Najaf to New York? Better: New York to Najaf.

Sadness. More sadness than anger is what overcame me when I read the latest Nation magazine column by Naomi Klein. I’ll grant it has a catchy title: “From Najaf to New York.” But this column by Klein, who has earned the admiration of a new generation of dissidents with a notable intellectual keen-ness, unwittingly reveals the moral confusion that clouds the vision, even the rationality, of much of the anti-war movement.

Make sure you click the link above to read her entire piece and to make sure I do it justice in this critique. (Please also read Norman Geras’ take on this column as well). I had several friends call me in disbelief when they read Klein's manifesto. I read it three times to make sure I got it right.

And, alas, I can only conclude that the column is a forthright apology for the religio-fascist militias of Muqtada Al Sadr. Indeed, it’s damn near a call for the peace movement to join in solidarity with his Mahdi Army.

Klein begins her argument by understandably recoiling at the thought of an all-out U.S. Army assault on Najaf and its holy shrines:

It's not just that sacred burial sites are being desecrated with fresh blood; it's that Americans appear unaware of the depths of this offense, and the repercussions it will have for decades to come. The Imam Ali Shrine is not a run-of-the-mill holy site; it's the Shiite equivalent of the Sistine Chapel.

True enough. But it’s Al Sadr’s forces, not U.S. troops, that have occupied the shrine for weeks, using it as a base and effectively holding it hostage. This is a mere quibble, however, compared to Klein’s central point:

And Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers are not just another group of generic terrorists out to kill Americans; their opposition to the occupation represents the overwhelmingly mainstream sentiment in Iraq. Yes, if elected Sadr would try to turn Iraq into a theocracy like Iran, but for now his demands are for direct elections and an end to foreign occupation.

I find these assertions, simply, astounding. Al Sadr’s group are, indeed, terrorists. Maybe not “generic” ones,. But certainly ultra-fundamentalist gangs. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that they represent the “mainstream sentiment” in Iraq. If so, then why has none other than Ayatollah Sistani (who now outflanks Naomi Klein on the left!) negotiated their disarmament? Most disturbing is the last line of this graph. Al Sadr’s ultimate goal, Klein concedes, is a “theocracy” but “for now” his demands are democratic because he’s for elections and he’s against the U.S. occupation. These twin assertions are so blatantly self-contradictory that it would be overkill to say anything more about them.

Klein should know better. All enemies of the U.S. occupation she opposes are not her friends. Or ours. Or those of the Iraqi people. I don’t think that Mullah Al Sadr, in any case, is much desirous of support issuing from secular Jewish feminist-socialists. And no one can provide any credible evidence that the Iraqis wish to trade the dictatorship of Saddam or the uncertainty of American Occupation for a religious dictatorship run by a black-shirt militia which has so far distinguished itself only for unbridled violence and its absolute contempt for civil society.

Klein, nevertheless, winds up demanding that the coming week’s peace marches bring “Najaf to New York.” What the hell does that mean? That peace marchers identify themselves as a domestic Mahdi Army resisting the forces of the American Empire? Should they also endorse Sharia – Islamic Law—while they’re at it?

When the Bolsheviks, if you should pardon the reference, took power in Russia in 1917, you will remember, they did so on a platform of peace. Though they had just overthrown the ancien regime which was at war with the Kaiser’s Germany, they did not, however, rush to embrace the Germans as Lenin settled into the Winter Palace. “Neither nor war—nor peace” was the watchword under which the Bolshies entered into truce talks with the Germans i.e. we oppose this war, but we'll be damned if we are going to go supine before our old enemy's enemy, the Kaiser. (Realpolitik soon intervened, of course, and a humiliating peace was signed with the Germans but the original formulation was wonderful).

Truly distressing is that there is at least an embryonic secular Left in Iraq but it continues to be ignored by Klein and just about the entirety of the Western peace movement, for that matter. Iraqi democrats and socialists make no illusions about the character of American occupation, but they have even less truck with Al Sadr’s death squads.

