It’s clear that the Lastsuperpower ‘drain the swamp’ line has not penetrated any measurable level of the public conscience. I’m not really surprised by this, given the way the war has panned out. It’s more complex than expected by the bungling US leadership, the WMD excuse for war they ran with became a fiasco, and the abuse of prisoners further discredited the war. 

However, I can detect a very small degree of penetration at the level of commentators and analysts, and I think that a collapse of, ‘this war is about oil’ reasoning is central to this breakthrough.

All talk of an Iraqi quagmire, as has now become quite common among both opponents, and supporters of the war, ultimately incorporates the thought that there is no way that the US can stay in Iraq indefinitely nicking oil. 

Opponents could assume that Bush and Co., naively believed it was possible and that they have now been taught a lesson, but it’s just not credible.  There is no direct theft possible as in bygone eras. Equally, there was, and is, no hope of any installed puppet being tolerated by the Iraqi people.  Such imagined puppets could never successfully thieve oil revenues and hand them over to the US ruling elite once the US troops go, and supporters, and opponents of the war know that the troops must eventually withdraw. 

So, the common theme is that everyone knows the troops must eventually cease the occupation as they did in Germany, Japan, and Italy, and that then an independent outcome results.  The three WW2 examples are not now, nor ever were run by US puppets, and the same goes for a country as big and important as Iraq in 2004.  US casualties alone have demonstrated the contra argument is no longer a credible position to take, if it ever was.  So, the all important, it’s all about oil line, will have to be abandoned.

When a position has to be abandoned any cynicism, smug or otherwise, has to be junked simultaneously. People have to think anew and possibilities open up again. The only genuine debate now is about when the withdrawal ought to be.

I’m sure nobody in the US is planning on over one hundred and fifty thousand troops still being deployed and taking casualties ten years after the start of the war.  So, despite recent events, the end of a large troop deployment is reasonably predictable and will occur over the next two US Presidential terms at most. The US people won’t wear any longer commitment than that, and there is a big push on now after the US elections, precisely in order to establish conditions for a reasonable series of elections and the resulting exit of troops.

Iraq is not comparable to occupying Japan, Germany, or Italy and I predict that troops will be effectively gone when Bush ends his term.   But for a good each way bet, if there are troops still there, they would be few and withdrawn deep into the countryside (in an apparent repudiation of the Dien Bien Phu French defeat in Vietnam).  That seems to be the logic of a war of liberation, in this hi-tech era, in a country like Iraq. 

Once the forces favoring democracy have been stood firmly on their feet  (and they will be over the next two years or so) they can be expected to get on with the long term job of changing the culture and keeping up the battle against all the various reactionaries.  The Iraq people will mostly support the election winners and thus the new government will win against the terrorists and or any insurgents. 

My point is, that having raised these issues in discussions I’ve found that none of this is particularly controversial among reasonable opponents of the war.  Consequently, one now hears people saying that maybe Bush really does believe in spreading liberal democracy where formerly a cynical response resulted. 

With all hope of Bush being dumped gone, and with it all muddled-headed hopes of some alternative, if mostly unspecified, strategy being adopted in relation to Iraq and the Middle-East, and the broader ‘war on terror’, progress for a Lastsuperpower style analysis may now not only be possible as we have slowly seen but speed up given that an oil-less debate must develop. 

A re-think now becomes unavoidable for moderate opponents of the original war at least on what stance to take going forward.  It might be nice, but it is not essential to progressing the debate that the original position is conceded.  It is far more important to just split off the never change reactionaries and really isolate them from those who want to think through what policies have to be followed as of now.  The anti-war position must split and continue the decline, as forces for and against elections become the new issue.

World wide, moderate sections are now forced to re-assess their attitude to the US stance, which is defiantly set. 

So, what is there now to oppose?  Not many are willing to oppose elections and reconstruction efforts and that is just as true inside Iraq as well.  It may well be true that this was apparent to many of us before the war began but the point is that it’s blindingly obvious now to more, and it will become clear to many more.

