Although most people receiving this email would probably not care what some Australian followers of
Mao Tse Tung had to say about the war in Iraq, we must remember that the world is almost always
more complex than we know. So I thought you might like to read the article here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20469179-7583,00.html

It's an interesting take on what is going on. These people have a website (  http://www.lastsuperpower.net ) where you
can find more of their analysis. They are serious people and are worth reading.

(Some background may be useful: they emerged in the late 1960s, originating
at Australia's Monash University in Melbourne, and became the largest Maoist group in Australia.
They had real influence in the Building Workers Union, and still get in the news from time to time.)

In microcosm, this example shows that we are going to find, in the struggle for liberty in the world, some
unusual allies from time to time. Good. As we know from the history of the last fifty years, Marxists are not
creampuffs -- and if some of them want to fight against Islamic fundamentalism, we should welcome them,
while at the same time not giving any ground in the war of ideas.

I've added some comments to the excellent post linked here on "How Pakistan tortured my brother" from Let's take over

Should provide any Right wingers willing to talk with something to sink their teeth into.

It's fascinating that the email mentions that it is "unusual" that communists would fight "islamic fundamentalism".

Actually what's unusual is that the Right is fighting it. Its only a couple of decades ago that the CIA was funding the islamo-fascist terrorists that became Al Queda to the tune of a billion dollars with their Saudi allies providing another billion...

Communists in Afghanistan were largely wiped out by converging attacks from CIA supported warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar on the one hand and the Soviet social-fascist invaders on the other.

Hardly surprising that groups like RAWA who helped mobilize Western public opinion for getting rid of the Taliban regime and warned clearly that relying on other warlords instead of following a revolutionary democratic policy would not solve the problem are still pretty hostile as the Right finds its approach hasn't worked all that well there either.

Another possible area for discussion is the email's characterization of the enemy as "islamic fundamentalism". That also appears to be RAWA's position but I'd say the term "islamo-fascism" promoted by Christopher Hitchens and recently adopted by President Bush and used in kerry's article is better.

One aspect is that there is a necessary alliance with some islamists and islamic fundamentalists against islamo-fascism. The accommodation with fundamentalist warlords against islamo-fascists may be quite unproductive in Afghanistan but its quite clear that Shia islamist parties are a critical part of the united front in Iraq.

The more important reason is that it provides a transition towards recognizing a "War against tyranny" rather than a "War against terrorism".

The Right still hasn't bitten the bullet on Palestine. But there's no way to fight for "liberty" in the Middle East without actually blowing off tyrannical Israeli rule over the Palestinians and the tyrannical Mubarek dictatorship in Egypt. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are allies in that fight. Very problematic Right wing allies, just as problematic as the Bush administration

PS A local copy of kerry's excellent article is needed so links to it point directly here.

The main opposition to me staying here comes with figuring out how this board works...how do you put someone else's text in a quote box? I didn't see any buttons for that...that's my usual style of answering people...quote a paragraph of theirs and give my response...

"The left has been hijacked by shortsighted people who cling to failed policies of yesteryear. Many who have supported these lackeys are coming out of their slumber and realizing just what they have been supporting.

The lines are being drawn against islamo fascism and countries are slowly aligning for the final stages of this world war. Even Putin has made some statements with remarkable clarity in the past few days. T

This writer is correct in identifying the reason for our invasion of the Middle East and also correct in noting that we must defeat this enemy together, then maybe we can start up our democracy vs. Marxism war again. But for now we have a common enemy.

It's time to forget some of our differences and face our common enemy or we may not have the strength left with which to fight each other again."

One point of difference: I believe my fellow conservative appears to see the struggle as a conventional military one, country-to-country. Conservatives are most comfortable with this sort of warfare. But our enemies will not do us the favor of engaging in it. They are fighting in a different way.

One point of difference: I believe my fellow conservative appears to see the struggle as a conventional military one, country-to-country. Conservatives are most comfortable with this sort of warfare. But our enemies will not do us the favor of engaging in it. They are fighting in a different way.

For 60 years my country pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," Dr Rice told the hand-picked crowd at the American University in Cairo. "Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

Exactly - and we of the Right should be examining the behaviour and philosophies of the True Left, now they've been differentiated from the Moonbats. They've had the courage to examine "their own side" and criticise where criticism is due. We should do the same. If we're supposed to be the pragmatists, let us examine areas where our own cherished doctrines don't actually work, and if necessary, change them.

Doug, I agree with you on two levels here.

First of all, the 'traditional' US style of war - the massing of huge amounts of equipment and ordnance to deliver enormous firepower onto a given spot - is not that relevant in this war.

I agree with quicksilverhg that current US military doctrine is much closer to his description of it than is widely understood.

However that only helps in overthrowing the old regime without doing so much collateral damage that it wouldn't be seen as liberation.

It still doesn't amount to the sort of force posture and strategic doctrine required for an army fighting a revolutionary democratic war of liberation.

The results have been pretty bad as discussed in the Iraqi opinion polls linked in the topic Regime change not necessary?

Right wing leadership of the war was better than not going to war, which is what the pseudo-left wanted.

But that isn't saying much, nor is the fact that a modern army can quickly roll over a regime like Sadaam's.

In fact Right wing leadership has been so bloody appalling that there is now a majority who believes the liberaion of Iraq wasn't worth it in the US as well as in Europe and Australia.

