Anatomy of the Resistance

[Sergio Zamora]

http://www.counterpunch.org/laith05212005.html

The Resistance in Context

An Anatomy of the Resistance to the American Occupation in Iraq

By LAITH AL-SAUD

Much of the American left has been less than consistent with its approach to the occupation of Iraq. Before the invasion of March 2003, the streets of metropolitan America hosted a pageant of political dissent and indignation directed at the current administration. Yet in the post-invasion world the American left has been remarkably ambiguous and ambivalent. Whenever any one addresses this seeming inconsistency the rhetorical response is the same-"we" are there now so "we have to finish the job"-what "the job" is precisely always remains vague, however, it is intimately tied to Iraq's security. Donald Rumsfeld on a recent trip to Iraq reiterated the administration line; namely that the US would supposedly leave Iraq when the Iraqis were capable of putting down the so-called "insurgency." In other words, the reason the US invaded Iraq was WMD, but the reason they now remain is the resistance. And again the media have been as professionally contemptuous about examining American claims about the resistance as it was about weapons.

The media's misrepresentation of the resistance in Iraq has been a central component to the Bush administrations ideology for occupation. As an occupying power the US has ostensibly claimed a duty to protect the Iraqi people from the insecurity that the US presence ironically induces. Notwithstanding the many criticisms we could make of the American media in this regard, what is most frustrating is that many on the so-called "left," self-proclaimed critics of the war, have invested in the ideology of occupation.

I was recently involved in a public event at one of the more prestigious universities here in the US where one of the guests-who has spent considerable time in occupied Iraq and who is also another self-proclaimed critic-denounced the Iraqi resistance as an extreme and terrible bid on behalf of "Wahhabists and former Baathists." When I asked the guest how much time he had actually spent with members of the resistance he could not provide me any substantive experience. In other words his intelligence on violence in Iraq was being provided by the same source that initiated the occupation in the first place-the US administration. It is both ironic and comical that little has been done to substantiate the claims being put forth by the American administration in this regard; but most notably there can be no serious hope of the Americans leaving Iraq so long as the majority of the country "fears" what might happen there next. And the administration's presentation of the resistance as a band of wide-eyed fanatics or desperate men "with nothing to lose" has been employed, quite tactfully, to keep up as much American support for the occupation as Iraqi. What I wish to do here is provide a brief anatomy of the resistance-a description of what it is made of and what it hopes to accomplish.

First the Iraqi resistance is made up of both political and martial forces, thus all of the major resistance groups in the country are tied to a greater political framework that has been clear and consistent in its hopes for the country. What is more important, however, is that the methods and goals of the resistance have always been made public. There has been no major Iraqi resistance group that has condoned the targeting of innocents in the country, none. Conveniently the US only invokes public claims to the contrary when they are made on websites to which the authors are unavailable for comment, verification or elaboration. The political members of the Iraqi resistance have been constantly available to the media as spokespersons of the armed effort, yet no western media source has inquired as to theirfeelings or analysis of what is happening in their country. The media's insistence in relying on the official American version of events precludes other available sources that are actually tied to the resistance itself. There are only three things we can assume in this regard a) the American press is complicit in the occupation, b) it is simply incompetent or c) it is racist, assuming that an Arab is not a good source for information (it could be all of the above of course). Needless to say this characterization is not conducive to a reliable flow of information. In terms of public and verifiable evidence it must be conceded, emphatically no less, that there simply has been no tangible occurrence of an Iraqi resistance group publicly condoning the targeting of civilians.

Secondly, the Iraqi resistance has been vibrant in organizing itself politically not only inside Iraq but outside as well. I will mention two events in this regard: the meeting of the Higher Committee for National Forces Rejecting the Occupation and the 16th Arab National Congress held in Algiers. With the former there was even greater consolidation amongst Iraqi resistance groups; the implication of course is that a national liberation front is beginning to emerge that possesses a mandate and doctrine. Few, if any journalists have concerned themselves with the ideas or political ambitions of such an alliance.

The Higher Committee is, however, dedicated to several major things:

a) the right of the Iraqis to defend themselves against foreign aggression and imperialism,

b) the right of Iraq to demand a political process untainted by occupation and that reflects the uninhibited will of the Iraqi people and

c) a pluralistic and democratic Iraq.

Needless to say the Higher Committee is a variegated and diverse membership and emphasizes Iraq's diversity-which never was an issue in the country until the Americans arrived. There are several things to which the Committee is adamantly opposed to as well:

a) the continued occupation of Iraq and the establishment of any permanent basis in the country,

b) the privatization of the Iraqi economy and foreign corporations' unrestricted access to Iraq's resources and business community and

c) the federation of Iraq.