It’s up to the military to keep hounding those in Iraq who do oppose elections while simultaneously building up Iraqi forces to replace themselves. It seems they are getting better at those jobs, and more confident in the strategy.  US imperialist, military forces, after Abu Ghraib, are definitely changing because of, and for, this war.  War criminals could not really contribute to winning this war and that has been made pretty clear by web sites like ‘Do what must be done’.  

A recognizable Liberal democracy will defiantly be established in Iraq and all doubters will be proved wrong within the next four years. It's not credible to think there could be a lower standard than that which was achieved in Germany, Japan, and Italy after WW2 some sixty years ago. 

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people, and doubters in the west keep looking at the Palestinians and all the doubt, and fears quickly and realistically return.  The US president is never so powerful as at the start of a second term. The whole world, both friend and foe, knows this one means business and we all wait with baited breath.  Enter Tony Blair, who literally hit the boards running after Bush was re-elected pushing the Palestinian issue to the front and centre of the world stage.  The issue has now gone to the top of the line, as predicted by those of us who said it was put on hold for the sake of the US elections.

Then along comes happenstance.

Arafat could not have died more opportunely, and either by design, most probably, or further happenstance, he has ended autocratic rule for the Palestinians for good by not nominating a successor!  The institutions and processes of Palestinian democracy will now leap to the forward position, just as the US would want, and as the Zionists would not want.  November 2004 has been on reflection a sensational month.

Coincidentally, and beneficially, Palestinian presidential elections are to be held three weeks earlier than first stage elections in Iraq.  My prediction is that in both cases in the country wide election results ‘militants’ will get belted. While there will be attempts at disruption or boycott, they will ultimately fail in their political objectives and there will be a useful result in Palestine, and a useful proportional result in Iraq.

In the Palestinian territories the armed Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, control various districts in a ‘no go’ manner and have recently indicated they would boycott the election. This is a tactical problem for all other parties, not boycotting, as there  will most probably be almost a hundred percent stay away in these areas. This will be due to both support for these groups, but also from outright fear and intimidation.

Some districts are clearly ‘governed’ by the boycotters, and other districts by participants but there are disputed districts where there is contention between the parties.  It is these places that provide an important test for the more democratic parties.  Electoral intimidation and the false and uncertain result that comes from it is the issue.  Non compulsion allows boycotters to know who is attending the polling booth.  What to do?

Seems best to ensure there is a compulsory turn out so that those wishing to boycott, as is their right, can spoil their ballot casting an informal vote, and those wishing to vote can do so without being identified. 

A one hundred percent boycott is meaningless because it would be upheld out of fear.  So, in areas where there is contention it is up to the ten candidates who are standing to convince people that attendance is good for democracy and not just to campaign to vote for themselves necessarily.  Their campaign ought to include encouragement to attend and to go so far as to cast a spoiled ballot as the correct way to boycott as ultimately it is the secrecy of the ballot box that protects the fledgling democracy. 

The complexities of this campaign are far too great to be resolved in the next 35 odd days prior to the poll I would think. So large areas will be undemocratically threatened and prevented from taking part this time.  But ultimately these issues must be addressed in any emerging democracies where the risk of intimidation is there.  People must allow others to vote by removing the fear that the threat of being seen to attend can generate.

Apparently, some of the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades re-named themselves the Arafat Martyrs, and may have tried to kill Abu Mazen. I think he would win an election, so the ‘hardliners’ (read outright bully boys) call him a sell-out and could try to prevent that by the simple expedient of shooting him.  They would be kidding themselves, as any attempt to provoke Palestinian civil war during this period would fail because the Palestinian masses just will not put up with it.  An election will be held on January 9^th and they will take a stand and vote.  The ‘hardliners’ will have to try to shoot him later on.

Incidentally, Marwan Barghouti, given his imprisonment, had no real choice but to stand for election.  His supporters, and loved ones know that out of sight is out of mind, and so I think they convinced him that any opportunity to remind the world where he is ought to be taken advantage of.  Despite his popularity he probably only has a serious chance of winning if Hamas and IJ were to abandon their call for a boycott of the vote, and to promote him, as there is no real time to develop the required campaign between now and the election.  He may even withdraw by Dec. 15., We have to wait and see.

