “occupation” and “resistance” and their political background, which originate from terms such as “sovereignty,” and “nation” as “sanctities” have never been among the revolutionary language used by Worker-communists. These ready-made formulas declared by the international Left today were never the spoken or practical language in Marx’s or Lenin’s time to deal with wars, their political consequences and movements which stood up to occupation forces.

The only standard to assess political movements, whether armed or otherwise, is knowing their objective nature, goals and characteristics rather than UN’s resolutions or knowing what actions are sanctioned or banned by the UN in dealing with occupation forces.

The struggle of Iraqi workers against a “foreign” army does not originate from the concept that this intervention is a violation of their national sanctities! What sanctity is left for us, the workers, that the foreign army can violate! Is it the “Sovereignty,” which was in the hands of our oppressors? Or the “motherland” that we own not one inch of? The “motherland”, which we said as Marx did 150 years ago, is never ours? Or “national freedom,” which always meant the freedom for our prison guards to torment us! The nationalist nonsense, which says that a local and “national” wolf is better than a foreigner because if it happened to eat our flesh it will never break our bones, is no longer able to numb the masses.

The conscious workers who have seen nothing from the national bourgeoisie and its governments but wars, poverty, absolute oppression and humiliation do not care about the backward nationalist discourses, which will no longer deceive them. All the sacrifices we have made or rather were forced to make in wars waged by our national bourgeoisie have yielded nothing more than the dispersing of our ranks, the killing of our leaders and fighters in the prisons of Jamal Abdulnasar, Saddam and Asaad and in forcing us to bear “national” bondage once again.

Repeating these experiences again, rallying behind these slogans and sacrificing ourselves in the marches of the reactionary force for the sake of a bourgeoisie “nation” who are the enemies of basic human and civil society standards. Leaving aside our class objectives and rights will be only a boring chapter in a bleak comedy, which does not deserve even ridicule and laugh. Is it not enough, what happened to us at the hands of “nationalists;” from hanging, imprisonment and throwing us into acid pools? Is our memory so dull so that we seek the repetition of all these tragedies again? The Iraqi workers struggle against the US army and take a radical position against Coalition authority policies and plots. However, they do not participate in the fronts of reactionary forces. The struggle of workers and toilers against the occupying army is inseparable from the struggle against the reactionary forces and their medieval and nightmarish visions for society.

In order to make the withdrawal of the US forces a turning point and symbol of a new era of freedom, equality and prosperity, the Iraqi workers and toilers need to achieve their aspirations and wishes through themselves. We were the first who rushed into streets opposing the US troops. The Union of the Unemployed in Iraq was the first to launch a sit-in against unemployment and hunger. We were the first to ask for the occupation forces to leave. We have unequivocally stood against the US policies in rebuilding our state and political infrastructures on the basis of religious sects and ethnicities. We were the ones who said no to the Governing Council and no to a sectarian and ethnocentric government! We have been the ones who demanded and struggled for a secular and non-nationalist government, which should guarantees political freedom, livelihood, and security. What a difference between our aspirations and objectives and the policies of forces that seek repeating the bloody experiences of Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan in Iraq. The workers need a front, which stands against both poles of terrorism, the US and Islamic terrorists at the same time.

“America is the source of all atrocities, which happen in today’s world. It is the imperialist par excellence. If US imperialism is defeated then contemporary Imperialist powers will be defeated and this will bring about a revolutionary atmosphere around the world. Comparing local and weak forces with America, the almighty force is a mistake made by the Worker-communist Party of Iraq who forgets that Islamic terrorism has been created and nurtured by America and it will end once America is defeated.”

This is another example of the illusions, which hinder the necessary intervention of the international Left and activate its role internationally and in Iraq in particular. The view that al-Sadr’s followers and other Islamic groups in Iraq are outnumbered and outweighed by the coalition troops’ heavy and highly advanced weapons make them forget the fact that Islamic groups in Iraq are part of an international current, which commit terrorism from Manhattan to Bali and from Madrid to the Philippines. This illusion makes them forget that we are here talking about a political force, which is systematically ruling in a number of countries and is an active opposition in many others. They forget that this political movement consists of hundreds of parties, organizations, armed groups, huge financial and “philanthropic” institutions equipped with modern media technology, “intellectuals”, and cultural apologists worldwide.

The traditional view of the Left on imperialism, which defines it as Western capitalism developed to become a sole imperialist power against the “socialist” and third world countries prevent them from seeing imperialism as an international system. Reducing imperialism to the advanced capitalist forces and seeing America as the representative of this modernized pole causes traditional leftists to forget that even when we face the weakest, most reactionary, and theocratic forces we are facing a capitalist foe and a bourgeoisie movement which is an inseparable part of imperialism as an international system.

Imperialism is not a bloc of countries or certain policies to simply collapse with the downfall of an almighty country that likes playing the role of a sole superpower. Viewing small terrorist groups, which prevail here and there as isolated phenomena and as counter action to what America is doing, is a naïve and superficial view. It is a view, which does not take into account the bourgeoisies and capitalisms that are exploiting a billion of human beings and setting the material and economic basis for the emergence of a movement that seeks to represent capitalism in this part of the “capitalist-Islamic World.”

The fact that political Islam took shape and emerged during a crucial phase where the US was in need of allies to stand up to what they used to call a “communist danger” does not change the present reality. The magic has turned against the magician and has become an effective and influential international pole fighting for the share of global wealth and power. Undoubtedly, terrorists feed on each other’s terrorism. In this sense, the state terrorism that America practices is the best meal they can present to the terrorism of the followers of Bin Laden and others.

Just as well, the policies of Ariel Sharon and his fascist terrorism is the best service that Israel can present to the forces of Islamic terrorism in Palestine. However, eventually the worst consequence of this conflict as far as the interest of workers and civilized humanity is concerned, is the victory of a terrorist force like political Islam on America. America is feeding on the fear and horror, which prevails world widely from such a possibility. The civilized humanity is watching the war of terrorists like a prey watching wild beasts fight to win over it.

Very few in the world are as stupid as the traditional Left, so they encourage and support one terrorist against the other in a conflict like this. This is the hidden core of the shrinking anti- war movement and its effect diminishing on the direction of events now. Progressive humanity, horrified by the current war and its disastrous consequences is patiently seeking an alternative force and a third camp to emerge against this bloody war and both of its poles. Humanity awaits an alternative to provide some solutions and answers for the crises of the world. Communism and the Left can become this alternative but on the condition that they transcend their illusions and emerge as a unique, independent and effective force and not as the admirer of one pole against the other.

In Iraq, we seek and struggle to form this third pole. We are providing an opportunity for the Left and communism on an international scale to emerge in an effective and independent manner to smash the terrorism and militarism of America with one hand and political Islam with the other. The Left can ensure the defeat of the US at the hands of the civilized humanity and its progressive and humanist forces not with supporting the followers of al-Sadr and Bin Laden materially and morally but rather with supporting Worker-communism and the secular labor movement in Iraq.

In addition to the necessity of abandoning their formulaic illusions, the Left needs to review its position in their societies and the conflicts that are going on in the world. Revolution and change will only happen in our contemporary world as the result of a conscious and independent activity by the revolutionary and socialist forces. The Left forces, who stand around waiting for a ripe “historical moment” to come about as the result of the US occupation’s defeat by political Islam has neither a future nor a chance.

No movement that deals with events and developments passively and sits by as a spectator toward the situations will win the fruits of these developments. The defeat of the US in Iraq by Islamic forces and the resistance that it leads will only be a victory for political Islam’s reaction and fascism on an international scale. The Leftist forces in the West will not be able to exploit such a defeat, which will rather strengthen the racist and reactionary right-wing currents in Western societies leaving the Left to shrink and marginalize further.

Islamic terrorism in Palestine, which is fed by Sharonism’s fascism, has only resulted in the strengthening the Israeli Right. In the same way, the defeat of US and British allied forces in this conflict, if it is to be at the hands of political Islam, will only enhance the reactionary and fascist Right’s foreign and domestic policies in the West. To ensure that US’s defeat in Iraq is going to prepare the way for a strong emergence of the Left and socialist movements across the world, these forces, in addition to other important factors must strategize that this defeat happens at the hands of the Left and communism in Iraq.

We in Iraq are confronting forces, which are not only local forces, but rather are international forces and rely on their international influence to fight each other. It is difficult for the Left (but it is not impossible) to emerge as an effective force in Iraq without the support of the international leftist force. Unfortunately, in our current circumstances, some of the forces of traditional Left are asking us to cooperate and join alliances with al-Sadrists and the followers of Bin Laden. The international Left wants us to surrender to forces and groups that are seeking to slaughter and annihilate not only communists, but any secular and freedom-loving person who opposes Islamists grim program and method. It is true stupidity that has no limits.