Take a look, for example. at this posting from a represenative of the Iraqi Workers Communist Party (a major force in the new trade union movement) who, during Al Sadr’s April “uprising” against U.S. troops, forthrightly describes his Mahdi Army as a “criminal gang” made up, in part, of former Baathists who think nothing of using human shields.

Free of Klein’s naivete, this Iraqi leftist correspondent correctly identifies the politics of Al Sadr for what they are. Not crude, desperate nationalists fighting the Yankee oppressor… but rather a cat’s paw for the neighboring Iranian Mullahs:

The hallmark of this battle was recklessness toward human lives by both sides; the primary victims of this battle were women and children…On the one hand, we see the Mahdi Army and the militiamen of other Islamic groups seizing residential areas as trenches for their “holy” fight. They turn women and children into human shelters. On the other hand, we see the US troops using Apache helicopters, F16 and F18, tanks, and other highly sophisticated weaponry to attack these residential areas….

.. A significant portion of Muqtada al-Sadr’s group was formed from remnants of the Baath party, Saddam’s Fedayeen, as well as other Baathist oppressive apparatus. By joining the al-Sadr’s group, these criminals take shelter from the revenge of the people. Many criminals released by the Baath regime just before the war have also joined this militia….

…The vast majority of the remaining portion is comprised of poor, deprived, desperate, and unemployed youth from the poorest slums of Baghdad and other central and southern cities. They have joined to secure a livelihood, since Islamists are masters at exploiting destitution and pay generously for the loyalty of desperate youth. These Islamists also exploit the superstition and reactionary thoughts that have been reinforced in society during last decade…

...The vast majority has good military training, either during Saddam’s regime or recently through training by Iranian intelligence in camps close to the border. Iran strongly supports this group as part of its conflict with the US. Iran’s main objective is to destabilize Iraq and to create enough problems in Iraq to keep the US busy there….

Despite the vociferous claims of this group, it does not have significant support among the people of Iraq. Furthermore, it is generally resented by the population - not only because it deliberately transferred its terrorist war with the US to residential areas, and thus embroiled innocent people in this fight, but also due to the deeds it committed during the last year. The vast majority of people see this group as a criminal gang rather than a political group.

In another posting from this same Iraqi leftist group, our correspondent explains why foreign leftist support for the “armed resistance” is so terribly misplaced and misguided:

There are other arguments for ignoring the reactionary nature of the "armed resistance" and consequently neglecting to provide real solidarity to the Iraqi workers' movement. The main argument is that the USA is so much greater an evil that all mobilisation must be directed against the USA and its allies.

The USA may be a greater evil in the sense that it has such vast military power and potential to intervene almost anywhere on the planet, supporting any kind of hideous dictators that will accommodate their interests. But the Islamists are a greater evil in a different sense.

For workers, socialists and any oppositionists, every moment of public life is potentially dangerous if they do not submit. For women every moment of public and private life is potentially dangerous with the added power of men in the family backed by Sharia law.

It is not only pointless, it is not moral to rate the evil that we will choose as greater or lesser amongst these two. To choose the "armed resistance" as the lesser evil, is to say that if the people of Iraq must suffer the risk of Islamist rule, then that is the price they pay for thwarting US imperialism in Iraq to the benefit of anyone else threatened by the USA.

Another argument is that to condemn the Islamists is to logically have to support the occupation. This is again the logic of "lesser evilism" and "two camps". If we recognise that the Iraqi working class and other secular forces are struggling to assert themselves in Iraq, then there is a third way, that is neither the "armed resistance" nor the US occupation.

Well, I couldn’t have said it better, though I could have said it with a bit less cant. But the main point bears repeating: Nothing – not even the U.S. Army—more threatens the future of a democratic, pluralistic and (dare we wish, secular) Iraq than the political ascendancy of Islamic fascists like Al Sadr.

Naomi Klein knows better than to pander to these sorts. “Bringing Najaf to New York” is not only a non-sensical equation, it’s a morally offensive one. If the people of Najaf and Iraq could aspire sometime in the near future to an enth of the personal and political and religious and sexual and workplace freedoms enjoyed by New Yorkers how terribly much better they would be.

Better to bring New York to Najaf.