Even if the hardliners, and boycotters were to kill one, or more, of the leading candidates and there is some tit for tat, revenge killings etc., the election will proceed, and the party candidate of the leading person assassinated would win.  It is mostly the person but also the policies that are the issue.  After so many years of Israeli aggression and targeted killings of their factional leaders, the Palestinians are used to losing leaders and so killing a few more won’t change much and everyone ought to know this. 

There will be meaningful if imperfect electoral processes, even if driven mainly by candidate prestige this time around (sounds familiar).  Where everyone is armed to the teeth and a civil war has been designed for them there’s not much choice for an occupied people but to accept the result.  Although Zionists have been trying to provoke civil war for years it is the good sense of the Palestinian factional leaders rather than just Arafat, who have prevented it eventuating to date.  A stronger leadership will emerge rather than the greater divisions, and civil war hoped for by Sharon et al.

If the new leadership ‘eats the meal one mouthful at a time’, rather than trying to fix everything at once, and every area at once, then the future will bring more democratic elections and their authority will extend.

Meanwhile, the US after having delayed for the last two years in the run up to Bush's election, has been given an early Christmas gift. Arafat’s death has meant that the US does not have to ‘save face’ as they engage again, and they are engaging big time using their heaviest hitters like Powell to facilitate this election. 

The first issue has sharply arisen with the issue of electoral campaigning in East Jerusalem and they can’t afford to let Sharon dictate the outcome of this.  Election campaigning will result in mass actions in East Jerusalem in a month’s time, and could well bring on Zionist outrages that Bush and Blair will have to condemn. 

The region has now moved into very dramatic times and meaningful elections with all the associated processes, such as a relatively free press etc., will cascade across the Middle-Eastern map over the next few years and continue onwards for more than a couple of decades, as we have just witnessed in Eastern Europe. I think that not even a world wide economic recession, or crisis, could make things any worse for the people in Iraq and Palestine, or much worse for the rest of the region.  So, it’s hard to see what will slow this cascade down.

Overall, gangsters rigging elections, like the present Russian backed debacle in Ukraine is going to get dramatically more difficult to do.   This is because the Middle-East mass media is already relatively wide open (or sufficiently open to do its job) with Internet, and satellite TV, Al Jazeera (Qatar), and Al-Arabiyya (Saudi) and their competitors etc.. This region has very young populations and the process is speeding up so the trend lines are blindingly obvious. 

Just consulting the blog’s today, I see that Reporters Without Borders, are reporting that the hated ruling Mullah’s in Iran have arrested five bloggers, and six non blogging cyber-journalists over the last few months.  I conclude that this demonstrates Mullah madness to go along with their badness. There will be no end of ways around this sort of repression, which always builds up before regimes are pushed over. 

I can’t believe that Iranians are going to be left behind once the Iraqi people start enjoying the benefits of living in a liberal democracy, and I look forward to reading of the various methods used to overcome the censorship. The drowning Mullah's will just be swamped by ever more creative and determined youth and it will be joyous to watch. 

Pressure for meaningful voting has been growing virtually world wide for years.  Now though, in order to install anti-terrorist regimes the US administration is on the side of the angels.  The US really means what it says, just as it did in WW2, about establishing bourgeois liberal democratic regimes wherever it can, and in its own interests to be sure.  This is the heart of the drain the swamp Lastsuperpower line. Were it not for Israel and the delays involved in reversing policies on Zionism, this would be far more apparent.

As we have seen in Eastern Eurpoe a revolution like this is infectious.  With any luck, even the Mullah’s will fall and Iran will become a liberal democracy in the next four years.  I am very bullish over the prospects for Bush’s second term but the next six months are the key.  If he does not set a cracking pace then I would have to do some re-thinking which I have not been prepared to do over the last eighteen months.