As far as armed resistance as a revolutionary tactic is concerned, although the worker-communits view armed resistance as a viable revolutionary tactic, amid the current ideological and class formations and the organizational weakness of a mass movement of workers and emancipatory forces, believe that, resorting to this method can be a huge political mistake, which could hinder the development of a secular mass movement and will deepens the current unfolding dark scenario.

Amid the presence of nationalist and politico-religious forces, the armed resistance in today’s Iraq may prepare the ground for these forces to strengthen. As long as workers and liberationist people lack their own strong parties and mass organizations, able to fill the political vacuum when the US troops are defeated and forced to retreat from key areas, this withdrawal is likely to mean helping the armed nationalist and religious militia and groups to dominate these places.

Also the US and allied forces withdrawal probably will mean turning Iraq to another Somalia. The only tactic to prevent this from happening is through an immediate strengthening of the partisan and mass organizational and armed capabilities of workers and communists to enable them to take the initiative in their hands and appear as a dominant and ruling force across Iraq or in any region where an opportunity exists to do so. The Worker-communist Party struggles and takes important steps every day in this direction. Obviously, the solidarity of the international leftist and labor movement with WPIraq will hasten these steps.

The only way for the international Left to emerge as an effective and prominent force amidst the current situation in the world is not by standing beside al-Sadrists and followers of al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden, and hailing their “resistance. Rather by politically and materially supporting the worker and communist forces in Iraq and on top of them, the Worker-communist Party of Iraq.


Shamal Ali

May 22, 2004

[peaccenicked]

I disagree strongly with the sentiments of the above article. The WPI sounds sectarian seeing itself as the saviour. It tries to take away support from the resistance which does a job for the US warmongers and the CIA.
The terrorism of the 'resistance' can be divided into two, acts done by the CIA or Mossad to inflame civil war or legal acts of resistance against an illegal occupation.
All of the US soldiers and British soldiers are guilty of the mere war crime of being there. The UN resolution of 1975 allows for resistance by all means necessary against occupiers.
This means that the WPI are basically cowardly traitors to the resistance who commit acts of defamation on the resistance. The are either conscious perptrators of black ops or unconscious victims of it.

[Edelweiss]

If you think that political Islam isn't playing a significant role within the Iraqi resistance, than you are fooling yourself, and you are simplifying and idealizing the situation. But it's fits into the simplistic, anti-imperialist, pro-nationalist sheme of the tradional Left. It's not just "the Mossad and the CIA" who are commiting the terrorist acts, I would have awaited better that such stupid conspiracy theories. I do not deny that some terrorist acts indeed are committed by agents provocatours, but you can't make a general rule out of that. Wether the current Iraqi resistance is legitimate by internatinal law or not, is irrelavant IMO. The question is if it deserves support from the western Left, I don't think it does. Political Islam should be fought, and seen as an enemy just like US imperialism, as the article of the WPI is pointing out perfectly. To ally with the enemy of your enemy is reactionary, and also not sustainable at all, as many examples in history have proven. National liberation without class struggle is reactionary bullshit! "National liberate" my ass!

You are accepting the "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" logic of Bush, when you say that they are "doing the job for the US warmongers and the CIA", or call them "cowardly traitors". Traitors to whom? The national Iraqi bourgosie? Political Islam? Not the Iraqi working class anyway.

It is rather disgusting to say to Iraqi comrades, while sitting behind your armchair in the UK, that they are traitors and allies of the occupiers, while you are supporting reactionary forces, and enemies of the working class.

P.S: Welcome back to the board, peaccenicked!

[London Communist]

Malte, I have some questions about the Worker Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI) which I hope you could answer, as I only know a bit about their ideological stance and their objectives.

1.) Is the ideological tradition of Worker Communism (observed by the WCPI and it's Iranian sister party) a branch of council communism or the writings of Rosa Luxemburg?

