International Socialist Review Issue 42, July–August 2005

LETTERS

Don't lie about me in print

Dear ISR,

I just read your editorial on building a “non-exclusionary movement”(Antiwar Movement—For a mass, non-exclusionary movement, “ ISR 41 May–June 2005).

I wish you had had the courtesy to inform me that you were going to lie about me in print. I have never once referred to the resistance as “extremists.” Unlike, I believe, any of you, I have actually been face-to-face with the resistance and wrote a very widely-read article—http://www.empirenotes.org/fallujah.html —about the conduct, as observed by me, of the Fallujah mujahideen and the fact that they were indigenous to the town, in addition to numerous other pieces.

When, in fact, I have referred to “extremists,” I was, in fact, referring to extremists. In particular, I have reserved the term for Salafist groups that have identified Shiites as the primary target, above and beyond the occupying forces. This included Zarqawi’s Tawhid wal Jihad (until he swore allegiance to bin Laden, at which point, apparently, his anti-Shiite activities were reined in), but more recently a number of other groups, including Ansar al-Sunnah.

I know of no serious analyst who believes that such groups constitute more than a small fraction of non-coalition-aligned armed forces in Iraq. Nor do I believe this. Nor have I ever implied this.

These groups are extremists. They also commit terrorist acts, according to any definition of terrorism that I am aware of—like, for example, the targeting of Shiite pilgrims on Ashura or of Shiite migrant workers, as in the recent Tikrit car bombing. What alternative are you proposing? That these groups represent the norm? That their civilian-killing activities, so crucial to deepening the sectarian divide that is the main asset of the U.S. occupation, are laudable? By what stretch of the imagination can you even characterize these actions as resistance?

Far from referring to the resistance as extremists, I have recently begun to make clear that I don’t consider the extremists to be part of the resistance, but rather effectively in support of the occupation.

Be all that as it may, the best I can assume is that some member of the ISO misunderstood something I said and that no attempt whatsoever was made to clarify with me what I meant.

Whenever I have engaged with the ISO, I have been aboveboard. I have disagreed, but have not resorted to cheap rhetorical tricks, innuendo, or any other underhanded technique. Nor have I ever issued a criticism of you in writing. Unfortunately, you have not reciprocated.

The least I expect, if you wish to retain any claim to honesty, is that you issue a retraction.

Rahul Mahajan

ISR editors respond,

Rahul Mahajan insists that he has never once referred to the resistance in Iraq as “extremists.” He must have forgotten his exchange with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on April 13, 2004 (see http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/13/1443251&mode=thread&tid=25):

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the comparisons of al Sadr to Saddam Hussein?

RAHUL MAHAJAN: Al Sadr is an extremist. His—there are many people—obviously, he’s going to make sure that women who don’t wear their head scarves are abused in public and so on. It’s not going to be very pretty. I don’t know if it can be as abusive and repressive as Saddam Hussein. I don’t know if he can be as repressive as the U.S. occupation, but he’s not a good alternative. He’s just the alternative that was inevitable to arrive in a country where the United States went in and just deliberately created this impossible situation, taking away a government and putting in nothing with even a shred of legitimacy in its place.