Hmmmmmm. Are you barracking AGAINST anyone?

Oh dear Kingsley,

Do you think that “further” means “all the way”?

Worse still, do you think that I think that “further” means “all the way”?

Please, do yourself a favour and give me a little credit for understanding the meaning of words.

“Further” is a comparative adverb. “All the way” a superlative adverbial phrase.

Comparative ≠ superlative.

And one more time: I’m not barracking for Sadr. I’m barracking for no one. It is quite possible that Sadr will be taken down.

But if that happens, then the winners will definitely be Iran and their Iraqi proxies.

“Every step the US takes simply pushes control further into the hands of the Iranians.”

You are HOPING and NEEDING this to be true. If it isn’t you are lost. It assumes that the bulk of the Shia Politicians are completely within Tehran’s grip. The more likely scenario is they wil have some sympathy for their fellow Shia but essentially Iraqi Sovereignty will win out.

You need this so you can argue sure the Surge ‘worked” but the USA’s enemy won in the end anyway. If that doesn’t happen you’ll have to acknowledge ( although I doubt you will) that Petraeus (and by proxy so eventually did Bush get it right) It was a far more expensive victory than anyone would have liked but every indication is things are moving in the right direction. Everyday brings more news of addtional military and political pressure on JAM. Sistani has quit them, Tehran has quit them (in the news only today told to leave Iran), the people in Basra in areas freed by the IA are quitting them, whose left? In a sense you are being proven right JAM is proving to be a unifying force with Sunnis, ie they are united in wanting its destruction as opposed to your extraordinary claim that the organisation that killed thousands of them with a bullet or electric drill to the head was “reaching out to them” successfully.

You are going to need an awful lot of luck for your vision of Iraq to come to fruition.

Just because the people are divided doesn’t prevent a war from being called a people’s war. Most people’s wars are in essence civil wars. Even the American War of Independence was a civil war wherein a large part of the white American population, most of the Indians and a sizeable part of the Black slave population supported and/or fought on the British side.

People’s war is just another name for guerrilla war or asymmetric war.

Your description above concentrates on Iraq from the point of view of the US Bush administration. There’s nothing wrong with that interest. I just happen to believe that the US has lost much of its momentum in Iraq. You are right. The US is groping for the handle to the exit door. Who does that leave in the fight?

People’s war arose in the era of decolonisation, but that does not mean that those techniques of fighting war are restricted to a struggle for decolonisation.

Take for example the Vendee (France) in the 1790s and the Cristero War in Mexico in the 1920s. Both of these were people’s wars, but neither of them had anything to do with decolonisation.

Iraq is the Lebanese Civil War on meth, fought on top of the world’s second largest oil reserves, awash in the castoffs of two armies. The sectarian divisions in Iraq cut so deep that the notion of a ‘people’s war’ is ridiculous. There isn’t a cohesive resistance movement fighting for national sovereignty, there are dozens fighting for a range of conflicting visions, shedding blood on nationalist, ethnic and sectarian lines.

In this envrionment the US is just another faction - the best armed and the least politically connected - trying to impose its vision (now heavily downward-revised) on a fractured, hollow state.

Your attempt to read the decolonisation struggles onto this situation is just going to result in endless goalpost-shifting and cavilling about Algeria, George Washington and Vo Ngyuen Giap, each clause taking you further and further from the real, non-abstract, non-ideological conflict in Iraq. In this you aren’t any different from the people you’re arguing with: neither of you are willing to discuss Iraq on its own terms, in its own context.

Katz - you are also placing a lot of faith iun the idea that every politician/group that found sanctuary in Iran during the Ba’Athist years is 100% within Tehran’s control. I think the more likely situation is they have sympathies that extend only so far.

Please point to the place where I asserted that Teheran exerted 100% control over anyone. If you can’t please discontinue your practice of putting words in my mouth.

You’ve also twisted my words on the IRA ie I was pointing out that it is desirable the IRA hand over its weapons and that makes it a better democracy.

You’re welcome to your opinion on this matter Kingsley. You seem to be unaware of the fact that Sinn Fein has five seats in the British Parliament that the party refuses to take up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_fein#Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament

You should therefore understand that the rapprochement of Sinn Fein with the UK is merely tactical. I don’t know whether Gerry Adams has done a wise thing or not in giving up his weapons. Only time will tell. Right now Sinn Fein appears to think that ballots are superior to bullets. But that is not always the case. The American revolutionaries famously resorted to the bullet. And I take it that you don’t think that that was “bad for democracy”.

Leinad,

Vietnam is simply one example among many of people’s war. Others have also been mentioned. It is helpful to understand what is going on in Iraq in that context.

Indeed I am. The quantity of factual material I’m not acquainted with is terrifyingly huge, Katz. That’s one of the main reasons I visit LP: I enjoy learning. And sometimes when I read something on LP that I disagree with, I say so. But not always. Sometimes I just STFU.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq ……..

