The following was a contribution from Kosta Harlan, Students for a Democratic Society, at a program on the Iraq war organized by the People’s Organization for Progress in Newark, NJ on October 18. The program was titled “Which way to peace in Iraq?”

Is Bush on the path to victory in Iraq?

In a word: no. That’s simple enough. The whole world can see the occupation’s days are numbered. But it’s not enough to know the government’s cause is unjust or that the occupation is failing. We need to understand why. Click here to read more...

A friend passed the following New York Times article along with some commentary, including the following:

the same companies that "lost" Iraq 36 years ago are getting it back...We also see the real reason why Saddam is the devil. A former Exxon chairman says, "We were part of the consortium [the Iraq Petroleum Company], the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out."

NY Times article link

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry. Click here to continue reading...

After a bit of a break from blogging, Comrade Zero over at The Marxist-Leninist blog is back and has published a nice collection of articles, statements and interviews that argue that it is important to raise political understanding of and political support for the Iraqi resistance within the anti-war movement. It is quite a good collection of materials brought together in one place. Check out the collection here: Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!

There has been an uptick in news and information coming from the Iraqi resistance recently. Much of it relates to the coming together of new 'fronts' that group together various resistance organizations around common goals of national liberation. This is a very good development. It also forces the left in the West to more squarely come to grips with their attitude toward and line on the Iraqi resistance.

First I'll draw your attention to a new documentary called Meeting Resistance. The synopsis on the movie's website reads:

What would you do if your country was invaded? MEETING RESISTANCE raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and documenting for the very first time, the sentiments experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when their homeland is occupied. Voices that have previously not been heard, male and female, speak candidly about their motivations, hopes and goals, revealing a kaleidoscope of human perspectives. Featuring reflective, yet fervent conversations with active insurgents, MEETING RESISTANCE is the missing puzzle piece in understanding the Iraq war. Directed by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham, this daring, eye-opening film provides unique insight into the personal narratives of people involved in the resistance, exploding myth after myth about the war in Iraq and the Iraqis who participate. Through its unprecedented access to these clandestine groups, MEETING RESISTANCE focuses the spotlight on the "other side," leaving the viewer with clarity as to why the violence in Iraq continues to this day.

Check here to see if it's playing near you anytime soon.

Also, Workers World reports this week on a meeting in Spain where Abu Muhammed, a spokesperson for both the post-invasion Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Iraq and for the Supreme Command of the Front for Struggle [Jihad] and Liberation in Iraq (FSL), participated in interviews about the Iraqi resistance. They reprint information from his talk, which speaks of the accomplishments and the growing political unity among resistance forces.

There is more to talk about, but that's a start for now while I have a few minutes to write.

This is a statement reprinted from Campo antiimperialista and also online at O.U.R.A.I.M..

I don't know much about this organization, but for what it's worth here's the wikipedia entry. It's in everyone's interest to gain a better understanding of the Iraqi resistance, which is defeating the most powerful military on the planet. Continue reading...

In the four years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, public debate within the U.S. antiwar movement on whether to support the Iraqi resistance has rarely taken place. Consequently the recent polemic between Alexander Cockburn and Phyllis Bennis (a leader in the United for Peace and Justice Coalition) is an extremely positive development and should be welcomed. It is an important debate that needs to take place at all levels within the U.S. antiwar movement.

Some weeks ago Alexander Cockburn wrote of the need for the U.S. antiwar movement to openly support the resistance ("Support their troops?", CounterPunch). In her reply, "Why the Anti-War Movement Doesn't Embrace the Iraqi Resistance", Bennis correctly argues that the basis of unity in the movement should not be "Victory to the resistance", but the demand "Troops out now". But Bennis goes further and argues that anti-imperialists have no responsibility to raise support for the Iraqi resistance. Bennis says that the Iraqi resistance is illegitimate (with some arrogance, she refers to the Iraqi resistance in quotation marks) and is therefore undeserving of support. This conclusions rests on a number of erroneous arguments, concentrated here in one paragraph of her article:

Click here to continue reading...

Insurgents form political front to plan for US pullout

Leaders of Iraqi groups say attacks will go on until Americans leave

Seumas Milne in Damascus

Thursday July 19, 2007

The Guardian

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian. read more...

From Fight Back News Service:

The time is now
Not one more dollar for war on Iraq

By Fight Back! editors

In the face of recent moves by Democrats in Congress, the anti-war movement needs to reject both fuzzy timelines and continued funding for the war in Iraq. We need to insist on the demand, "U.S. out now!" Nothing less will do.

