You might think that the Left could have a regime-change perspective of its own, based on solidarity with its comrades abroad. After all, Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party consolidated its power by first destroying the Iraqi communist and labor movements, and then turning on the Kurds (whose cause, historically, has been one of the main priorities of the Left in the Middle East). When I first became a socialist, the imperative of international solidarity was the essential if not the defining thing, whether the cause was popular or risky or not. I haven't seen an anti-war meeting all this year at which you could even guess at the existence of the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition to Saddam, an opposition that was fighting for 'regime change' when both Republicans and Democrats were fawning over Baghdad as a profitable client and geopolitical ally. Not only does the 'peace' movement ignore the anti-Saddam civilian opposition, it sends missions to console the Ba'athists in their isolation, and speaks of the invader of Kuwait and Iran and the butcher of Kurdistan as if he were the victim and George W. Bush the aggressor.
Christopher Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens and His Critics: Terror, Iraq, and the Left
al-anfal-campaign, anti-war, ba-ath-party, baghdad, communism, democratic-party-united-states, george-w-bush, invasion-of-kuwait, iran-iraq-war, iraq, iraq-war, iraqi-communist-party, iraqi-kurdistan, kurdish-people, kuwait, labour-movement, leftism, middle-east, opposition-to-the-iraq-war, peace-movement, republican-party-united-states, saddam-hussein, socialism