This last point may strike some as contentious; however, it is crucial to what is felt to be the neo-colonial ambitions of the US in the Middle-East. Federalism in Iraq means an even deeper breakdown of the region into semi-disparate groups that will be encouraged to "arm themselves" against their neighbors; all the while the US presence in the region is perpetuated by the "need to maintain stability."

The reason I have laid out some of these more central features is not to convince anyone to adopt them, but rather to demonstrate the political context in which the resistance is thinking and to suggest that moral support from around the world should be more forthcoming. Furthermore, unlike US evidence which refers to phantoms and their websites, individuals that no one has access to or ever see in Iraq, members of the Association of Muslim Scholars or the People's Struggle Movement, amongst others, are available for comment or elaboration and can provide definitive accounts of the Iraqi resistance, its nature and goals. In addition all such groups have adamantly condemned the targeting of Iraqi civilians, after all, why would they not, they are Iraqis. What has been most disturbing has been the ease by which westerners have attributed the most draconian and cruel features to the Iraqi resistance while absolving the US of any duplicity in their occupation. The administration's insistence that the Iraqis (or other "foreign" Arabs) are trying to start a civil war within their own country has never been supported by any logical analysis. Meanwhile it remains true that so long as there is chaos in Iraq the Americans must remain to insure "security."

Just as much of the world regrets investing too heavily in the Bush administration's cries of WMD, so long as the occupation continues there should also be a greater scrutiny of the US's reasons for remaining there. Several things are clear: The United States invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, unjustified and destructive. With that in mind it would be insidious to future relations with Iraq and the Arab-Muslim world in general if people in the west are going to deny the right of Iraqis to defend themselves. Secondly, many of the acts of destruction that have been connected to the "insurgency" have found no resonance with the major groups of the Iraqi resistance; in addition there is a broad based political platform that is available to the wider world and which can be reached in this regard. The organized Iraqi resistance has been adamant about its principles and methods but has yet to receive the necessary attention from those in the west who are likewise committed to justice and ending the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately the American press has chosen to ignore the organized opposition forces in Iraq and has focused rather on the abundance of petty crime and faceless websites now conflagrating Baghdad and misidentified that as the resistance. For a variety of reasons most of the Left has also invested too heavily in the myth that the resistance is an irrational menace-made up of "former Baathists and Wahhabists." As political observers the strange conclusion we must draw from this characterization is that there is no resistance to the actual American occupation; there is rather an "insurgency" against a supposedly free and democratically elected government. The occupation's significance has been audaciously negated within intellectual circles to an unbearable degree and much more rhetorical capital has been invested in the relations between "Sunni and Shi'a" or "Arab and Kurd." The question we must ask ourselves is what happened to the illegitimacy of the occupation and the legitimate right to oppose it?

Laith Al-Saud is a college lecturer in the social sciences and a member of the People's Struggle Movement-an organization politically opposed to the occupation of Iraq.

[patricia]

THANK YOU Sergio!!!!
I wonder if an invading force were in the U.S., attempting to totally change the less-than-perfect system in place, whether the same label of "dead-enders" would be applied to those who resisted occupation. Would it be OK if such resisters were shot, or tortured, or imprisoned indefinately??
Toppling a dictator, now accomplished, is not the same thing as occupying a foreign country for an indeterminate time, so as to exploit it's natural resources and solidify it's presence in the region. That used to be called imperialism. Now it's suddenly a good thing??

[Noj]

Not that I totally disagree with the article, but the "insurgency," whoever it is, has clearly targetted its own people with suicide bombings.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by Noj

Not that I totally disagree with the article, but the "insurgency," whoever it is, has clearly targetted its own people with suicide bombings.

Which is there business of course, unless that is they clearly ask for the support of the United States of America or some other foreign power. On the other hand most of the Iraqiis targetted seem to be Quislings of American interests in the first place, so such requests for American aid would be disingenuous to say the least.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Noj

Not that I totally disagree with the article, but the "insurgency," whoever it is, has clearly targetted its own people with suicide bombings.

I believe the author is making a distinction between the increasingly more organized resistance movement in the initial phase of becoming a national liberation movement and the miscellaneous groups and grouplets which have been labeled 'insurgents' and which may also include opportunist criminals and apocalyptic fanatics.

The author is also implying a complicity in the US media, which seemingly only reports selected incidents such as suicide bombings.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

The author is also implying a complicity in the US media, which seemingly only reports selected incidents such as suicide bombings.

The author castigates the speaker who has spent time in Iraq for not visiting the insurgency, yet how much time has this person spent in Iraq, and how has he or she been able to ascertain, from thousands of miles away, what the insurgency is "really" like?

As for reporters not covering the insurgency more carefully, I think part of that reflects a desire on the part of reporters not to have footage of their severed head on the Internet.

I'm sorry, but this article seems to be trying to fit the insurgency into a pre-conceived notion of what "national liberation fronts" should look like, rather than what the aims of this insurgency actually are. With suicide bombers killing hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians, I would say that if these "fringe" and "fanatical" groups don't constitute the insurgency, then the term has absolutely no meaning, and these other, supposedly more noble entities are not as significant to uncovering the "real" opposition as the author claims.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by crawjo

The author castigates the speaker who has spent time in Iraq for not visiting the insurgency, yet how much time has this person spent in Iraq, and how has he or she been able to ascertain, from thousands of miles away, what the insurgency is "really" like?

I don't know if the author has been in Iraq recently or not. That would be a good question to ask, but you seemingly already know the answer.

Originally Posted by crawjo

As for reporters not covering the insurgency more carefully, I think part of that reflects a desire on the part of reporters not to have footage of their severed head on the Internet.

I'm not following what that has to do with not covering other incidents.

Originally Posted by crawjo

I'm sorry, but this article seems to be trying to fit the insurgency into a pre-conceived notion of what "national liberation fronts" should look like, rather than what the aims of this insurgency actually are. With suicide bombers killing hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians, I would say that if these "fringe" and "fanatical" groups don't constitute the insurgency, then the term has absolutely no meaning, and these other, supposedly more noble entities are not as significant to uncovering the "real" opposition as the author claims.

Well, it's kind of a catch-22, isn't it? If the media are not reporting on the allegedly more numerous incidents which do not involve direct attack on civilians, then you'll never know since you've never been to Iraq and the only source for information are the US media.

The author described in concrete terms the strategic aims of the Resistance and the tactical approach of not attacking civilians. The author isn't claiming this is a full-fledged national liberation movement, but he believes this is a burgeoning phenomenon.

He also made the point several times of emphasizing that there are other groups with only vague vaguely expressed objectives which are not part of this Resistance. You can feel free to dismiss the difference in terminology as an exercise in semantics, but I think it's indicative of the author's position that he says the media would have us believe there is no resistance in Iraq, just mish-mash of groups called 'insurgents'.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Noj

Not that I totally disagree with the article, but the "insurgency," whoever it is, has clearly targetted its own people with suicide bombings.

Exactly.


I don't think we should have attacked Iraq, but I seriously doubt the credibility of a force which is committed to blowing up its own people in order to gain control, fer crissakes.

[crawjo]

Sergio,

How could the entities responsible for the suicide bombings not be a part of the resistance? Aren't they resisting? It seems to me, again, that the author is trying to exclude them from his terminology because they don't fit his thesis of a burgeoning movement based on nobler principles. This is a pattern, I have to say, that I have seen many times from the left. Communists have spent a lot of time over the last 100 years separating out "true" Communism (which is always the one they practice) from "false" Communism. Likewise, this author is trying to say that the groups who are massacring hundreds of citizens and creating a tremendous amount of unrest are not part of the resistance, because they don't meet his criteria. It seems to me that if an entity is opposed to the occupation, and is organizing actively and effectively to combat the occupation, then it is a part of the resistance, and it is not the U.S. media's fault for reporting that hundreds of civilians are being killed by these highly effective strikes, which are designed to subvert public confidence in the newly-formed government.

I assume the author has not been to Iraq, because if he has, he would have said so, or would have been more specific in his analysis.

So do you believe that these deadly suicide strikes, which have killed thousands of civilians, are not meaningful and have been over-reported by the media?

[jeff54]

There has been no major Iraqi resistance group that has condoned the targeting of innocents in the country, none.

However if you check out the People's Struggle Movement’s Political Initiative

PSM

Not only haven't they "adamantly condemned the targeting of Iraqi civilians" they clearly are about punishing anyone who cooperates with the occupation forces.
So while you might assume from the article that the "major resistance groups" are against the killing of Iraqi civilians The Peoples Stuggle Movement clearly don't consider groups of Iraqis are blown up while applying for jobs as police innocent.

The author also talks about this lack of reporting on the "major resistance groups" by the western media but I could find nothing on the People Stuggle Movement on Aljazeera either.