There has been a lot of confusion as of late over war funding bills passed in the House and the Senate which include 'timelines' for U.S. troop withdrawal. Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrats in Congress are trying to convince the majority of Americans that they are taking steps to end the war. This is a lie.

Pelosi's House bill calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by September 2008. However this same bill allows troops to remain in Iraq for "diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations and training of Iraqi Security Forces...", leaving over 60,000 troops to continue the occupation indefinitely. The Senate passed a similar bill, with a March 2008 date for troop withdrawal. The Democrats are well aware that they were elected in November because the American people voted against the war. People voted for an end to the war on Iraq.

Over 655,000 Iraqis and 3200 Americans have been killed already in this war. And every day the war continues, more Iraqis and more American soldiers die. Not one more death is acceptable. These so-called timelines do not end the war. Instead, these congressional bills extend the war for at least 12 to 18 months, with full funding, into 2009.

Not only does Pelosi's bill allow a large number of troops to stay in Iraq, it also gives $124 billion more to fund the occupation. Any vote to fund the war is not a vote to end the war. On top of that money, the 2008 budget contains another $145 billion for the war, including $50 billion to go towards the war in fiscal year 2009. How can Congress say they are planning to end the war in 2008 when they are already setting money aside to fund it in 2009? They can't. Approving money for war is supporting the war. Everyone who is against the war should demand that Congress end all funding of the occupation. Not one more dollar is acceptable.

We must reject U.S. government lies that, "U.S. troops are necessary to control the violence." The U.S. led occupation is the main cause of killing and destruction. In fact the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq gave rise to a national liberation movement that will not rest until Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis.

Funding the war for months or years longer is no solution. It is a recipe for more death and destruction. Both the House and Senate bills continue an unjust war and provide loopholes for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq long after September 2008. We must stand together in opposing the U.S. government's aims of creating permanent military bases, with U.S. soldiers stationed in a country where they are not wanted.

It is not the place of the Bush administration or the U.S. Congress to decide the future of Iraq. The right to self-determination means that only the Iraqi people should decide the future of their government and their country. Progressives in the U.S. should stand in solidarity with the demands of the Iraqi people - the vast majority of whom want the U.S. out. Therefore timelines that promise away Iraqi land for U.S. bases or allow the troops to stay in Iraq for any longer must be rejected by the anti-war movement.

No one should be deceived by empty promises and twisted words. While it is ultimately the Iraqi resistance that will defeat the occupation, the anti-war movement can hasten this process along if we unite all who can be united around strong and clear demands. Every person against the war on Iraq should support the self-determination of the Iraqi people and demand, "No money for war! U.S. out now!"

Last weekend in Chianciano, Italy, a very interesting international conference took place: With the Resistance for a Just Peace in the Middle East. This was the second try to hold this conference to bring together leaders of the resistance movements in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, along with Western anti-imperialist activists. The first try in 2005 was thwarted when the U.S. government pressured Italy to deny visas to the Iraqis who planned to come to the conference. This time the organizers pulled it off. The conference website lists the speakers and workshops at the conference. And the final resolution of the conference lays out what was discussed and the political importance of the gathering.

Though there has been precious little media attention to this historic conference, one source that brings a first-hand perspective from a participant in the conference is Fight Back News. Kosta Harlan writes in Voices of the Iraqi Resistance: Leaders of the Iraqi National Resistance Speak at an International Solidarity Conference about the political ground that was covered at the conference, and the crucial understanding that it the Iraqi resistance that has struck a vital blow against the U.S. imperialism's plans for domination of the Middle East, and against U.S. imperialism's overall global plan.

Click here to read the Fight Back article about the conference...

This is reprinted from Fight Back Newspaper:

'Out of Iraq Now'
Response to Bush's State of Union Speech

Jess Sundin is a leading member of Freedom Road Socialist Organization. She traveled to Iraq in 1998 and has played a important role in the Twin Cities anti-war movement since then. We interviewed her after the State of the Union address, where President Bush attempted to bolster support for his plans to expand the war in Iraq.

Fight Back!: What is Bush’s strategy for Iraq and what do you expect to happen next?

Jessica Sundin: In four years U.S. troops have failed to secure the Iraqi capitol city of Baghdad. Thousands of military checkpoints haven’t stopped the Iraqi resistance. Every month more U.S. soldiers are killed; now a total of 3050 are dead. As many as 655,000 Iraqis have been killed. Baghdad is so out of control that it could cause the weak U.S. hold on Iraq could fall apart.