That is not a clouded reference, by the way, to bringing democracy on the point of an American bayonet. I have opposed this war from the beginning. It’s rather a desire that Iraqis, beyond the likes of Bush and Al Sadr, find a humane future.

And none of the above critique impugns any of the affection or admiration that I retain for Naomi. She is a fine person with a fine mind. She's just dead wrong on this one.

.

Comments

[james]

Get with the times Cooper...

www.bigleftoutside.com

[Tom Grey]

Bravo, Marc. You're absolutely right:
"Nothing – not even the U.S. Army—more threatens the future of a democratic, pluralistic and (dare we wish, secular) Iraq than the political ascendancy of Islamic fascists like Al Sadr."

It struck in reading the comments that you, and many Leftists, fail to see that secularism comes AFTER a market oriented economy has both created lots of wealth AND has made "the customer, king". The kingship feelings of buyers, and their reduced acceptance of religious restrictions, is not well understood, nor talked about. Iraq will NOT be secular as long as they stay poor.

Some commenters are pretty irresponsible to call for the US to cut out before the Iraqi Police are able to handle most crimes, themselves. And it's terrible to want the US out of there before the Iraqis have elections -- which would allow the terrorists with the most guns and ruthlessness to dominate.

[Wagner James Au]

We should be very clear about the kind of people Naomi Klein is being so sentimental about:

"One of Moqtada’s aides, Hazem al-Araji, delivered the sermon... in front of the crowd of worshippers outside the shrine, Araji let loose an incendiary and conspiracy-laced analysis of the violence in Iraq. The attacks came from four sources, he declared, none of them Iraqi or Muslim: it was the Jews, the Americans, the British, and the Wahhabi. The Jews-- who had been warned to stay away from the World Trade Center on September 11th, so that not one Jew died--'want Iraqis to die.'"

For Sadr to succeed in Iraq would not just mean an Iranian-style theocracy. It would in all likelihood mean leaving the small community of Iraqi Jews to the same fate as Nick Berg. But hating the American Army and George W. Bush is far more important to Klein, so remanding their fate to yet one more Arabic *kristalnacht* is a small price to pay.

[Tom Grey]

See Norm's note on Humanizing Hitler, its necessity for understanding, and its danger in forgiveness.

His point is valid here, too.
"Understanding", in PC talk, does mean forgiveness.
If anybody is human, tolerance demands understanding, demands forgiveness.
Therefore, to avoid forgiveness, demonization is required, and ONLY demonization is allowed.

This explains the "Bush = Hitler" demonization, despite Bush's huge increase in gov't spending on everything.

[Josh Legere]

Mr. Cooper was right on the money! So was Todd Gitlin's recent piece in The Nation. Todd took Naomi to task on Democracy Now a few days ago. She and Pacifica for that matter are living in an insane world. Sadr is not a "misquided anti-imperialist." She is ruining The Nation. It doesn't need another Alexander Cockburn!

[steve]

So was Todd Gitlin's recent piece in The Nation. Todd took Naomi to task on Democracy Now a few days ago.

--really? I thought gitlin did a pretty weak job of defending his position. he misrepresents the effect of the 68 police riot on the election and klein made a very persuasive argument against Gitlin's wish that no one protest. In fact, it turns out that Gitlin's predictions of anarchist catastrophe turned out to be way way off. The biggest march went off very well, nothing like what Gitlin or the police were telling us was going to happen.

[steve]

It struck in reading the comments that you, and many Leftists, fail to see that secularism comes AFTER a market oriented economy has both created lots of wealth AND has made "the customer, king".

--hmmm...you mean like in China? Odd, I see more religious belief than ever in China with the advent of markets. superstition seems to rise with markets in countries like Russia and much of Eastern Europe...
ah yes, the market is not king enough...but then again, ok, let's see, the US versus Europe. I think, though I might be mistaken, Americans are perhaps slightly or a whole lot more superstitious than Euros? And religion impacts politics in the US a whole lot more. A very powerful theory you have there Tom.