2.) I read in 2004 that the WCPI was CONSIDERING adopting armed resistance to BOTH the imperialist occupation forces/Iraqi puppet forces AND the Islamist forces. This was featured in the newspaper of the British CPGB (which supports the WCPI), the Weekly Worker. The WCPI is in strong solidarity with the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq (UUI) and after US forces arrested and torutred UUI members and after an attack on the UUI by the Islamists, the WCPI, according to the newspaper, talked of setting up Soviets/urban assemblies in the areas it has support and raising a workers millitia to carry out revolutionary self defense actions. Is this true?

3.) Some critics of the WCPI claim their anti-imperialist stance is incomplete as the WCPI calls for the United Nations (UN) to take over as the authority in Iraq. Again, is this true?

4.) What relationship, if one does indeed exist, is there between the WCPI and the reformist Iraqi Communist Party (ICP)?

5.) How strong is the WCPI at this current time? Has their membership increased or did it peak in 2004 and has since declined?

I hope you can answer all or some of these questions.

I don't think I could give my own view of the WCPI UNTIL I know of these answers.

[Martin Blank]

London Communist,

I can answer these questions probably better than Malte, since the Communist League has relations with the WCPI through the Iraq Freedom Congress.

Originally posted by London Communist+Nov 17 2005, 08:30 PM--> (London Communist @ Nov 17 2005, 08:30 PM)1.) Is the ideological tradition of Worker Communism (observed by the WCPI and it's Iranian sister party) a branch of council communism or the writings of Rosa Luxemburg?[/b]

Not council communism, but there is a healthy amount of Luxemburgism in their politics. Overall, however, they see themselves as generally "Marxist-Leninist", though not in the same sense as the "official" Communists. The Mansoor Hekmat Internet Archive, part of the Marxists Internet Archive, has articles on this issue.

Originally posted by London [email protected] 17 2005, 08:30 PM
2.) I read in 2004 that the WCPI was CONSIDERING adopting armed resistance to BOTH the imperialist occupation forces/Iraqi puppet forces AND the Islamist forces. This was featured in the newspaper of the British CPGB (which supports the WCPI), the Weekly Worker. The WCPI is in strong solidarity with the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq (UUI) and after US forces arrested and torutred UUI members and after an attack on the UUI by the Islamists, the WCPI, according to the newspaper, talked of setting up Soviets/urban assemblies in the areas it has support and raising a workers millitia to carry out revolutionary self defense actions. Is this true?

Both are true, and both have been done. The Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq has already had two national conferences, and includes WCs from Kirkuk to Basra. Every large- and most medium-sized cities in Iraq have active WCs; cities like Baghdad have WCs operating at a neighborhood level. As well, the WCs have also established armed workers' militia in both workplaces and neighborhoods, and have been relatively successful in driving out both occupation soldiers and "resistance" guerrillas.

Originally posted by London [email protected] 17 2005, 08:30 PM
3.) Some critics of the WCPI claim their anti-imperialist stance is incomplete as the WCPI calls for the United Nations (UN) to take over as the authority in Iraq. Again, is this true?

No. There was a time when the issue came up, and was debated publicly, about whether UN oversight of the transition would be better than the U.S./UK-led occupation, but that has since been rejected.

Originally posted by London [email protected] 17 2005, 08:30 PM
4.) What relationship, if one does indeed exist, is there between the WCPI and the reformist Iraqi Communist Party (ICP)?

None but hostile relations.

Originally posted by London [email protected] 17 2005, 08:30 PM
5.) How strong is the WCPI at this current time? Has their membership increased or did it peak in 2004 and has since declined?

I'm not sure about numbers, but I have not seen any dimunition in the scope and scale of their work. If they have lost members, it has been more than offset by gains among friends and general supporters.

London Communist

@Nov 17 2005, 08:30 PM
I hope you can answer all or some of these questions.

I don't think I could give my own view of the WCPI UNTIL I know of these answers.

I hope this helps you.

Miles

[Led Zeppelin]

To ally with the enemy of your enemy is reactionary, and also not sustainable at all, as many examples in history have proven. National liberation without class struggle is reactionary bullshit! "National liberate" my ass!

We don't "ally with the enemy of our enemy", we support "the enemy of our enemy", we support them because they are anti-imperialist, we support them because if they succeed they will deal a major blow to the greatest threat to the world, which is US imperialism.

What will happen to the Iraqi working class if they succeed? They will be repressed, and "islamic law" will be introduced, of course that is a "bad thing", and of course we will fight them as well.

