John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> I asked Eric:
> 
>>>Would you make a difference between imperialism and
>>>something like the present US occupation of Iraq? If so, what
>>>difference?
> 
> Kevin Gowen offered his view:
> 
>>The difference is rather obvious. The military occupation is not the
>>annexing of territory. See the SCAP occupation of Japan for a good
>>example of this.
> 
> This distinction appears to be lost on many of the inhabitants of the
> occupied territory itself (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/g9qf or
> http://www.ahram-eg.com/weekly/2003/645/re15.htm), as well as on dissenting
> minorites in the US
> (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/plun-a08.shtml). To them, the
> jobs for the boys and appropriation of resources look depressingly like
> business as usual in the old game of empire-building.

While I mean no disrespect to the publishers of those websites (well
with a fair bit of disrespect to be honest), I would argue that compared
to the demonstrations a more eloquent example of how some of the locals
view their "liberators" is the number of attacks being made by the Iraqi
resistance.

Its too early to tell, but the actions this week are straight out of the
manual. The assassination of Richard Wild on Saturday and the US soldier
in the university cafe on Sunday (amongst others) are good tactics,
single shot attacks under the cover of crowds, but the decision to
target Iraqi policemen, phone and power technicians is pure Michael
Collins. Brilliant and disturbing stuff. Their technical expertise with
explosives is also a worry. And unless the US/UK military increase in
overall size or make a substantial reallocation of the deployment of
forces in Europe and Asia, its hard to see many of the troops stuck in
Iraq being rotated out soon.



-- 
"You call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go
home." - Private First Class Matthew O'Dell

tee hee

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/