The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ] Dear list, Some interesting points are being raised here, but I'm also aware that we are at risk of descending into personal arguments. So let me try to highlight some of the substantive issues: 1) what level of support is there within iraq for military anti-occupation movements? Peter argues that "if the resistance could unite politically it could emerge in the manner of the Algerian FLN as a body capable of establishing government" - is that realistic? 2) Are armed resistance movements inherently discredited by taking hostages and conducting suicide bombings? To put it another way, is a certain level of collatoral damage a price worth paying for removing foreign occupation? The moral issue here is fairly clear: to approve of armed resistance, we would have to believe EITHER that it will result in an improved social/political/humanitarian situation OR that resistance is justified on moral grounds, even if it leads to a worse outcome in quantitative terms. The second view, although crucially important, is essentially philosophical, and I don't think we have much hope of resolving it here. The first is essentially practical, and perhaps we could have a productive exchange on it. A relevant factual question is what outcomes we should expect in the presence or absence of armed resistance: - does increased resistance hasten the removal of foreign troops, or just worsen conditions in the interim? - what would be the result of 'victory' for the resistance. Yasser thinks this would lead to the seizure of power by the most ruthless group, and a return to dictatorship. Does anyone have an alternative vision of a 'successful' outcome from armed resistance? 3) In making moral judgements on the resistance, should we try to distinguish different strands? Can we discern, and perhaps accept, groups making attacks on US or British troops, while condemning groups which take hostages or kill religious men? I'd break this down further, into a factual question (how heterogenous is the armed resistance, in terms of the tactics they use), and the moral question (what forms of violence do we consider justifiable under the circumstances), which is nearly identical to question (2) above. 3) Are the threatened election boycotts merely a tactic to cover a lack of popular support for groups such as the Sunni board of clerics (as Yasser, I think, suggests). Or is this an appropriate reaction to an electoral process which many consider to be at least partially flawed? I hope the above helps us channel our discussions onto the specifics, rather than general - and perhaps unresolvable - moral issues! best, Dan PS: apologies for the double posting just now - entirely my fault ------------ Daniel O'Huiginn firstname.lastname@example.org 07745 192426 24, Priory Road, Cambridge ------------ _______________________________________ Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk