In Defense of Supporting Attacks on US Troops

---John Paul Cupp,

North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism, Public Relations Officer

http://irsn.jeeran.com

anti_imperialist_solidarity@yahoo.com

An Introduction From the Chairman of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZAI)

Comrade John Paul Cupp of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism (NACAZAI) has finished drafting a radical paper condemning opportunism in the time of revolution.

 The Bush led war moves of the US imperialists have sparked anger all over the world. This anger has created mass popular movements that resulted in millions of people marching against, Bush specifically, war as led by the US, and the overall globalization mode of operation adopted by the US capitalist-imperialists in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet block.

These mass-popular movements have been for the most part been composed of well-meaning activists that operate in social democratic ways in a time of revolutionary upheaval and whose aim is to objectively reform capitalism-imperialism. The two features that render them reformist in tactics and theoretical foundation and far from instigating, let alone accomplishing revolutionary change, are the following:

 * The class nature of these mobilizations (that are mostly student based, young, intellectual/academic) is made of the petty-bourgeoisie and middle classes with a few members of the bourgeoisie leading the various newly formed organizations. Further, they have been of course Western in origin and founded in the heart of the capitalist-imperialist empire. 

* They are pacifist and operating under the old hippie notions of "peace" and the "make love not war" chants of the 1960's. In fact, one can see them as continuing in the tradition of the old anti-Vietnam war movement. 

It is not a surprise then that the bourgeois US establishment tolerates such groups. They are reformist in intention and nonviolent in practice.

Reform is not revolution. The central premise of the reformist movement, including the US leftist movement, has been on the question of peaceful coexistence with capitalism-imperialism. 

 This revisionist position, that destroyed the Soviet Union in itself, is the single most dangerous element facing the leftist movement in the West. It is the father that breeds the opportunism found in the Western left.

 In essence, then, it is no shock that the US and European based anti-war and anti-globalization movements have sapped the energy of millions of activists and wasted this energy on reformist slogans that call for "supporting the troops", "ending war in favor of peace", and tolerating "Israel".

 The fact is that these movements are full of opportunist tendencies. Their immediate effect is to objectively protect the US capitalist-imperialist status quo and to waste the energy of the millions of activists that go into the streets to battle riot police only to be betrayed by the rallies’ organizers.

It is these opportunist reformist leaders of the anti-globalization movement and anti-war movement that betray their members and take positions that support coexistence with US imperialism in Iraq, as well as apologetic Zionist positions with regards to Palestine and the militarization of the Intifadah, while further betraying the cause of the DPRK (Democratic Korea) in defending itself. 

 {Under the worst opportunistic excuses one can find at a time real revolutionary military action is carried out against the imperialist enemy, where it counts most and that is the periphery, the capitalist reformers at home betray the people's revolt.}

 Why is this so?

 Well, there are two reasons to consider. 

One is racist national chauvinism in where there is the underlying belief that US capitalism and its "way of life" is the best we have and must be preserved. This is a belief that many Western leftists cannot shed. The underlying belief is that US lives are more worthy of sustaining than other lives around the world. 

The second is derived from the class standing of these so-called leaders. 

They want to preserve their class interests from which they greatly benefit. 

They indeed wish a long life for US capitalism because they enjoy a lavish life style as a result of it.

Certainly they do not want to see it destroyed.

 We, on the other-hand, at NACAZAI are firmly on the side of resistance to US capitalism-imperialism. We want to call a war against opportunism and we at NACAZAI want to wage the ideological war – to conduct the important battle of ideas. 

We support the US troops only when they resist. 

 They can refuse to serve in the imperialist army or they can turn the gun the other way (which many have chosen to do). 

 We adopt Lenin's position for turning imperialist wars into class wars!

 Enough of serving the American bourgeoisie with the bloodshed of the poor classes of Amerikkka!

 In his article comrade JP sheds the myths surrounding the US anti-war and anti-globalization movement stances in supporting the troops; he offers alternatives, and he correctly diagnosis and solves the problem.

 We assert that to be a revolutionary is to support resistance in times of combat with imperialism. This is the only correct position. This is also the only correct theory and tactic. 

 We say if the US imperialists try to invade the DPRK they will taste a defeat they have not imagined as of yet. 