Bush, will, at any rate, deal with whomever is chosen by the Palestinians even if he were to have a harder line than Arafat. If he were not to, then the line (that Bush is pushing democracy) would be wrong. Either that or he has gone weak at the knees and reversed policy and we would therefore see little progress over the next four years, and I doubt that very much. 

However, it's likely that the Palestinians will choose Abu Mazen as the new President, and that will be well. But we have to wait and see.

It’s interesting that Bush is saying that he may not have the time over four years to complete the task of setting up the two state ‘solution’. So, while Blair will get something for his efforts of late, I’m sure that Bush is not brave enough for the full job of ridding the US of the Israel Albatross.  It’s just not possible for them to do such a job in one fell swoop anyhow.  That policy reversal may have to be part of a multi decade type project. 

Nevertheless, to the extent that they are prepared to move, the old adage of, 'if t'were well it were done, then t'were well it were done quickly' must be the motto.  Especially so, considering what Sharon did to Bush over the past two years.  However, to me it still doesn’t seem like it is Bush’s motto just yet!  For example, I think Bush could have backed a harder line on the wall, without much risk. i.e. Keeping it far closer to the green line but he failed that test. (I’m not happy with an explanation that he was just giving Sharon more rope to hang with either).  I think once the decision was made to disengage all else was slackly permitted to follow by this bungling leader.  Anyhow 2005 will tell our tale.

Bush is now pitted directly against Sharon, and his efforts to force the pace right through the year will be decisive for the general line.  If the US just accepts Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and other settlements in the West Bank as a big deal and he does not bring on a serious diplomatic fight during this year, then he is an even bigger bungler than I have thought.  

The problem as I see it, is that no Palestinian leadership could accept less than what was on offer with Barak. Meanwhile time moves on and Sharon continues to establish his 'facts on the ground' that make the Barak position seem obsolete.  The wall, and those big settlements, combined with years of bulldozing homes and confiscating land, etc., has really produced some nasty new 'facts' that have to be reversed if there is to be a political settlement. 

Pulling out of Gaza and the most provocative settlements in the West Bank, just to move these settlers into the big settlements around Jerusalem looks like the sort of crap that will resolve nothing for the Palestinians but could be used to drag proceedings out for another couple of years.  It may require another change of government for Israel before this part of any ‘peace deal’ is settled.

The trend line for Zionism however is clear as the cumulative effect of its expansions, being defeated on all fronts, and the change of real US interests combine with the well-known relative demographic decline, and persistent economic problems take effect. 

Zionist Israel, is an embarrassment to ruling classes, world wide, and is since South Africa’s collapse, a real racist stand out.  The world wide, spread of bourgeois democratic norms and secularism, together with the media and general communication revolution speeds up the exposure!  At the moment I am not hopeful that the full reversal of US policies that is required will fully go through any time soon.

It's true that nothing else makes much sense BUT I still think the US is run by bungling amateur revolutionaries who just happen to live in interesting times and are still on a steep learning curve. I hope I’m being unduly pessimistic but either Bush will change in 2005, or I will.  Meanwhile, the war against Saddam remains on the side of the angels, and the Pseudo-Left can do nothing about the Bush contribution to that.  Bring on the elections.  What a happy new year.

Patrick  M

On your home page you say that  " Egypt and Palestine are two important places to watch."

OK. But what are we watching for? I would expect that before there were any significant developents in Palestine, Marwan Barghouti  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_Barghouti would have to be released from jail in a similar  way as Nelson Mandela was released in South Africa. And yet,  there are no signs of this at all. There'd have to be some sort of preparation of public opinion in both Israel and the US in the weeks and months before. There'd be press articles and TV programs on his life and politics. Has anyone noticed anything?

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the mistake LS comrades have made, and you just have to look back at earlier comments on this thread to see what I mean,  is to look to the USA to act rather than backing the international left and progressive movements. Mandela wasn't released through any US initiative or action.  Rather the US backed his release when it was clear that it was going to happen anyway. Unless the international community campaign for Barghouti's release in the same way they did for Mandela then there is every liklihood that he'll rot away in jail for the next 20 years and there'll be no progress at all towards a Palestinian settlement.