The author also gives no explaination as to who, if it is not the Iraqi resistence, is commiting these acts.

[Sergio Zamora]

Crawjo,

If you read the author's credits, he is a member of one of the organizations which he names as a political representative of the resistance. I don't know as a fact, but I would gather from that that he at least has contact with the resistance groups on a regular basis.

How could the entities responsible for the suicide bombings not be a part of the resistance? Aren't they resisting? It seems to me, again, that the author is trying to exclude them from his terminology because they don't fit his thesis of a burgeoning movement based on nobler principles.

Clearly, he is stating a set of guiding principles, a set of strategic objectives, and at least one tactic for what he is calling the Resistance. His dismissal of other groups seems to be partly based on these criteria and partly on what he considers to be an overemphasis from the media on the actions of these groups.

This is a pattern, I have to say, that I have seen many times from the left. Communists have spent a lot of time over the last 100 years separating out "true" Communism (which is always the one they practice) from "false" Communism.

Oh, please, let's not make such hasty generalizations. This is a whole other subject.

----

But yes, I believe he is trying to take control of the terminology, which I see as a legimitate approach for furthering his movement. Why shouldn't he? Why should that be left to foreign occupiers or their media or you or me?

But the point isn't that this or that group are not part of the resistance. The importance of what he is saying is that the groups that are targetting civilians as part of their strategy are only a small part of all groups with an ostensibly anti-occupation agenda. His point is that neither you nor are aware of the activity that is going in inside of Iraq on these fronts. At least not as aware as we may think we are.

So do you believe that these deadly suicide strikes, which have killed thousands of civilians, are not meaningful and have been over-reported by the media?

What I do believe based on several different sources is that the strikes against military targets have been highly under-reported, and that this goes back to the beginning of the occupation. I also believe based on different sources that the blatant attacks on civilians are committed by a tiny fragment of the entire insurgency. Now, I could be wrong, of course. Ultimately, for the resistance to be effective, though, it has to have a clear political plan and and a military strategy. The author knows that for the resistance to be effective, they need a well-articulated political agenda as well as support from the masses, and wide ranging organizational efforts. And that's the difference from those isolated groups who are performing acts that only lead to short-term instability and have no long term political gains.

[crawjo]

But why should you, I, or the author assume that the authors of the attacks on civilians have no long-term political goals? Organizations have been using suicide bombers on civilian targets as a strategic weapon for decades. Why should we assume that these insurgents are just killing out of anger, or hatred, without any though to strategy or achieving an objective?

I don't know if the attacks on the U.S. military positions have been underreported or not, but I do know, or at least feel reasonably confident in stating, that the groups organizing and planning these suicide attacks have killed many more people than the other resistance groups, and that their success in destabilizing the regime and formenting terror among the populace is a major story, and not just some "fringe" activity. If this were happening in the United States, and dozens of civilians were being killed every day by suicide bombers, it would be treated as an enormous story, as it should be.

[crawjo]

Also, I find the notion that the American media is complicit in the occupation because it reports the massacre of civilians as big news absurd. It seems to me that the author wants the media to report the tactical strikes on U.S. military forces instead, because the larger story, the daily barrage of suicide attacks, makes the resistance look bad, as it should.

[Gary Sisco]

Don't worry. It can only get worse. And will.

[Juju]

I'm just thinking out loud, but are the deaths of innocent Iraqis more Sunnis or Shi'ites?

Remember, in this culture there are two societal groups, not one nation of people. Complicity with the Americans by one group or the other could be the target.

[crawjo]

If you mean the deaths caused by suicide bombings, I believe those have primarily been Sunni groups targeting Shi'ites and Kurds. The Sunnis are a minority who have primarily held the reins of power because of their boy Saddam. It is most definitely related to the long-standing ethnic tensions between the three groups, and the feeling that the new government will be controlled by Shi'ites and Kurds.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by crawjo

It is most definitely related to the long-standing ethnic tensions between the three groups, and the feeling that the new government will be controlled by Shi'ites and Kurds.

I think shi'a and sunni in Iraq belong to the same ethnic group.

[crawjo]

You might be right...so I guess it's religious tension, rather than ethnic tension?

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by crawjo

You might be right...so I guess it's religious tension, rather than ethnic tension?

My admittedly limited understanding is that the schism between shi'a and sunni is political. While the shi'a have acquired some diverging ritual practices over time, the religious beliefs are the same between the two groups. I think a lot of westerns have a tendency to compare it to catholic/protestant schism, which I think is incorrect.

