Earlier this week, open borders L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gave a divisive speech on behalf of illegal alien protesters in which he declared:
"Today we say to America: We've come here to work: We clean your toilets. We clean your hotels. We build your houses. We take care of your children. We want you to help us take care of our children as well."
Many law-abiding L.A. residents who clean their own toilets took umbrage at Villaraigosa's McCain-like contempt for self-reliant Americans and his us-vs.-them militancy. Now, there's a campaign underway to answer Villaraigosa.
With toilet brushes.
KFI's John and Ken show has details of the "Amnesty Brush-Off."
Reader Jeff M. e-mails: "So many people are sending in toilet brushes that prices have been climbing (even on Amazon where toilet brushes have been hitting the # 1 spot on their sales charts)!"
The nation should be grateful that wisdom has finally dawned on the UPA Government. Last Thursday, at the conclusion of a two-day conference involving the Centre and the States, the Prime Minister proclaimed Naxalism "the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country."
It took the Government two years to acknowledge what should have been evident from the day the "inner voice" made way for the gentle sirdar. In these two years, the Government allowed an "infantile disorder" - Lenin's evocative description - to escalate into a full-fledged insurgency. Today, the "red corridor" isn't some crazy pipedream of dogmatists who quibble over the virtues of Lin Biao and the Shining Path, it is a near reality.
The Maoists have cast their terror net over an area that covers some 20 per cent of India's forests and districts where 17 per cent of the population of the live. To consider the magnitude of the Naxalite problem you have to keep in mind a contrasting statistic: ethnic and religious insurgencies in the North-east and Jammu and Kashmir affect only three per cent of the population.
Ironically, it was the magnitude of the menace that made the Government look the other way initially. After the UPA Government was installed, its so-called national security pundits, better versed in political surveillance and collecting tittle-tattle from mobile phones than countering terror, evolved a fantastic theory. Since the Naxalites were in a position to influence the outcome in nearly 50 parliamentary constituencies, it would be expedient, they suggested, for the Congress to cut a covert deal with them. After all, it was asserted, the nature of the ramshackle coalition made it necessary to be prepared for an election at all times.
The lessons of history were not learnt. It was the Bhindranwale and LTTE strategy all over again! Consequently, the Andhra Pradesh Government dispatched the Greyhounds to the barracks, declared a cease-fire and began a bout of negotiations that both the Government and the extremists knew was pointless. There was unending talk of addressing the ubiquitous "socio-economic" roots of terror, and bleeding hearts decreed that the antidote to the perversions of Charu Mazumdar was the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the Tribal Bill.
For the Maoists, it was carnival time. They used the respite to set their own house in order and prepare for a long haul. First, even as the Centre abandoned the "unified command" strategy proposed by the erstwhile NDA Government, the Naxalites abandoned their ideological hair-splitting and came together under the banner of the Communist Party (Maoist). The name reflected the new party's deep links with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) which controls nearly three-fourths of the Himalayan kingdom. Second, the interregnum was used by the Naxalites to develop deep pockets and re-arm. It is estimated by the Delhi-based Institute of Conflict Management that the Naxalites in Andhra Pradesh collected Rs 50 to 60 crore by extortion in the six months of the ceasefire.
Even after the battle was resumed in Andhra Pradesh, the Centre rubbed its hands gleefully as the Naxalite problem was exported to Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa-states with NDA Governments. Some six months ago when Chhattisgarh approached the Home Minister with a detailed plan of airborne operations against the Naxalites in the jungles, it was told the suggestion was preposterous. "Talk to them, they are our own boys", the state government was gratuitously informed.
It has taken the Government two years to realise that the Naxalites are no longer content with welfare sops and lectures on land reforms. Promoting development and fighting poverty was never on the agenda of the Maoists. Their target was and remains political power. The assault is not on high landlordism or venal usury. It is an assault on the sovereignty of the Indian State. The Maoists want the Tricolour and the Constitution replaced by the Red Flag and "people's power".
The Maoists have unleashed a civil war. And a war has to be fought militarily. Has the Prime Minister finally realised this?
Posted by: john ||
04/15/2006 17:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
In the steep hill of victory ahead of us, I expect unity from you and sacrifice from me.
- Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji, the King of Kurdistan: from a speech on 18 November 1918 in the presence of the British administrator Major Noel arrived in Sulaimaniya
The Mandate Years saw the establishment of the first independent Kurdish government led by Malik Sheikh Mahmoud Barzanji in the region of Sulaimaniya (aka Sulemani) in 1919. This progression was short-lived: Barzanji was eventually arrested and exiled to India; South Kurdistan was then forcibly annexed to Iraq. As the result, throughout its history Iraq has never enjoyed full territorial integrity. Parts of Kurdistan have always been controlled by the Kurds, albeit through de facto and self-imposed administrations, particularly since the start of the armed Kurdish National Movement in 1961, and after the first Gulf War in 1991.