On another thread, "Gaza",   Gurujane lays the blame  on Condoleezza Rice and the State department. Come on, get real! There is no evidence for this at all. If anything, it looks like the Annapolis forthcoming  'meeting' ( non event?) , downgraded from the original promised 'conference',  on the Middle East  is just a bone thrown to her by Bush and the neo-cons. 

Barghouti's power and influence is on the wane. In the latest poll he only managed 11% in the " most trusted Palestinian personality" question - just in front of Haniyeh (9%) and Abbas (24%).

If this poll is to be believed Hamas is finished as far as the Palestinians are concerned.  It would only get 9% in any election. 70% want an early election, 48% see the Fayyad government as the legitimate government and 70% support a peace settlement with Israel.

http://www.neareastconsulting.com/surveys/all/p29/

Guru; I doubt that ‘Barghouti's power and influence is on the wane.’  In my rambling thoughts of three years ago, that started this thread, I said;

Incidentally, Marwan Barghouti, given his imprisonment, had no real choice but to stand for election.  His supporters and loved ones know that out of sight is out of mind, and so I think they convinced him that any opportunity to remind the world where he is ought to be taken advantage of.  Despite his popularity he probably only has a serious chance of winning if Hamas and IJ were to abandon their call for a boycott of the vote, and to promote him, as there is no real time to develop the required campaign between now and the election.  He may even withdraw by Dec. 15., We have to wait and see.

As we know he did withdraw.

My point is that out of sight, is to a very great extent out of mind, and for him to still have that 11% (ahead of Haniyeh at (9%)) is very solid.  I think Hamas is indeed in deep doo-doo. 

Remember Abbas is elderly and not going to be around that much longer and when he stops running for President Barghouti will, and will win.  There has to be a prisoner deal or nothing is going to be done at all, so as far as I can see, his power and influence is about to flower. 

I think you can effectively add Abbas’ 24%, to Barghouti’s 11%, because, ‘70% support a peace settlement with Israel’, but it is not going to be without the return of prisoners, and that will happen in stages - before ‘all’ the settlers are removed, also in stages.  The only settlers left will be those in the mutually agreed swaps and there can’t be many prisoners left either and he could not be one of them.

Anyway, the Israeli stalling goes on, with still no date for Annapolis!  The U.S. are showing all the signs of being the last superpower as Rice and Bush are given the runaround by the likes of Olmert.  Extremely humiliating to be wagged by such a tail!

As I recall it Barghouti regularly used to get around 30% when that question was asked? Where are the signs of Barghouti  being turned into a Mandela-like cause celebre? The shock of the Hamas coup and the division of Palestine has changed everything there. The independent, technocratic Fayyad government is competent, popular and west-looking. So the last thing  Israel/Abbas and co would want is a popularist rabble rouser in the mix stirring things up. The fact is, in the present circumstances, Barghouti has nothing to offer and is of no value. He couldn't even bridge the gap with Hamas now that the military there has taken control over its political wing. Gaza is only going to be reunited with the PA as result of an IDF action or, increasingly likely, a mass protest movement by the Gazans.

It was very interesting to re-read your "ramblings" in Dec 04, written after Bush's re-elections. It struck me that you were describing then the situation that is beginning to exist now in Iraq? What was not fully realised back then was the extent to which Al Qaeda was driving and controlling the agenda of the insurgency. Over the following two years it swallowed up the Baathists and the non AlQ jihadis.  But now the swamp is being well and truly drained, with the Sunnis turning to the US for help to drive AlQ out of the country. And nobody is talking  "it's all about oil" any more.

Gurujane,

If even " left-wing Zionists" are happy to use the term "rabble" when describing the Palestinian population, what more  confirmation  of the racist characteristic of the Israeli state do we need?

If no-one is using the phrase "it's all about oil" any more, it because there are permanent, sorry enduring,  US military bases included in the motivation for the Iraqi war too.

Even the Wall Street Journal isn't bothering to keep up the pretence any more. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119482675431289543.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news&apl=y&r=442705

Cyberman - must say I did not expect my slang to be read literally. Did not mean for one moment to describe the Palestinians as rabble, although Barghouti could be fairly described as a "rouser" don't you think?