[Josh Legere]

Tom Grey is obviously is holding onto his New Left delusions about 68. It was the end of American liberalism. Do you not see the correlation between New Left indulgences and the ascendancy of conservatism?

Guess what. Regular working people are not impressed by giant puppets held by people on stilts holding "fuck bush" banners.

The protest may not have been mayhem but it didn't make a damn bit of difference. Bush had a much bigger spike than Kerry and at this point has it pretty much has the election won. Unfortunately the protesters with "bush = Hitler" banners only gave the Republicans more votes. I guess you will not realize this until the day after he wins. Step aside New Left relic.

[Josh Legere]

My above comments are directed at STEVE not Tom Grey. My mistake and apology to Mr. Grey for the confusion.

Guess what. Regular working people are not impressed by giant puppets held by people on stilts holding "fuck bush" banners.

--you mean the NYC labor activists that were at the protests were holding banners saying 'fuck bush'? I thought they were holding banners about health care, protecting union rights, overtime pay,...I guess we were watching a different march.
----------------------------------
Unfortunately the protesters with "bush = Hitler" banners only gave the Republicans more votes.

--now i know we were watching very different marches. i'm reminded of the predictions of mass 'anarchist' chaos before the march on NYC. ho hum.

[steve]

By the way Mr. Legere, I'm curious your take on Mr. Grey's bizarre theory about markets and secularism. Your wierd attack on the protests seems like a non-sequitor.

[Josh Legere]

I do not agree with much of anything on Mr. Grey's blog or his post.

I guess we were watching a different protest. But anyone reading this can go to CSPAN online and check it out.

Are you actually going to pretend that the sectarian nuts and trust fund anarchists were not out in full force? Was the march not organized by ANSWER (a WWP front group) and United for Peace and Justice (a RCP front group)? Did the black block not burn down a puppet or have a “man in black bloc” protest at a party celebrating the life of Johnny Cash? Did the ruckus society not organize a "critical mass" bike protest? Yes labor did have a presence at the protest but you surely know that the "Osama is a misguided anti-imperialist" and the "bush is Hitler, end capitalism, racism, war, and free mumia” crowd were the overwhelming majority.

The protest did nothing except satisfy the righteousness on many on the left.

[steve]

I guess we were watching a different protest. But anyone reading this can go to CSPAN online and check it out.

--I did watch CSPAN. I saw a pretty middle class group of protestors by and large, probably largely New Yorkers and folks from the tristate area, with help from thousands outside that area surely. I wasn't really impressed until I saw the thousand coffins, I thought that was a well thought out tactic.
----------------------------------
Are you actually going to pretend that the sectarian nuts and trust fund anarchists were not out in full force?

--so? Are you saying they made up the large majority of the protestors? Watch Cspan again, it's pretty clear that that wasn't the case. Even CNN was featuring couples with children at the protest. If they can see them, you should be able to too, no?
------------------------------
Was the march not organized by ANSWER (a WWP front group) and United for Peace and Justice (a RCP front group)?

--no, this wasn't ANSWER's protest and UPJ is noone's front group. I haven't even heard that from the usual left bashers like Gitlin et al. Then again, throw that one by him, next time the NYT needs someone to trash a protest before it happens, he can use that claim.
--------------------------
Did the black block not burn down a puppet or have a “man in black bloc” protest at a party celebrating the life of Johnny Cash?

--i'd put my money on police provacateurs. what was remarkable about that event was how well it was handled as an *oddity* at a well organized peaceful antiwar demo.
--------------------------
es labor did have a presence at the protest but you surely know that the "Osama is a misguided anti-imperialist" and the "bush is Hitler, end capitalism, racism, war, and free mumia” crowd were the overwhelming majority.

--I watched CSPAN pretty carefully, I doubt what you say is based on much more than preconceived notions. On the other hand, my parents, who have never gone to a demo, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, served in the army, middle class suburbanites watched the demo on CSPAN and were impressed by how much the demonstrators looked a lot like them and their neighbors in comfortable western Philly suburbs. And that was how the march was reported in the mainstream media by and large too.