Kurds learned the lesson of betrayal and, to this day, remain doubtful of the intentions of the West on the Kurdish issue. Now, as Iraq goes through a transitional stage in its history, and its government is overshadowed by the insurgents, the Kurdistan Regional Government is perhaps the only functional government in Iraq. Almost a hundred years since the start of the British Mandate, Kurds find themselves with yet another opportunity to break away from Iraq to form an independent nation. History has repeated itself. What should not be repeated, however, is a betrayal of the Kurds by US-British forces in the 21st century.
During World War I, the British occupied the Basra and Baghdad Willayets. Britain did not occupy the Willayet of Mosul or main regions of Southern Kurdistan. They did, however, send political officers to encourage the Kurds to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson, the British Civil Commissioner in Iraq, declared that Britains intention was the formation of a Kurdish independent state in Southern Kurdistan under the tutelage of the British. [1]
On the 1st November 1918, Wilson convened a meeting of Kurdish tribal leaders and the influential personalities. He appointed Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji as the governor of Suleimaniya on behalf of the British. All tribal leaders, except a section of the Jaff tribe and Babakir Selim Agha from Pizhdar tribe, accepted his leadership.[2] One month later, Bazanji presented Wilson with a document signed by 40 tribal chiefs demanding the granting of certain rights to the Kurdish people. However, concerned that the British were not serious about the formation of a Kurdish State but only gaining time, Sheikh Mahmoud bypassed them to announce the independence of Southern Kurdistan. He led the first Kurdish revolt in May 1919, pushing the British forces out of Suleimaniya, its surroundings, and the town of Halabja.
An army of 1,500 Kurds engaged in a fierce battle with British forces in the Baziyan region, near Sulaimaniya. "Shari Darbandi Baziyan" is a national pride in the Kurdish history. Unsurprisingly, Kurdish forces were defeated by the superior numbers and technology of the British force, and The great Sheikh was injured and arrested; he was then exiled to India. [3] This treatment of a religious leader was seen as a great insult to the Muslim Kurds, and left a deep mistrust between Kurds and Britain for generations to come. A new policy was formed to safeguard Kurdish cultural rights within the boundaries of the Iraqi state. This policy was designed to win the support of the Kurds and to overcome some difficult situations. They were quickly forgotten. [4]
For example, on 18 November 1918, Major Noel arrived in Sulaimaniya. The day after his arrival he gave a public speech to the population of the province, including the tribal leaders, in the presence of Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji, stating in Farsi:
I address you in the name of the British Government and the British Governor General. You have been freed from slavery. Now you are free and independent. Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji is the Governor of Kurdistan. I deliver you this news on behalf of the British Governor General in Baghdad. [5]
He lied.
The Kurds refused to become part of Iraq, boycotting the July 1921 referendum to choose Faisal as monarch of Iraq. Kurdish parliamentarians in Baghdad refused to attend Faisals coronation ceremony in the August of that year.
In 1922 the brother of Mahmoud Barzanji, Sheikh Qadyir, gained Turkish support to attack British forces occupying the South Kurdish regions of Amedi (aka Amediye) and Koy Sanjaq (aka Koye). In October of that year, fearing that Kurdistan particularly the Mosul Willayet might fall into the hands of the Turks, the British reappointed Sheikh Mahmoud as the governor of Sulaimaniya. Upon his arrival, Barzanji declared the formation of a Kurdish state, with the town of Sulaimaniya as its capital city. He introduced a cabinet of eight ministers:
- Abdulkarim Alaka, Christian Kurd - Finance Minister
- Ahmed Bagy Fatah Bag - Customs Minister
- Hajy Mala Saeed Karkukli - Justice Minister
- Hema Abdullah Agha - Labour Minister
- Mustafa Pasha Yamolki- Education Minister
- Shaikh Qadir Hafeed - Prime Minister
- Shekh Mohammed Gharib - Interior Minister
- Zaky Sahibqran - Defence Minister of the Kurdish National Army
A month later, on 18 November 1922, he once again defied British rule, declaring himself the King of Kurdistan (Maliki Kurdistan).[6] The Kurdish newspaper Roji Kurdistan , referring to Kurdistan as separate to Iraq. [7]
Once again, the Kurds were suppressed by the British forces. A combined Royal Air Force (RAF) and British ground forced Malik to escape to Persia and disperse his army. [8] The 24 December 1922 Declaration gave little satisfaction to the province of Sulaimaniya, which had no desire to come under the authority of King Faisal of Iraq and sought to pursue the struggle for a free and united Kurdistan.