Basically, the shi'a believed that Mohammed's son-in-law should have succeeded him rather than Mohammed's friend. The funny thing is the son-in-law did succeed him eventually. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that's how it started.

[Brian Olewnick]

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Emo Philips

[groover]

Great post, Brian, which makes the point that, though the religious differences between the Sunni and Shia may be technically slight, they are still quite capable of murdering each other over it. The Wahabis slaughtered thousands because they mentioned Mohammed's name before Allah in their daily prayers.
However, even if the differences is primarily of politics at this point, it doesn't matter much to the victims. As Rousseau once said, when two men share a horse, one must sit in front.

[Sergio Zamora]

Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment further on this, but my understanding isn't that the religious differences are slight, but that they are non-existent.

Also, according to several sources I've read (including an allusion in the article on this thread), the idea that sunnis and shi'a in Iraq were on the verge of civil war is a just not supportable. This doesn't negate the existence of tensions between the two groups in the region, but not to the point of that we project onto them. This seems to be changing as a direct result of the occupation, however.

We in the west make a strong effort to view our own social and political circumstances with nuance and incisiveness, yet we tend to make crude and binary analyses of everyone else in the world.

[groover]

The Origins of the Sunni/Shia split in Islam

by Hussein Abdulwaheed Amin, Editor of IslamForToday.com

...there remain significant differences between the two forms of Islam and these are what tend to be emphasized. Many Sunni's would contend that Shias seem to take the fundamentals of Islam very much for granted, shunting them into the background and dwelling on the martyrdoms of Ali and Hussein. This is best illustrated at Ashura when each evening over a period of ten days the Shias commemorate the Battle of Karbala, with a wailing Imam whipping the congregation up into a frenzy of tears and chest beating. It is alleged that instead of missionary work to non-Muslims, the Shia harbor a deep-seated disdain towards Sunni Islam and prefer to devote their attention to winning over other Muslims to their group. There is ongoing violent strife between Sunnis and Shias in Pakistan.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Emo Philips

What would have happened if the narrator of this story had been Buddhist?

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by crawjo

What would have happened if the narrator of this story had been Buddhist?

That is correct.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Slurpy

That is correct.

Ah, the sound of one hand clapping?

[walto]

Originally Posted by OZ

My admittedly limited understanding is that the schism between shi'a and sunni is political. While the shi'a have acquired some diverging ritual practices over time, the religious beliefs are the same between the two groups.

In my own (also quite limited) understanding, it's incorrect to separate political and religious views for Muslims. For example, paying taxes (tithes) is religious and the proper uses of the funds are determined by various texts. Again, criminal punishments are for items Mohammed condemned and both civil and criminal judges are supposed to be religious leaders. Imams and Caliphs have never been either exclusively religious or exclusively political, and can't be according to religious doctrine.

That's one reason why the U.S. quest for "secular democracy granting total religious freedom" thing has struck me as a little crude. "Free exercise" of Islam may just not be consistent with "secular democracy."

[groover]

Originally Posted by walto

"Free exercise" of Islam may just not be consistent with "secular democracy."

Good points, Walto. It's not!

One Pakistani (quoted in Newsweek) was angry at Musharraf for allowing alcohol to be consumed in the capital, when the Pakistani constitution declares Islam will be respected. To them, respecting Islam means everyone obeying Islam's rules, unconditionally. There is no separation between church and state under Islam.

Let's also remember that Iraq was three separate provinces before the British hammered them together for their convenience.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by crawjo

What would have happened if the narrator of this story had been Buddhist?

What kind of Buddhist Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen, Pure Land or Nichiren?

One morning, after he had finished his meditation, the old man opened his eyes and saw a scorpion floating helplessly in the water. As the scorpion was washed closer to the tree, the old man quickly stretched himself out on one of the long roots that branched out into the river and reached out to rescue the drowning creature. As soon as he touched it, the scorpion stung him. Instinctively the man withdrew his hand. A minute later, after he had regained his balance, he stretched himself out again on the roots to save the scorpion. This time the scorpion stung him so badly with its poisonous tail that his hand became swollen and bloody and his face contorted with pain.

At that moment, a passerby saw the old man stretched out on the roots struggling with the scorpion and shouted: "Hey, stupid old man, what's wrong with you? Only a fool would risk his life for the sake of an ugly, evil creature. Don't you know you could kill yourself trying to save that ungrateful scorpion?"

The old man turned his head. Looking into the stranger's eyes he said calmly, "My friend, just because it is the scorpion's nature to sting, that does not change my nature to save."

Suddenly I'm feeling very huggy.