[Michael Turner]

Josh Legere: "Yes labor did have a presence at the protest but you surely know that the "Osama is a misguided anti-imperialist" and the "bush is Hitler, end capitalism, racism, war, and free mumia” crowd were the overwhelming majority."

I doubt that there are 100,000 people in all of America matching those descriptions. (For "Osama misguided anti-imperialist," can it really exceed the low four figures?) And I really doubt that they all went to New York. And I think 100,000 is what you'd need to talk about a majority of protesters - forget "overwhelming majority."

One of the largest peace demonstrations resulting in mass arrests in my hometown of Berkeley during the Vietnam War was composed much as Steve describes. The media - whether Right or Left - will pick out what's conspicuous, and let's face it: most people aren't very conspicuous, and a thrown rock, or a man on stilts with weird makeup is.

Most of the protestors were probably New Yorkers. Most New Yorkers are Democrats (maybe 5/6ths.) New York has maybe 6 million people. So that's 5 million Democrats (and more leftward-leaning types) to choose from. So for 200,000 people to be "overwhelmingly" in the majority as described above, you've got to assume that maybe one out of every 30 New Yorkers is inclined to believe that Osama bin Laden really isn't so bad (hm, after he attacked their city?) and that Bush is morally equivalent to Hitler, and that this 1-out-of-30 crowd managed to alienate almost anyone else who'd otherwise be inclined to march.

New York's a crazy place, no doubt, but I have trouble seeing it as THAT crazy.

Here is the structure the argument coming from people like Klein, as I understand it:

1. US troops are after al Sadr's guys
2. al Sadr's guys are hiding in the Imam Ali Shrine
3. this shrine is hugely important to Shiite Islam
---
thus: the US should be blamed for any harm or disrespect the shrine may face

When clarified, isn't this a pretty unconvincing argument? Blaming US troops because the Sadrists are hiding in the important shrine is like blaming the Russian authorities (*morally*, not just in terms of failing to provide better security) for Breslan.

Actually, that's not quite right. If the shrine is so important to Shiites, then al Sadr’s actions are comparable to putting *his own civilians* in harm’s way. On the Shiites terms, if this shrine is really so important, then Sadr's act of placing his men inside is morally analogous to Saddam’s old practice of placing military targets next to children's hospitals. If human shields are killed, the moral blame goes to the one who hides behind them.

[steve]

thus: the US should be blamed for any harm or disrespect the shrine may face

--you left out one critical fact of, well some might say monumental importance: Iraq is occupied by the US, whose leader thought invading Iraq would help his reelection chances.
--------------------------
Blaming US troops because the Sadrists are hiding in the important shrine is like blaming the Russian authorities (*morally*, not just in terms of failing to provide better security) for Breslan.

--not a few Russians are saying that, in addition to the utterly unnecessary level of warfare its conducting against Chechnyans in Chechnya. But, hey, why negotiate with evildoers, eh?
----------------------
the shrine is so important to Shiites, then al Sadr’s actions are comparable to putting *his own civilians* in harm’s way. On the Shiites terms, if this shrine is really so important,

--yada yada. I thought you prowar folk thought Shiites were the good guys and the sunnis were the evildoers?

[Josh Legere]

ANSWER and the WWP

read this by David Corn
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php

They are indeed front groups for relexive Anti-American sectarians. I am against this war. I also against those that believe that Bush is more dangerous than Jihadists. Logic is out the door with Sectarian groups and anarchists. The NY protests were a convergence of all the nuts and many decent folks as well. The decent folks were a minority to the "bush is hitler" crowd. Most New Yorkers left the city.

For info on ANSWER, WWP, UFPJ
read Corn and Cooper
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021223&s=exchange

Katha Pollit
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030210&s=pollitt

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6024

[steve]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php

--please, stick to your original claim that UPJ was a front organization, that is what I disagreed with.
-----------------------
The NY protests were a convergence of all the nuts and many decent folks as well. The decent folks were a minority to the "bush is hitler" crowd. Most New Yorkers left the city.