We say that the Palestinian Intifadah will continue and will sooner or later bring the end of "Israel". 

 We say that the US occupation of Iraq is on its way to a humiliating defeat and we state that we stand with the forces of resistance there. 

 Many of the reformist leftists have argued with us about the necessity to exist inside the anti-war and anti-globalization movements as they allegedly represent a positive development in and of themselves.

We ask why the anti-war and anti-globalization movements should not be driven to a revolutionary end – to our position. 

 We are interested in educating the young cadres of the anti-globalization movement to reach that revolutionary end and not be diluted in the opportunism that exists within the anti-globalization movement and to turn these movements from a reformist path to a revolutionary path.

 We at NACAZAI see that as worthwhile work to conduct and we welcome this opportunity.

Ziad elJishi

NACAZAI Chairman

***********************************************************************

I.  US Troops are Terrorists

The GI pig mercenary (US troop) is a hired gun of imperialism goon. This is not simply a subjective opinion. Rather, it is a fact, which cannot be changed through rhetoric or word games. By the most literal of standards, by direct intent and design, the US imperialist army is a terrorist army. Its individual soldiers are also terrorists who are to be held in low esteem and hated, accountable for their actions.

It is an entirely erroneous idea that the US anti-imperialists should support these imperialist cannon fodder mercenaries. In fact, we cannot actually oppose US imperialism without opposing its agents and tools, (particularly the guy which pulls the trigger). Is not the gun of the US enemy an important part, in fact the primary mode, by which imperialism builds and maintains its grip on finance capital and by which it keeps virtually every sovereign nation under its thumb (via “globalization”)?

What is the basis of US imperialism? Good looks? Humanitarianism? Persuasion? Moral Authority? The basis of US imperialism is coercion; ever-militaristic in nature, arbitrary in practice, and maintained via a monopoly of economic strength and military firepower, closely approaching Georgi Dimitrov’s definition of fascism-in-power. *

It is the GI, this un-human dog, which acts as the gun against the anti-imperialist resistance. The GI is the gun-based “peace” of the imperialist deterrent, which attempts to prevent and stifle popular resistance, via an implied capacity for violence. This is nothing short of brutal militarism attempting to prevent the mass formation of opposition to Yankee-control and domination moves.

 By the very contradictions of his existence, the GI must commit atrocities, in order to continue forward in his boot licking mercenary role.  Let's look at just one example of the countless millions, by which the GI, as the hired gun of Imperialism committed atrocities as a necessary part of their existence.

"The American soldiers drowned over 2,000 innocent people by dropping them from Soktang bridge. They also drowned more than 1,000 women in Sowon reservoir. Upwards of 1,200 patriotic-minded people detained in an ice warehouse were bitten to death by military dogs. The head of master Yun Hae Won of Jungsan Primary School was sawed up alive. The eyeballs and breasts of chairwoman Pak Yong Gyo of the women's union of the Sinchon Tobacco Factory were gouged out. The enemies disembowled a pregnant woman to hold up a 9 month-old embryo on the end of a bayonet, laughing aloud. The yankees massacred 35,383 innocent Koreans, or a quarter of the population of Sinchon in 52 days of their occupation of the place. " --- Excerpt of a June 26th 2003 article from the Korean Central News Agency entitled  "Senior party and state officials visit Sinchon Museum"**

Perhaps, monsieurs the opportunists, would support the idea of their adult offspring going to college, via money raised from being an adult actor, of the dominating role, in child pornography films? Objectively, the role of this hypothetical pedophile for-hire is less reactionary, in the broad scheme of things, than the objective role of the GI. I could even see the anti-war movement in the US, demanding union wages and better working conditions for this “baby-rapist”!

How can we support the anti-imperialist class struggle resistance forces of this world, while also supporting the GI? The answer to this is that we simply cannot. When two forces are diametrically opposed, particularly by force of arms, one’s organization or personage objectively, no matter their rhetoric or even subjective desire, contributes to the imperialist pole or the anti-imperialist pole, but not both.

Here is the lesson from Kim Il Sung, General Giap, and Hezbollah. This truth is universal and can also be seen in the war of liberation in Algeria. The determining factor in wars of liberation can best be analyzed by questioning how well the anti-imperialist forces break the “pain threshold” of the enemy. Have the anti-imperialists been able to “bleed out” the imperialist enemy (and its canon fodder to such a level which makes it unbearable and excessively expensive (mostly in terms of human lives and political capital) for the imperialist army to continue its front of aggression? Without “breaking the pain threshold” (indirectly this means killing occupation troops along with other aggressors and tools of the aggressors) it is impossible that the anti-imperialist forces will win a great victory.

By “breaking the pain thresh hold” a new world is possible, because a lesson has been taught on the rights of nations to self-determination. The question has now become “Victory to the anti-imperialist class struggle by any means necessary”(including killing US troops) or "Victory to the US enemy aggressors by any means necessary". At such a stage of heightened mass- unity the efforts of the reactionaries requires both the killing of civilians and “combatants”, because under duress, as they form a people’s army, the masses and the armed resistance are one and the same, no matter how malformed their ideology, or unpopular their cause in the US. In other words, the war in Iraq, against the Iraqi resistance is a war against Iraq itself. Any propaganda of a “middle ground”, "alternative", or of a "mutually acceptable solution" made by the anti-war and anti-globalist movement in the imperialist countries, is really the worship of national chauvinism trying to hide its pro-imperialist existence and status as a documented ideological disease and poison.

IN SIMPLE TERMS, NO WAR OF AGGRESSION CAN BE STIFLED WITHOUT THE COORDINATED MASS BLOODSHED OF THE AGGRESSOR'S MERCENARY CANNON FODDER.

Should the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan not take place, until GI Joe is able to find a different career opportunity or perhaps until he finds his spiritual enlightenment via persuasion? Here we see again the cowardice of the US anti-war movement.

II.  The Death of the Fedayeen and the Anti-war Movement in the US

A. On the Real Motives of the US Anti-war and Anti-globalist forces

 Often enough even from so called "progressive" forces we hear that the forces of anti-US independence are "terrorists", including its individual members. In contrast to this, most quarters in the US suggest US troop aggressors should be supported; from the far right to the pseudo- "left".

 Many advocates of "non-violence" will go to great lengths to show that they DO NOT support the Fedayeen fighters in Iraq, but rather condemn the anti-occupation Intifadah, despite the clearly pro-active and defensive nature of the Fedayeen.  At the same time, such forces of "nonviolence" wish to show their support for the cannon fodder mercenaries of the forces of aggression, which are attempting to squelch an anti-occupation national liberation struggle.  Such advocates of "nonviolence" are making "peace" with the most violent and fascist forces while condemning those fighting on the front lines AGAINST such aggressors.

The "Peacenik" will not admit it, but the natural course of his logic, as a pro-imperialist and ZIONIST-CONTROLLED creature, is the death of the Fedayeen freedom fighter at the hands of the GI mercenary goon. It is not the death of both parties, which the Peacenik works for. Objectively, the Peacenik is not working for the death of neither party, either.

Simple logic, not to mention basic dialectics, dictates that the death of neither party is impossible, because resistance, including armed combat, is the inevitable outcome of oppression.  The GI will and must be opposed, CULMINATING IN EVENTUALLY BEING SHOT AT, as a prerequisite for advancing the struggle to liberate the land. The conclusion to be drawn is that the Peacenik is a contradiction until himself, a tribalist, which sides with the neighborhood's children first (even if they are committing crimes of aggression, and is inspired by social justice and progressive goals second. In fact, one could wonder if the progressive is even inspired by social justice at all, or if that is a load of hogwash, used to infiltrate anti-war circles with pro-imperialist ideas.

Their is a great deal of EXTREMELY FASCIST-MINDED and CHAUVINISTIC propaganda which the US popular forces are made to endure, in order to convince them that they are some sort of lunatic and hate-monger. They are told, that the situation of unprovoked aggression is a lot more complicated than simply supporting resistance to such aggression. To the US anti-war and anti-globalist resistance and pro-resistance forces, you are advised strongly to stick to your guns. Has not life experience made you into anti-imperialists with wisdom and intuition? Trust it!

Comrades BEWARE and listen closely. Lay out your principled support for anti-imperialist class struggle and national liberation struggles, your support for anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism and stand like a rock. There is no unity with the enemy. We in the US are being charged with a sacred and historic mission, far greater than we are being told. We are not the front lines of struggle, but we are its reserves, because we are within the epicentre, of what Che Guevara famously called " the belly of the beast".

Absolutely nothing is wrong with you for being an internationalist. If this requires daily militant confrontation with the overall super-majority of anti-war and anti-globalist forces in the US, so be it.  We will never get anywhere without a guide to action and a struggle to root out opportunism. This is exactly why our friendly enemy within is so motivated to lead us and to act as the gatekeeper.

It is very likely and probable that genuine anti-imperialist/ anti-Zionist resistance and pro-resistance forces in the US, will continue to be very small and continue to operate under conditions of ever-worsening extreme duress.  That said, every step we take, simply by refusing to bow, is laying the concrete base, for the future. Our task is not to grow quantitatively rapidly, but rather qualitatively, in a steadfast and consistent manor.

The entire world is in opposition to the US enemy. Conditions will change with time and blood-paid-for efforts by the world's masses. Our job is to hold aloof the banner of resistance in a principled way, from within the US, to appeal to such principle and not political expediency or popularity.

On-going social pressure, indoctrination "bread crumbs", and narrow nationalism, have rendered the overwhelming extreme super-majority of the anti-war and anti-globalist forces in the US, fully to utterly contaminated. This does not mean YOU should let your mind and spirit be taken. This also does not mean you should abandon your principled stance in favor of resistance and pro-resistance (support for resistance). In fact, on the contrary, even as things get far worse, before getting better, we can lay today a foundation for revolution tomorrow

We cannot even begin to talk about coherent revolutionary class struggle in the United States, without first combating national chauvinism and extremely reactionary behavior and ideology In this former apartheid state, founded via exterminationist settler-colonialism, the overwhelming super-majority of its citizens believe the greatest violator of human rights in the modern world, is the greatest force for democracy and human rights. With such being the conditions, it is inevitable that under the banner of "United We Stand" the toiling masses in the US will follow all other classes, in uniting firmly around the arch- imperialist bourgeoisie as "fellow Americans" and not as Proletarian Internationalists.  Is their any alternative, but to combat this ideologically out in the open, even at the cost of serious repression? Of course there is no alternative or we would hear what such alternative is, having it fully exposed for us in the light of day. Their are those who suggest that this is provocative behavior, but they either fail to fully grasp the geo-political significance of the time and place we are living in, or else they prefer popularity, sex appeal, and selling books.

It is not a coincidence that James Petras is the only major US intellectual to openly support the Iraqi Resistance, while Noam Chomsky endorses the presidential campaign of John Kerry. * This is the very John Kerry who has promised to Increase troops presence in Iraq, and plans to end the war via crushing the Iraqi resistance. This is the very Noam Chomsky, a gutless coward who is worshiped as the god of gods by the US anti-war forces, and who makes millions of dollars on junk books about "globalization" and suffering he will never know or endure, A SUFFERING HE DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE.

If to support the armed resistance in Iraq, is to be a "hate-monger", then this means about 2% of the US population are full-fledged "hate-mongers" and 85% of the world's population; a telling sign indeed.

B. The Reactionary Class Basis of Opportunism

The US is the neo-McCarthyist fortress of anti-communism, for it is the epicentre of imperialism. We are taught to believe that President Saddam Hussein is just as bad or worse, than American "democracy". We are taught that class struggle is "Stalinism" (as if that would be such a bad thing) and that for all of its flaws the US style of governance, is the superior form. Even from the very few genuine resistance and pro-resistance forces that exist, exists also a belief that Cuba and North Korea are nations full of gulags. Such individuals are under the impression that they could live in a government that is a much worse violator of human rights, and with the possible exception of "Israel", which is not even not a valid country, they are wrong. We see that even the most militant and well meaning of people, all the way to the opportunist movement on a whole, are all a product of the time and space in which they live.

What is the class background of the US anti-war and anti-globalist forces? It is petty bourgeoisie the petty bourgeoisie of the imperialist nations. The petty bourgeoisie of the imperialist nations is the most obnoxious of creatures to have “feel your pain”.

9 out of 10 people in this world, if not 19 out of 20, would love for their children to have the comforts that come from the Petty bourgeoisie background.  When in such a position they do not, by and large, want a revolutionary struggle. Of course, they do not want the US troops to turn their guns the other way and to make the Imperialist war a class war, as directed by Lenin.

It is much easier and convenient to "support the troops", to approach the national liberation struggles in the periphery nations and the anti-imperialist class struggle, as if such is "saving the whales". We find from the US "peace movement" a desire to feed the wildlife at the zoo, and nothing more. It is all a sick joke and a simple fetish. "No War on Iraq" is the alternative liberal-left consumer fetish to a Che Guevara T-shirt. Call it all bastardization, for that is what it is.

This should explain why we don't here the call for the US Troops to turn the gun around and fight for a revolution The American petty bourgeoisie does not want a revolution, or any level of revolutionary advances, because it undermines the luxurious contradiction in which they exist. A principle to them is like a knife popping the balloon of their existence. They are not confused. They know exactly what their stance is towards anti-imperialist class struggle. While the GI mercenary goon does not begin to question his world until his arm is shot off, the reactionary forces in the US anti-war and anti-globalist movement are quite sure of the world around them.

Why does the US anti-war and anti-globalist forces support the US troops? The answer is because the US troop is the cannon fodder of US imperialism, and it is US imperialism which butters the bread of the petty bourgeoisie and feeds it the sweet and fat portions of bread crumbs, which maintains the existence of the imperialist "middle class" IE "The American Dream".

The US troop, acting as a mercenary, is acting against the anti-imperialist class struggle, objectively. This is something the petty bourgeoisie of the imperialist nations, support 100%, all be it with obscure liberal reformist modifications, suggested On the other hand, those of us who support the anti-imperialist class struggle, have everything to gain by the victory of resistance forces. If this requires the death of the GI, then the death of the GI, (who shouldn't be in Iraq nor Afghanistan, anyways), it is!

What shall it be an imperialist war or a class war?

III. Historic References to "Bleeding Out" the Occupier and the Thought of This Within the Enemy Camp

Here we are going to look at historic examples of scientific theory related to the "bleeding out the enemy" or body bag for body bag approach to combating imperialist war moves. We shall also examine deterrent strategies, particularly that of Socialist Korea. Then we will address the thoughts of the enemy camp IE people within the aggressor nations, towards these justified and necessary actions, in order to prove that the overwhelming super-majority of the enemy camp (including its most militant and revolutionary forces) will not take a principled position without stiff resistance from the anti-imperialist forces in the nation's of periphery. This includes armed combat against imperialist occupation cannon fodder.

Lets begin with the study of a few historic and relevant passages.

What are the rules of war? Do they involve begging from the US anti-war movement for support?

"There's only one rule in war. Win." - General Giap *(Victorious over US Imperialism in Vietnam).

Here is were we learn from the mouth of Josef V. Stalin, so deeply vilified by all forces in the US, why the left in the imperialist countries, particularly the Trotskists and Anarchists, so often objectively side with imperialism, and we see how so often they cannot shake their linear thinking and pro-imperialist nature.

"The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements.  The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement.  The stuggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a *revolutionary* struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli,
Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a *reactionary* struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism.  For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a *revolutionary* struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons a *reactionary* struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.  There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger colonial
and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a *revolutionary* step.”
--- J. V. Stalin.  "The Foundations of Leninism,"

Here is part of the Introduction Appeal of the International Iraq Committees. *** The same forces behind this have experience supporting also the resistance in Serbia and Vietnam.

"Each Yankee soldier who falls today in Iraq is a step towards the liberation of the peoples of the four continents.

A final defeat, after a sinking down in a guerrilla of attrition, of the American-Zionist imperialism in Iraq will have gigantic effects on all the other fronts of fight, particularly in occupied Palestine and Europe, where the Yankee domination is shaken today.

We affirm without complex our primary, secondary and tertiary anti-Americanism.

With Che Guevara, we affirm that "imperialism has a head, the United States", and that it should be cut off ! The USA is the enemy of mankind. The re-establishment of world Peace, of the fraternity of the peoples and civilizations implies the destruction of the Yankee imperialism and its accomplices : America Delenda Est !

The heroic ba'athist resistance in Iraq is today the direct continuation of the fight of the Vietnamese people for its liberation and unification.

To the "Vietnam Committees" of yesterday, we want to bring a continuation : the fight continues, place to the "Iraq Committees"! " --- Excerpt from an introduction appeal on the website of the Iraq Committees.

Here is an excerpt from an essay called "On The Question of 'Pro-Palestinian' Jews" written by Dr. Ibrahim Alloush, Editor of the Free Arab Voice. **** I add this because even though it is dealing with the Arab-Zionist Conflict, the section added proves some very clear insight into the nature of national liberation struggles as they unfold.

"Frequently Palestinians are set up in a guilt trip.  They have to prove that
they do not hate Jews.  The proving really never ends until you eventually
embrace the doctrine of "Israel's" security.  But, really, Palestinians have
NOTHING to prove to the invader.  It is exactly the other way around.  A Jew
who claims to be anti-Zionist is the one who has something to prove (to
himself first of all), not a Palestinian who is fighting a Jewish
occupation.

If someone supports you, that means they support your cause to liberate your
land from an occupation.  It doesn't mean that you have to change your
strategic objective away from liberation so they can start supporting you.
Otherwise, you have already lost your cause before even beginning.
'Support' which comes with attached strings is no support at all, but an
impediment.

We have a solid case.  We can justify it using history, politics, Islam,
Arab nationalism, or even Marxism.  We can argue it out with hard logic,
cold facts, and vivid art if need be.  You name it, we can probably use it
to argue our cause.  We don't need to give up the cause of liberation to win
our 'cause'. After all what else is there besides the liberation of the
land!  If they are not supporting THAT cause, then they are not supporting
our cause period.  And if we cannot argue our cause with the benefit of all
the logical and historical tools at our disposal, then we are not going to
benefit anything from adopting the narrative of our enemy to 'support' our
cause, are we?

The history of liberation struggles worldwide has shown clearly that public
opinion in the enemy camp does not start to move against the policies of its
government until a liberation movement starts to inflict significant and
unacceptable losses on its enemy.  That includes human, as well as political
and economic, losses.  That is the story of the U.S. in Vietnam, France in
Algeria, and recently, "Israel" in South Lebanon.  In other words, without
action on the ground, without popular uprisings, military operations, and
yes, human bombs if need be, public opinion in the enemy camp is likely to
wallow in the spoils of the conquest, not to side with the oppressed.  Only
when a liberation movement starts to make the cost of an occupation greater
than the benefit, will those voices of 'reason' in the enemy camp start to
gain ground."

Now then, as follows, is an incentive for the US anti-war and anti-globalist forces to combat imperialist aggression, and this incentive is the deterrent force, including weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, of the anti-US Independence forces. Here is a quote from a follow up appeal to an interview I helped conduct with the National Democratic Front of South Korea. *****

"While egging its sycophant forces on to form an international encirclement for stifling north Korea, the Bush administration is going to reinforce the USFK on a large scale by investing over 11 billion USD and redeploy its military bases in south Korea to suit its nuclear preemptive attack strategy. Moreover, it is plotting to place around the Korean peninsula a rapid mobile force armed with up-to-date weapons including 130-odd tanks, armored vehicles and 1,100-odd military trucks.

Since North Korea and the United States are the warring parties in a truce state, sanction or blockade, military buildup means break of ceasefire. Accordingly the Bush administration is deliberately creating a pre-war situation on the Korean peninsula.

It is thanks to the strong physical deterrent of the Songun policy that a war has not yet burst out on the Korean peninsula in spite of the touch-and-go military tension. The Songun policy of Kim Jong Il can be described as an invincible treasure sword protecting the 70 million Korean nation and keeping the peace of the Korean peninsula, the northeast Asia and the world.

Now the NDFSK vanguards and the patriotic south Korean people unanimously support the Songun policy with great national pride, replete with a firm determination to join the nationwide anti-US death-defying war side by side with the compatriots of the north, if the US imperialism dare to unleash a second Korean War.

Korea is not Iraq and a war is merciless.

If the US imperialists provoke an invasive war against north Korea, a military power of Songun, the war will not be confined to a regional war limited to the Korean nation and it is so certain that the war started under the US nuclear preemptive attack strategy will go as a conventional war. Numerous US youngsters thrown into the battle fields of the second Korean War will be given wholesale deaths and even the US proper as well as the whole northeast Asian region will suffer the flames of war.

Therefore it is vital, too, for the US people themselves to terminate Bush's anti-DPRK war policy that forebodes a destructive ruin of the United States. " ---National Democratic Front of South Korea "NDFSK Appeal to the Workers of America, 31 July 03

What is the lesson here? The lesson is that the progressive and revolutionary wing of the enemy camp will not maintain even, by and large, a principled and scientific world-view, let alone carry forward such in a spirit of vitality and a vanguard role in genuine efforts, until their is the determined struggle of the periphery nations' anti-imperialist forces. First and foremost this is with regards to the bullets and bombs of the anti-imperialist forces in the nations of periphery, with regards to the ability to successfully win support for such militarized diametrical opposition force from their multitudes. Our role in the US and other western imperialist nations is to support firmly such positions first and the anti-war and anti-globalist forces in our own nations, second.

IV. Support the US Troops WHEN THEY RESIST!

A. Support the US Troops When They Resist

If we are anti-imperialists in a genuine and thoroughgoing way, when then should we support imperialist troop cannon fodder mercenaries?  We should support them when on some level they objectively undermine imperialism, when on some level they resist. This means we should support the soldier who refuses to act as an occupier in Iraq and is facing repression. This also means we should support the soldier who turns his gun the other way and kills for the resistance.

We should support the US soldier killing for the resistance more than the US solider simply resisting acting as a soldier of imperialism. This is because objectively, the first undermines imperialism greater than the second. In both cases it is principled to support such said US soldier, and in both cases it is unprincipled not to support such said US solider.

A real anti-imperialist is one who has no doubts or delusions in their head that imperialism rests on anything but violence and coercion. There is to be no blinking when supporting the Nat Turners and John Browns of this world who "frag" (a type of grenade used to kill and wound commanding officers in the Vietnam War) the imperialist enemy cannon fodder goons.

B. Sgt Hassan Karim Akbar, The People's Solider

At the start of the current war of aggression against Iraq, Sgt. Hassan Karim Akbar, a Black Muslim, conducted a heroic action (or is alleged to of) by throwing some type of grenade into the tents of various officers. This action successful brought about the death of 2 occupiers and wounded (putting them out of commission to act as occupiers) 14 more. Reportedly, Sgt. Akbar had been disgruntled, by the level of racism which exists in the US Army. This revolutionary consciousness forming up within him, over bitterly experiencing maltreatment, such treatment that he would never wish on other fellow oppressed Muslims, was labeled signs of his "mental instability" by the imperialist press, and its mouthpieces.

What did Sgt. Akbar have to say about his actions, or at least is alleged to have?

"You guys are coming into our countries, and you're going to rape our women and kill our children." 

 This is the statement of a proud and disciplined revolution, correctly and clearly analyzing imperialist aggressors with more bluntness than any advocate of "nonviolence" ever would. This is a sign of pride and honor, and not mental illness; a sign of socio-political integrity.

Regarding the matter of Sgt. Akbar, who in all rights, deserves to be crowned "The People's Solider", the anti-war movement was expectedly silent, with the exception of its self-appointed leadership, who labeled such heroism, misguided at best and "criminal" at worst. Do you think the overwhelming majority of Sgt. Akbar's fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters felt that this was a criminal action? Judging by the RPG's which are sending occupiers to their graves, I suspect that they feel about this Sgt. Akbar is about as much of a "criminal" as a Soviet Citizen would find it "criminal" if one of their neighbors met the Nazi occupiers tanks with pitchforks and hand grenades, dieing a in hand to hand combat for the liberation cause.

Those forces, which label Sgt. Akbar's behavior criminal, would not have supported the American volunteers in the Spanish Civil War fighting against Franco fascism. They also would have condemned Native American armed resistance to settler colonialism (much as they do the Palestinian Intifadah ). For sure, the would not have gone as far as the Martyred Comrade-in-Arms John Brown did, as a "White"-Anglo American, in condemning Race Slavery, to the extent of building and engaging in Guerrilla Warfare to eliminate it. Remember, that in John Brown's day, such action was far from universally accepted. In fact, much like today, the opportunists would have suggested that they supported the cause, while