The struggle in Iraq to build the national unity that can establish an independent democratic Iraq is riddled with uncertainty. National unity against US occupation and economic imperialism is stifled by struggle over political power and social divisions. This fragmentation has created and is also escalated by violence, sectarian, militia (such as the Mahdi Army), and terrorist (such as foreign Al-Qaeda agents and former Baathists). Sectarian violence, which is a struggle for some political power or influence, is also a reaction to the violent roles of militias, which has largely been ignored by Maliki (Iraq’s Prime Minister). While the motivations of this sectarian violence can be seen as self defense, or as a more grassroots “guerrilla” style of resistance, the reality is much less romantic.
Recent upsurges in sectarian violence have had a positive effect for the terrorist organizations associated with the ousted regime. These groups have been able to exploit internal divisions and U.S. policies that perpetuate divisions to inflame sectarian struggle. This is a tactic used by these terrorist groups in order to destabilize the political process. Their influence in many of these groups is not simply outside agitation, but also infiltration into various armed religious groups, militias, and even national security forces (due to American mismanagement). However, it is not only terrorist organizations associated with Sadaam’s regime that benefit from these social divisions and civil unrest. U.S. forces in Iraq also benefit from this counterbalance as it allows them to maintain control of Iraq without a strong united government to force them out, or to defend their right to national resources.
Despite these dire consequences, civilian violence in Iraq is glorified by segments of the American Left (and the left of other countries as well). While there is a cry for an end of this violence and a movement towards new tactics by many Iraqi forces (including the Communist Party of Iraq, who were for decades were brutally tortured and murdered by Saddam’s regime), it is violent resistance that has caught the support of many American Leftists. This support for and glorification of violent resistance is endemic of a fetishism of tactics (especially violent ones) that is prevalent in many Leftist organizations.
The difference between the agreement with or use of a certain tactic and a fetishism of tactic is when the tactic becomes the strategy. While a strategy should remain unchanged, often for long periods of time, tactics should be flexible and changing to address and give life to a strategy. When tactics are viewed as strategies they stop being useful. An example is the IWWs continued call for general strike, regardless of its feasibility or usefulness at any given time or for any given campaign. The same holds true for armed struggle. Armed struggle is a form of struggle, one that’s usefulness and feasibility changes as the balance of forces change. As a tactic it is only useful when it works to achieve a given strategic goal. However, when its use goes against a strategic goal—in this case the goal of building a unified and independent democratic Iraq—new tactics must be found and used.
For example, with this strategic goal in mind, the Communist Party of Iraq has used different tactics. They have played a prominent role in many social struggles in Iraq, and have worked to define the rights of workers. As a result of work like this, tens of thousands of teachers participated in a strike recently that was nation-wide. This kind of national worker solidarity will be important in forging a unity that is outside of typical regional and religious divisions. They have also participated in the fight against privatization and the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) neo liberal economic plans, and, of course, to keep oil wealth in Iraq. These class and economic struggles are broader that sectarian divides and are important to building working class unity and power that can build a real democratic Iraq.
The situation in Iraq, however, is not the only place where a misunderstanding of the difference between strategy and tactics has lead to political misunderstandings. There are different periods and stages within mass movement that cannot simply be changed by effort or desire, sometimes masses of people are moving toward one thing or a number of things, and other time there is barely a movement moving towards anything. Tactics change as these periods change, in one teach ins and speakers may be more important, while in other times mass demonstrations are possible and most effective. These changes do not change strategic goals, but rather, affect the use of tactics. This makes an essential point about tactics –they must be flexible. Unlike strategy, they should not remain unchanged over different periods and long periods of time.
This returns us to the issue of fetishism, when tactics are valued not by their effectiveness on achieving a strategic goal, but by their value in itself (i.e. this is more revolutionary etc..) they are being used as a strategy and therefore without strategy. This begs the question: what is the point. Many American Leftists are left agitating, but not acting, because they will only use or validate certain tactics (usually violent ones, but also including ideas such as the general strike), which are often not useful or viable in the moment they are in. Agitation, without action does not build unity or prepare people for struggle.
For the YCL or general strategies to defeat the ultra right and to end the occupation of Iraq are given life through our tactical use of electoral struggle, and coalition building (along with the many individual local tactics). Electoral struggle, like armed struggle, is a form of struggle, not a goal of struggle. When valued by its effectiveness, rather than its image (as not revolutionary), electoral and legislative struggle is an important element is building power and movement toward our strategic goal. In other periods different tactics will become useful. However, the tendency to blur strategy and tactics, even within our language (as they often get used interchangeably), can be harmful as it can blur the movement of political actions. In pressing situations like escalation of sectarian violence in Iraq, and even around our struggles here at home, we have to make clearer the distinction and function of both, because confusion can and has caused harm.
|
Top level
Dynamic Magazine