That isn't decisive because a majority does believe it was worth it in Iraq. But a majority there reckons the US has done a very poor job of helping since liberation and even believes (wrongly in my view) that they would be better off if a short timetable was set for leaving.

Considering the sheer absurdity of the opposition positions, this isn't a record of achievement the Right should be boasting about.

We should all look to a future when every government respects the will of its citizens -- because the ideal of democracy is universal. For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

Securing these rights is the hope of every citizen, and the duty of every government. In my own country, the progress of democracy has been long and difficult. And given our history, the United States has no cause for false pride and we have every reason for humility.

After all, America was founded by individuals who knew that all human beings -- and the governments they create -- are inherently imperfect. And the United States was born half free and half slave. And it was only in my lifetime that my government guaranteed the right to vote for all of its people.

Nevertheless, the principles enshrined in our Constitution enable citizens of conviction to move America closer every day to the ideal of democracy. Here in the Middle East, that same long hopeful process of democratic change is now beginning to unfold. Millions of people are demanding freedom for themselves and democracy for their countries.

The Palestinian people have also spoken. And their freely-elected government is working to seize the best opportunity in years to fulfill their historic dream of statehood. Courageous leaders, both among the Palestinians and the Israelis, are dedicated to seeking that peace. And they are working to build a shared trust.

The Palestinian Authority will soon take control of the Gaza -- a first step toward realizing the vision of two democratic states living side by side in peace and security. As Palestinians fight terror, and as the Israelis fulfill their obligations and responsibilities to help create a viable Palestinian state, the entire world -- especially Egypt and the United States -- will offer full support.

In Iran, people are losing patience with an oppressive regime that denies them their liberty and their rights. The appearance of elections does not mask the organized cruelty of Iran’s theocratic state. The Iranian people, ladies and gentlemen, are capable of liberty. They desire liberty. And they deserve liberty. The time has come for the unelected few to release their grip on the aspirations of the proud people of Iran.

In Saudi Arabia, brave citizens are demanding accountable government. And some good first steps toward openness have been taken with recent municipal elections. Yet many people pay an unfair price for exercising their basic rights. Three individuals in particular are currently imprisoned for peacefully petitioning their government. That should not be a crime in any country.

Now, here in Cairo, President Mubarak’s decision to amend the country’s constitution and hold multiparty elections is encouraging. President Mubarak has unlocked the door for change. Now, the Egyptian Government must put its faith in its own people. We are all concerned for the future of Egypt’s reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy -- men and women -- are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees -- and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Across the Middle East today, millions of citizens are voicing their aspirations for liberty and for democracy. These men and women are expanding boundaries in ways many thought impossible just one year ago.

They are demonstrating that all great moral achievements begin with individuals who do not accept that the reality of today must also be the reality of tomorrow.

There was a time, not long ago, after all, when liberty was threatened by slavery.

The moral worth of my ancestors, it was thought, should be valued by the demand of the market, not by the dignity of their souls. This practice was sustained through violence. But the crime of human slavery could not withstand the power of human liberty. What seemed impossible in one century became inevitable in the next.

Today, liberty is threatened by undemocratic governments. Some believe this is a permanent fact of history. But there are others who know better. These impatient patriots can be found in Baghdad and Beirut, in Riyadh and in Ramallah, in Amman and in Tehran and right here in Cairo.

I wouldn't call it a "Council of War" since the left cannot contribute any significant troops and neither of us can have much direct influence on military strategy on the ground. But synergy between left and right positions could have a significant impact on the battle for public opinion in the West which has gone far worse than the war itself and is ultimately more decisive.

Put simply the Bushies and the Right have no significant credibility among a large and growing section of the people. The left is drowned out by the pseudo-left and consequently unable to influence that section at the moment. But by combining to present a position in support of the war that has wider appeal than that presented by the Bushies we could have a significant impact on public opinion.

The Bushies are stuck with their legacy of having lied about the central purpose of the war being to "disarm Sadaam" which dramatically reduces their credibility in saying it is now a war for democratic change throughout the region. The left has no such credibility gap since we opposed previous US policy of suppressing democracy throughout the region. We can explain "why we fight" more clearly and believably than Bush can.

It isn't necessary to explicitly target the Bushies propaganda line but merely to put forward another case that has wider appeal to sections that have rejected the Bush line.

Essentially the left's case for "democratic globalism" is as an end in itself (and necessary stage in further social change) rather than just the only plausible means for long term prevention of terrorist attacks. These two positions are perfectly compatible with each other.

Rightist triumphalism about how the US is the sole superpower aiming for global hegemony on the other hand directly undermines support for democratic globalism and drives people into the camps of the conservatives and liberals who fear imperial overeach and their allies the pseudo-left who pretend it is a war of aggression.

It looks highly likely that the Democrats will control the US House of Representatives at least and proceed with lots of hearings and subpoenas undermining the war effort. Ultimately this means the pro-war and anti-war wings of that party are likely to split before the next Presidential election safeguarding a Republican victory.

But it could make a big difference whether America remains polarized about the war as a result or unites for victory as a result.

We should work together on figuring out how to unite for victory. If left and right can unite here it can be done much more broadly.

Right wingers exposing the pseudo-left as appeasers and morons has nowhere near the impact of lefties doing that. Likewise Right wingers taking on the anti-war conservatives has more impact that lefties doing so.

Its really time to take the gloves off against the domestic opposition that is weakening the war effort and that can be done far more effectively on a united rather than a partisan basis.