Jonathan:
Excellent article! I will admit, I have struggled with many of these questions for some time. While I have always been firmly against US military intervention anywhere, my position has been closer to the International Socialist Organization’s “Yes to the Revolution, No to Intervention.” But your analysis here definitely makes me rethink that position! Having said that , I would like to add a few thoughts: First off, my position, like I said, has been closer to that of the ISO. But it is either more complicated than theirs or theirs is more complicated than you present it here. It was always easy to see that the TNC was made up of imperialist stooges. But there were also legitimate grievances raised by many in the movement there and many people (or so it seemed, it’s very difficult to judge from thousands of miles away) who were fighting for the right reasons. This, of course does not make a movement revolutionary, as your article clearly demonstrates, and the same could be said of the Tea Partiers angry about bank bail outs. Nevertheless, it seemed there was a diversity of thought within the movement, and my position was that NATO involvement at any level would only serve to bring the most reactionary forces to the forefront. Whether one saw the anti-Gaddafi movement as radical or reactionary in character, it was bound to become more reactionary the more it colluded with the imperialists. This argument doesn’t take away from your position here, but instead strengthens it.
Second, there is a point that I think is entirely missing from the debates around intervention in Libya, Syria, or anywhere else. Your point above that NATO’s massive bombing campaign could not have possibly been carried out without widespread death and destruction is well taken. But it deserves to be taken a step further. US munitions are coated with what the military euphemistically refers to as ‘depleted uranium.’ Only it is not ‘depleted.’ It will continue to emit radiation that will wreak havoc on the lives and health of millions of Libyans of all political stripes for many, many years into the future. It will, no doubt, like all assaults on public health, take it’s greatest toll on the most oppressed, who have the least access to proper nutrition, decent housing, or medical care, and hence are always rendered more vulnerable to disease and distress. It is a crime against humanity, and a crime against the environment. It is a form of nuclear warfare. I cannot imagine a situation in which it would be acceptable.
Okay, one final thought. I have been absent from the movement the last couple of years for personal reasons. I try to keep up with reading and the debates in and around the movement here in the U.S. Taking this leave of absence has had interesting and unforeseen effects on my own thinking. Mostly, I grow more and more frustrated that left forces in this country are unable to find a way to unite. Altogether, our numbers and determination are impressive. I firmly believe we can build a movement capable of posing a real challenge to the capitalists. But I have a hard time seeing how we will do it with the level of division that exists in our movement. If it is true the ISO led attacks on the PSL within the anti-war movement, shame on them. If the PSL had led attacks on the ISO for their position in the antiwar movement, then the same applies. Obviously the likes of Pham Binh need to be opposed when they call for imperialist bombing campaigns. But I have to wonder at what point can we hope to see socialists in the US regroup? At what point will left unity have a higher priority than ideological supremacy. I see many left groups that I have a great deal of respect for using the pages of their magazines, newspapers and websites to launch attacks on other left groups that I also respect. I’m not saying the debates are not important. I’m not saying one side isn’t right and another wrong. I’m saying we could have these debates amongst each other while we also learn to work together more closely. We are allies, not enemies. And in the end it doesn’t matter if any of us is right if none of us can muster more than a couple hundred members in a country of well over 300 million. I’m not saying it’s PSL’s fault and I’m not saying it’s ISO’s fault (or any of the other dozens of left organizations out there). I’m saying that this system is running the entire biosphere into the dirt in a hurry and we have no unity on the left. And we will never win the war this way. Thanks again for a well written article. I fully intend to give this issue more time and thought. Keep up the good work!
Response from Jane Cutter, Managing Editor of Liberation News
Dear Jonathan:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. You bring up quite a few good points and I want to continue the dialogue with you.
You are spot on in your comments on Depleted Uranium. The ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), of which PSL is a member, has raised the issue of DU. DU has had a devastating impact in Iraq, Yugoslavia and everywhere it has been used. DU is no doubt implicated in the epidemic of birth defects in Iraq as well as in the so-called Gulf War syndrome that has sickened many U.S. veterans and their families.
Regarding left unity, this is a question that is raised frequently. Only a very small percent of our website and paper has been used for polemicizing against other forces. However, left unity cannot be achieved when the forces end up on the opposite sides of an important issue, such as whether or not to defend a country under attack from imperialism.
On the other hand, we are not sectarian and seek to work with other groups and parties on issues when we can find common ground. Speaking from my own experience as an activist/organizer in Seattle, (where you are from) PSL has certainly collaborated with ISO in the streets on many different issues, and worked with them in coalition (for instance in opposing the Iraq war and in defense of LGBT rights.) When Libya was bombed in 2011, ANSWER organized a demonstration. ISO showed up (with a small contingent, mainly to sell their paper) and did not express any interest in speaking on the semi-open mic. At the Washington, D.C. July 9, 2011, action against the bombing of Libya, which I was able to attend, ISO did not send a contingent, although they were certainly welcome to do so. As far as we are concerned, our ideological differences do not keep us from being able to work together on issues of common interest. However its important to debate the differences, because through such discussion, clarity is achieved.