You seem to think that if you support the resistance against the US you are unable to oppose them against the working class, this is a wrong line of thought, and quite frankly it's silly, since you can do both.

It is rather disgusting to say to Iraqi comrades, while sitting behind your armchair in the UK, that they are traitors and allies of the occupiers, while you are supporting reactionary forces, and enemies of the working class.

Aren't you doing the same thing though? Aren't you supporting reactionary forces and enemies of the working class? Or are American soldiers there to "bring democracy" and "freedom"?

The only correct line of thought is to oppose both the reactionary resistance and the reactionary Imperialists, but to support the resistance against the Imperialists.

[peaccenicked]

"There are no boundaries in this struggle to the death. We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, for a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory; just as any country's defeat is a defeat for all of us. - Ernesto Che Guevara

Comrade Malte, "There are no boundaries in this struggle to the death", that also allows severe criricism of the left in any country. I hope we can agree on this point.
I dont expect us to agree on anything else though. Marx did say things in the "Communist Manifesto" that he later appearred to contradict for instance:"A nation that oppresses another cannot be free itself" or words to that effect.
Now to the above article.
"The very definitions of “occupation” and “resistance” and their political background, which originate from terms such as “sovereignty,” and “nation” as “sanctities” have never been among the revolutionary language used by Worker-communists. These ready-made formulas declared by the international Left today were never the spoken or practical language in Marx’s or Lenin’s time to deal with wars, their political consequences and movements which stood up to occupation forces"
This is just pure BS. The writer here has neither read or has understood Lenin's "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" or managed to get by the first page of Lenin on "The rights of nations to self-determination"

Like Che another traditional leftist btw I do not seperate class and nation as readily as the ''new'' left. Nations consist of classes. Like Che, I am on the side of the oppessed everywhere. If a Kurd is not allowed to speak his own language in Turkey
It matters little to me if you call that national or class oppression. If I spoke to a student on this matter he or she would I think might see that this can be legitimately called national oppression. People need their mouths liberated not their "asses".
There has been a media blackout of what has been happening on the ground in Iraq
much of the information I have recieved comes from the horses mouth. People who visit their families regularly in Iraq.
One spokesperson told the audience that dawn raids were regular occurences. That if Iraqis moved as American troops entered the area they would be shot. If men that the soldiers where looking for were not found then their wives would be raped in front of their children. Towns and villages are being virtually bombed out of existence.
Iraqi workers are be turned into second class citizens in their ''own country". That might be seen as national oppression in some peoples eyes. Especially us traditional leftists.
All nations largely consist of workers and peasants. If one cannot see that the people of Iraq has been targetted specifically then one is totally blind.
The is little electricity or water in Iraq. People are without basic ammenities. Hospitals get attacked. People are scared to send their children to school.
Another spokeperson said that the resistance also had to contend with the CIA and Mossad. She herself had been a a prisoner of Saddam.
I have no doubt that most people in Iraq are muslim but they are not being oppressed because they are muslim or because they are working class but because they are Iraqi.
Under the conditions of oppression and occupation of a foriegn army. The US/UK troops are not Iraqi. They are by all accounts nazis without antisemitism, but Nazis in most other respects.
To me it does not matter the ideology of those fighting oppression. if there are dodgy elements in it who act in counter productive manner the it is up to the Iraqi people to sort them out as it was up to the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam. The amount of US/UK casualties point to a war not acts of terror. Terrorism is there is but many of us can see reasons why there is such a thing as State sponsored terror.
There is many whistleblowers who have revealed both CIA, MI5 and Mossad payments to muslim mercenaries in many countries.
If you dont believe that dirty tricks happen, including the sponsoring of fascist gangs,
then you havent studied any techniques in modern warfare.
The point is that people:workers and peasants and allies have taken up arms against the oppressor. The leadership of that movement is a problem of the Iraqi people.
To label the violent resistance against imperialism as terrorist is objectively pro-imperialist and is falling into the arms of the enemy.
Thankyou for your welcome

[enigma2517]

I agree with M-L, supporting the resistance and calling them our idealogical equals is two different things.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a leftist lead uprising and resistance in Iraq, but I mean really, what the chances of that happening?

Iraq needs to develop modern capitalism. This will never happen under United States imperialism.

Its the lesser of the two evils, and unlike elections, which one wins actually DOES have a significant impact.