Whatever. I withdraw "rabble rouser" and replace with "a populist Mr Charismatic Strongman". Is that better?

I must say I find it very funny that at least you and the unreconstructed maoists here can agree on one thing, to wit Mr CS being the only possible savior of the Palestinian cause. But I fear Abu Mazen, Abu Ala and Salam Fayyad might have other views. In fact either of the latter gentlemen might quite like to be president of the PA themselves when Abu Mazen retires? 

Gurujane,

Yes Mr Charismatic is a lot better. Lenin was probably the classic 'rabble rouser' and the term would have been used by his enemies, on a class rather than racial grounds, so it was unfair of me to link the term rabble with race.  And I'd like to make clear that I'm not accusing you of that personally. It doesn't change that fact, though,  that a "Jewish State" , can only be non-racist in the most literal and biological interpretation of the term.

While Marwan Barghouti may not be the only candidate to represent the Palestinian people in any future peace negotiations, and its a big ask for anyone to be another 'Nelson Mandela', I do agree with the LS line that he is probably the most likely. However, contrary to the LS line, there is really no evidence that real peace negotitions are about to happen any time soon. A lack of precision, and a certain amount of inaccuracy in future predictions is one thing; getting those predictions totally and completely wrong is quite another!

It's pretty clear that the Bush presidency is going to end with no real progress having been made on the Israel/Palestine question. If a Democrat gets elected in 2008, as seems likely, the prospects for progress aren't good. And yet, such progress is an essential part of the 'draining the swamps' theory. Please explain!

A discussion on the role of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF) as they impact on US Imperial strategy and tactics may be of assistance in reconciling the stated aims of the US and the actual effect of their invasion and occupation plans for the ME.

It appears to me that the US has no option but to establish long term control of the ME hence the plans for the long term occupation of Iraq.Note that most of the cash in the SWF's comes from oil. Unless the US can itself control a major oil resource it will become hostage to these funds and to those who set the price and to the risk that the oil sellers will abandon the Dollar for the Euro.

The item below may reveal stuff of which many readers of LS are unaware. For example "On their current growth trajectory, sovereign growth funds could total $10 trillion by 2012. That's not far short of US GDP (currently around $12 trillion),".

Would have posted this in the Iraq oil thread but a chicken has taken over. 

Dalek

Comment | Read Comments (1)

Nothing in dalek's post proves anything about the reasons for the US toppling of the former fascist regime in Iraq. The actual effect of the invasion and occupation was the overthrow of the old regime and the establishment by referendum of a federal democratic constitution, and the holding of two federal competitive elections in which a majority of Iraqis voted in a government. dalek has openly opposed the elections and is therefore on the other side and to the Right of George W. Bush. Another 'effect' was the rise of an insurgency consisting of former fascists and jihadis, and the rise of sectarian violence involving illegal militia and death squads. Leftwingers naturally supported the overthrow of the old regime, its replacemnt with an attempt at democracy, the embryonic new democracy, and the defeat of those who were destabilizing it. The word 'resistance', with its noble connotation of oppressed peoples rising up in Vietnam, South Africa, and other places, is sullied when applied to the attempts by remnant fascists and religious fanatics to overthrow an attempt at democratic ogvernment in a region that otherwise lacks it in tragic ways.

dalek has never been able to show any mechanism by which the US will control Iraq's oil and an entire thread had to be put on hold because he just wouldn't provide evidence for his claims but kept dominating the posts with dogmatic generalities and repitiion of unsubstantiated (indeed unsubstantiable) claims, despite being given every opportunity to engage in proper debate. And let me make it clear: I'm not getting back into that 'scene' with him via this thread.

No doubt he, and others who think like him, are disappointed that the levels of sectarian and other violence in Iraq are diminishing and that over the coming months key legislation will probably be passed by the Iraqi parliament that will place the country on a much more solid footing. The Iraqi security forces are also expandiing and better trained.