Are you saying that a nation without armed militia organised on political (sectarian) or religious (sectarian) lines is more likely to be democratic?

Wash your mouth out, Kingsley. You appear to be at odds with Katz’s views on heroic People’s war…. but wait, the difficulty you find yourself in, may be due to an important principle you’ve not yet adopted: it is Katz [and of that ilk] who decides what constitutes a people’s war. Katz decides who are the liberators (in any given conflict) and who are the baddies. So would you please check with Katz, before you start assessing the groups and individuals participating in any serious civil conflict?

It’s only fair. Otherwise you might foolishly put forward your own opinions. In general, these are bound to be adjudged incorrect.

You’ve also twisted my words on the IRA ie I was pointing out that it is desirable the IRA hand over its weapons and that makes it a better democracy. If it is good for Nth Ireland it is good for Iraq. Whether Adams handed over out of strength or waekness is beside the point Do you think Nth Irelands democracy would be stengthened if the IRA kept its weapons?

I reckon if it’s OK for you to moralise endlessly on Iraq

Please produce examples of my moralising on Iraq. (Take care to understand what “moralise” means before engaging with your keyboard.)

Because I didn’t think the struggle he led resembled the other wars you cited. Elementary.

Elementary, perhaps. Incorrect, certainly.

You appear to be unacquainted with the deeds of Francis Marion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

John Stark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stark

And many more under Washington’s command.

These are archetypal deeds of people’s war. Indeed, the above-mentioned John Stark received his commission on the understanding that he would not be subject to orders from the Continental Army.

Well, thanks, maaaate. I reckon if it’s OK for you to moralise endlessly on Iraq, then it should be fine for others to opine on Ho/Viet Nam or Mao/China.

To paraphrase Churchill: “some barrel! some crackers!!!”

I’ll comment on your other stuff later, perhaps. Dunno.

All the very best to you and The Lads (Mao, Ho, Fidel)

*************************

Verb Practice:

I opine
You rant
He/she/it is ignorant

We pronounce
You(se) rant again
They are idiots

Why not?

In plain terms, a “leader” who uses this rhetoric, but subjugates “his People” to his whim, is a liar.

He is also a thief of the deepest hopes of the dispossessed and downtrodden. In that latter he should be condemned. He should especially be condemned by those whose Leftism is said (by them) to hold a special place for the powerless, poor, and disenfranchised. At least, that’s what I would expect and hope for.

Unless of course these Leftists were to be so enamoured of the rhetoric that it blinds them to the actual physical and social circumstances of those the “Leader” lorded it over.

I dunno, Katz…. whadayousereckon?

A prime exhibit of this incapacity:

If so, how many “people” must one muster before one is due the Honour of leading “the People”? And may one muster them at gunpoint? And is one permitteed to use whatever outside assistance: from USA, China, USSR etc while leading the People, and thereby winning the Katz Seal of Approval?

1. As for all wars there is such a thing as successful people’s war and there is such a thing as failed people’s war. Therefore, the answer to the “muster” is “sufficient for the task”.

2. Yes, soldiers have been dragooned into fighting for causes they don’t particularly believe in for thousands of years. This task is more difficult and more fraught for practitioners of people’s war because usually they are at a tactical disadvantage.

3. Practitioners of people’s war would be stupid to reject outside help. George Washington accepted aid from the French. OBL accepted aid from the US.

Not having a crackerbarrel close handy, I deny myself the comforting luxury of casting moral judgement.

I content myself with a study of what actually works rather than to imagine myself at St Peter’s side at the Pearly Gates, nudging him in the ribs when Washington, or Mao, or Ho turn up, saying, “But St Pete, maaaate. These coots fought people’s war. They can’t possibly be let into heaven!”

So he is capable of believing anything.

Directly put, but also ideationally flexible.

1. The cases gathered together here differ markedly. Discuss.

2. Who deserves the Mantle of “People’s War”? In the case of Ho, did he not spend some efort in liquidating other pro-independence nationalists, in the 40s? If so, how many “people” must one muster before one is due the Honour of leading “the People”? And may one muster them at gunpoint? And is one permitteed to use whatever outside assistance: from USA, China, USSR etc while leading the People, and thereby winning the Katz Seal of Approval? And if one may do all of those, in what sense is it really a War belonging to the People? Sounds more like a War belonging to the Party. Oh, no doubt the People play their part: someone has to do the trench-digging, the scouting, the shooting and the dying; the dragging huge guns to Dien Bien Phu, the maintaing the Trail, the dying, the starving, the shooting and tank driving, the dying, the spying, the hiding, the marching and tunnel-digging. Did I mention the dying?

People’s War? Piffle!