President Bush’s new strategy will try to turn this around. The plan is to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad. Troops will raid civilian neighborhoods and set up military bases and check points in cleared-out areas. New resources will go to reinforce the Iraqi army and joint operations with U.S. and Iraqi forces. 4000 U.S. troops will be deployed to the Anbar province, a stronghold of the patriotic Iraqi resistance.

The U.S. military will not win the battle for Baghdad or Anbar. Instead, the trend of insurgent attacks will grow, as occupation forces engage insurgent strongholds and attempt to set up bases of operations in the areas where Iraqis are most strongly opposed to the U.S. presence. U.S. forces will fail to deliver on promises of greater security in Baghdad, as they turn more civilian neighborhoods into hot battlegrounds.

Bush called this plan as a “surge” and said Iraqi forces could take over Baghdad by November. There is no reason to believe the massive troop increase - from around 140,000 to over 160,000 - will be short-term. Instead we should understand this is an escalation of the war in Iraq and it is a desperate strategy doomed to failure. The Bush plan will bring more violence to Iraq and Iraqis will only fight harder to throw out the occupying U.S. army.

Fight Back!: Many voters saw the last election as a referendum on the war and voted against Bush. Now Bush is doing the opposite of what they voted for. Why?

Sundin: Since Bush announced the increased troop deployment, polls have shown that as many as 70% of Americans oppose his new plan. Most think the plan will fail and instead want U.S. troops to leave Iraq. According to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Bush’s overall approval rating has dropped to a new low: 34%. Even so, Bush dismisses all criticism of his plan, whether from the public, Congress or his own military.

Bush’s policy objectives in Iraq are not concerned with his own popularity or with democracy. The policy is aimed simply at defending the interests of U.S. political, economic and military empire. Again and again, Bush has told us that if the U.S. leaves Iraq in defeat, it will only encourage anti-American extremists throughout the world. Bush is not talking about another 9/11 attack. He’s talking about the threat posed by Iraq once again rising to be truly independent of U.S. imperialism.

Fight Back!: Politically, how do you see the debate on the war unfolding over the next few months?

Sundin: From Congress, we can expect toothless criticism of the war and no real commitment to stopping it. There may be resolutions adopted that say the so-called surge is a bad plan; there may be calls for a timeline to end the war or plans to redeploy or reorganize the troops stationed in Iraq; a few politicians may even vote against funding the war. Some of these efforts may even be bipartisan, but they will all avoid the heart of the matter: Neither Democrats nor Republicans will confront the Bush administration and demand that all the U.S. troops get out of Iraq now.

The stance of the Democratic Party is stated very clearly by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She said Congress would vote for resolutions opposing Bush’s new Iraq war strategy, but, “Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm’s way.”

Fight Back!: What do you think are the tasks of the anti-war movement this spring?

Sundin: The anti-war movement must demand that all U.S. troops get out of Iraq now. ‘Out now’ means ‘out now’ and this needs to be the basis of unity for our movement. We should not accept timelines for withdrawal, redeployment or any plan that falls short of an immediate and total end to the occupation. Some argue that Iraqis will fight each other if we leave, but Iraqis are fighting now. Every day, patriotic forces that oppose the occupation and represent that vast majority of Iraqi people are fighting for their lives against the occupation forces and its handful of traitorous Iraqi supporters. When the occupation ends, this conflict will end too.

This is a brutal war. The anti-war movement should stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people and denounce atrocities and crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq. These will get worse now that Bush has lifted restrictions on U.S. troops in Iraq - and the new forces will operate almost entirely in civilian areas. We say no to every murder and abuse of unarmed civilians; no to the imprisonment of tens of thousands of Iraqis without charge; no to the environmental devastation caused by weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous; no to a fake Iraqi democracy based on religions divisions and led by an illegitimate puppet government.

The anti-war movement must be a voice for the millions who voted against the war. The majority was with us at the ballot box last November. Now we must to bring them with us into the streets. When Congress fails to stand up to President Bush and his war, we must work to build a bigger, stronger and more militant anti-war movement.

While U.S. troops are bogged down in Iraq, the Bush administration is eyeing a bigger prize; they want to reshape the entire Middle East. Within the anti-war movement, we need to answer this by opposing U.S. threats against Iraq’s neighbors, U.S. aid to reactionary governments throughout the Middle East U.S. support for the 59-year Israeli occupation of Palestine.