It will be up to the elected government to decide when and how to ask the US to leave. You can bet there will be celebrations in the streets when that happens, because it will signal a time when Iraq's democracy will be able to more or less stand on its own feet. Of course, the pseudo-left will declare that such celebrations prove that the people opposed the US presence all along - but by then they will be even more on the margins of history, because Iraq's democracy will have been established more securely.

The 'permanent occupation' refers to a likely long-term military base. Again, as a sovereign state, Iraq decides whether this is in its national interests or not. Personally, I would hope Iraq would opt for such a base, as a real and symbolic warning to autocratic and clericalist neighbours not to interfere and also to help protect the oil lines that are the life-blood of Iraq's economy and future.

Barry

Well it's good that one of the LS comrades has finally understood that the US occupation of Iraq is intended to be long lasting. The  prediction that kicked off this thread of the US troops being "effectively gone when Bush ends his term" is looking rather naive now.  I won't say permanent because even Iraq's oil won't last forever!

It's good too that you're wedded to the idea of democracy in Iraq. But, just suppose,  that this democracy actually starts to work there and the Iraqis have the temerity to elect a government which actually represents popular opinion and asks the US to leave? Do you really think that the US will respect democracy after spending $billions on fitting out their bases?

Unlike most of the LS comrades, I have never classed myself as a Maoist. And yet I would say that his well known quotation: " Every Communist must grasp the truth, Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"  can never have been more accurate than when applied to the current situation in Iraq!

Dear me, where can I/we find some real debate?

Should Iraq opt for a long term US military base on its soil, it will not require the retention of the majority of US troops as, the way things are progressing currently, the Iraqi security forces are improving and the 'resistance' is crumbling. The presence of a military base, in accord with the sovereign government's approval, does not constitute an 'occupation'. (If it does, then, hey, Australia is under US occupation - Kevin, help us!)

It was the barrel of a gun that did away with the fascist regime and the barrel of a gun - plus political strategy - that is defeating the enemies of democracy in Iraq. Cyberman's problem is that he doesn't support democracy in the first place.

cyberman thinks he knows what Iraqis really want better than the 12 million Iraqis who voted in the parliament/government.

I'd like to echo a previous contributor's final comment to cyberman: Grow up!

Barry

Barry resorts to sophism once again. There is no significant US troop presence in Australia Barry, why do you lie about it.? Sure there are military attaches, spooks, spying facilities etc but no US bases with more than a handful of security personnell. "The presence of a military base, in accord with the sovereign government's approval, does not constitute an 'occupation'. (If it does, then, hey, Australia is under US occupation - Kevin, help us!)"

The US occupation of Iraq is qualitatively and quantitively different from the US presence in Australia, last time I looked there were no armed US troops strutting up Boundary Street. No Garrisons any-where. I have seen a few totally pissed US sailors but they were un-armed (and legless).

I assume that the Barry who once campaigned strongly against US bases in Australia  now welcomes them! Providing some supine Quisiling government invited them of course.

Barry should check out this - among many other reports on the latest developements in Iraq. In particular: " Under the proposed formula, Iraqi officials told the Associated Press, Iraqi forces will take charge of internal security, and US troops will relocate to bases outside the cities. They foresee at least 50,000 American troops remaining in the country indefinitely. The White House says the bilateral agreement will not contain timetables for the withdrawal of troops".

Can you point me to a US base in OZ that has 50,000+ troops Barry?  Can you point to a bilateral agreement with Australia that establishes a permanent troop presence on Australian soil?

More: "Debka-Net-Weekly, a web site associated with Israeli military intelligence, said the US has plans to remove 100,000 troops by the end of 2009, leaving behind 50,000-70,000 in 20 huge land and air bases. "These bases," the site wrote, "are under construction; they will be secured by broad swathes of space, fortified with weaponry and remote-controlled electronic devices." US troops will be responsible for protecting Iraq's borders from "external threats," Debka reported, adding, "US air strength and special forces in these bases will have rapid deployment capabilities for reaching points outside Iraq at need."

Even more on oil

"Earlier this month the Iraqi gov