--you need to read your NYTimes more carefully. Then you might want to read the Boston Globe, which was very critical of the NY police overreaction to the NYC protests. Now, if the Boston Globe can see this, why is it so hard for an opponent of the war to see it? And might I suggest you reread Pollit, she seems to be making the point in support of my view of UPFJ.
As for ANSWER, heck, they're not that much different from people like Cooper or Totten really, they don't like anarchists popping up and acting unpredictably, 'irresponsibly', etc. Actually you and ANSWER would probably see eye to eye on the question of bizarre behavior at protests.
As for Front Page, lol...

[dc]

I'm surprised no-one seems to have noticed that Klein grossly misrepresents Major Glenn Butler's views. Butler says (http://www.iht.com/articles/535312.html, emphasis added):

"The forces we’re fighting *around* *Iraq* are a conglomeration of *renegade* *Shiites*, former Baathists, Iranians, Syrians, terrorists with ties to Ansar al-Islam and Al-Qaeda, petty criminals, destitute citizens looking for excitement or money, and yes, even few frustrated Iraqis who worry about Wal-Mart culture infringing on their neighborhood."

and Klein says:

"The helicopter pilot blithely dismisses his enemies as foreign fighters and ex-Baathists and "a few frustrated Iraqis who worry about Wal-Mart culture infringing on their neighborhood. It's hard to know where to begin. The Mahdi Army that Butler is attacking is made up of Iraqi citizens, not foreigners. They are not Baathists; they were the most oppressed under Saddam's regime and cheered his overthrow."

Butler is clearly describing the nature of resistance around Iraq, not just in Najaf, and if the Mahdi army aren't "renegade Shiites" I don't know who is.

[steve]

and if the Mahdi army aren't "renegade Shiites" I don't know who is.

--what then are the Marines?

[Josh Legere]

To compare ANSWER to Cooper or myself it a slander. Are the Black Bloc a benefit to the protests? Really?

How can you not acknowledge the negative consequences of ANSWER, Not in Our Name, and UPJ play in organizing these events?

I have heard ANSWER speakers defend Milosevic (along with Michael Parenti) at a "peace" rally leading up to the Kosovo intervention.

I heard a speaker at an ANSWER march in Long Beach praise Hussein for nationalizing oil for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

It goes on and on. How can you not see the danger of this?

Do you not have the sense to see that regular working people are turned off by black bloc dummies throwing rocks through starbucks windows? Your solidarity for them is pathetic.

They are all self indulgent (probably like yourself). It is about being self righteous. It is NOT about trying to organize a democratic left opposition to the current administration.

My god when will people like yourself notice that you live in La La land compared to the average working person!

It is sad to see the left and fine publications like The Nation turn into wacky voices in the wilderness because of a lack of humility
.

Mr. Walzer sums it up best.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2002/sp02/decent.shtml

[steve]

To compare ANSWER to Cooper or myself it a slander. Are the Black Bloc a benefit to the protests? Really?

--nope, and you, marc, and ANSWER would agree about that. In fact, I would be with you all on that one too. The rest of your stuff is just a rhetorician's ploy at avoiding the facts about the NYC march. Your fantasy that it was organized by ANSWER or that it was full of hippies, anarchists, flower children, terrorists, terrorist symps, sex maniacs, etc.... warning: sarcasm. Seriously, you overdose on your fears of the 'wierdos' and can't even come to recognise what a tepid liberal newspaper of record like the Boston Globe recognises, the police overreacted and the protesters at the big march were representative of a cross section of New Yorkers and America.
-----------------------

[Tom Grey]

Josh, glad you saw it's not me; but you disagree with me, yet no argument? I'm interested in your historical examples of poor, non-religious / secular folk who have created economically successful, human rights respecting democracies?

I claim poor people need religion as a moral anchor, or else they'll be stuck with some Great Leader espousing sacrifice of the individual for the Great Cause. And they'll get lots of individuals sacrificed.

Basing morals in religion is prolly as necessary as "rule of law" for civilization, in practice.

The Left is running out of proletariat to rescue and ally with, preparing for the big day of Revolution!, so I guess Muqty and his thugs will have to do.

[Marc Cooper]

To Josh: Thanks for ur fresh voice. Keep posting! MARC