In 1924 after the British ground troops disappeared, Sheikh Mahmud returned again to start his struggle for a Kurdish state. The RAF bombed his personal headquarters in Suleimaniya. Once again Mahmud escaped. [9]
The British hoped that this would end Barzanjis struggle, however, once more in 1930 he led his forces through Persian borders in hoping to detach Southern Kurdistan from Iraq.
On the 26 March 1931 the Iraqi government formally asked the British high commissioner for air-action against those villages sheltering the rebel Kurdish army. Later, aerial reconnaissance located Sheikh Mahmoud. The RAF then conducted autonomous operations against his rebel force, with the Iraqi army supporting the operation by re-establishing government authority.
Subjected to continuous aerial attack and unable to re-supply his guerrillas, Barzanji retreated into Persia and surrendered on 13 May 1931.
Soon after this Sheikh Mahmud was captured and was taken into a prison in South Iraq. From this day South Iraqi became exile for Kurds. When the Baath Party came to power in 1968, South Iraq became a place of mass graves of Kurdish civilians. Iraqi political parties state, The Kurdish-Arabic partnership is rooted in history. Perhaps it is more accurate to say it is rotten in history.
Referendum
Modern Iraq was born in the aftermath of World War I, as the great colonial powers dealt with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was carved out of three former Ottoman provinces a Kurdish-dominated region in the north and two Arab regions to the south. Artificial boundaries were drawn to suit the colonial masters' administrative needs, not the logic of the local terrain.
The British installed a monarchy under the Hashemite King Emir Faisal (1885-1933) at the Cairo Conference of 1921, "legitimizing" the appointment by presenting Iraqis with a dubious, one-question referendum that the new king won with a 96 percent favorable vote.
The Provinces of Mosul and Arbil (aka Hewler) voted in favour, and Kirkuk voted to delay its decision (later voting in favour of Faisals Iraq in 1923). Interestingly, the Kurds asked for a separate Kurdish province but only on condition that they were not incorporated with the Kurds of Sulaimaniya. Only the population of the latter voted unconditionally against Faisal or any inclusion in Iraq.
In his official report to the Commission of the League of Nations Mandated Territories, Sir Percy Cox noted that:[10]
the Kurds feared for their interests if Baghdad should hold the reins of industry and the economy in Iraq. They assumed they would be cheated. The Suleimaniya region decided not to participate in the election of the King of Iraq. In Kirkuk the Emirs candidacy was rejected and the Kurds demanded a Government of their own race . . . Suleimaniya was almost unanimous in rejecting outright any form of inclusion under Iraqi Government.
Arguably, the concept by which Iraq was created was a colonial carve up and the division of these Middle Eastern region, based on post-WWI colonial divisions, is out of date in light of the modern worlds structure. The emergence of new nation-states has proven this.
Conclusions
The actions of the British Royal Air Force played an undoubtedly important role in the suppression of Sheikh Mahmouds followers and in the future military history of the Iraqi regions. In the first occasion of the RAF being employed outside of the British Empire, the repeated bombardments by the RAF on Sulaimaniya and other rebel Kurdish towns not only caused civilian causalities but were, on some occasions, in violation of international military law. For instance, use of Delayed Action Bombs was in violation of The Hague Convention of 1907, and the British Manual of Military Law of 1914.
The single-question referendum to crown Prince Emir Faisal as King of Iraq, in 1922, took two years to complete. It is questionable as to whether this referendum asked the right question; for why ask whether to establish a former Saudi Prince, forced from Syria, as King of Iraq without first establishing whether or not a people who had never seen Baghdad, and never taken part in a referendum and were struggling against the British to form their own state in fact wished to be part of Iraq?
Britain was determined to annex South Kurdistan to the State of Iraq in order to balance between the Sunni and the Shiia populations, as most Kurds are Sunni Kurds. Discovery of oil in the Kurdish city of Kirkuk can also be seen as a determining factor in annexing South Kurdistan to Iraq.
Some experts assume that the Kurds did not establish their own state to development of Kurdish nationalism; however the ceaseless struggle during the defining of Iraq to establish an independent state could not have succeeded quickly against such larger and better equipped military forces as that of the British.
The Arab, Turkish and Persian nationalists fiercely defend the territorial integrity of Iraq as much as they fight the "Imperialist powers", discarding the original and flexible forging of Iraqs territory and its construction at the hands of "imperialist powers" in favour of fighting for their land. Yet, the Kurdish aspiration and struggle for their own nation-state was brutally oppressed by the established superpowers in the area, such as British Mandate.
This brief but rather important time in defining the Middle East is an important part of Kurdish history, but a nation such as the Kurds can only do so much in order to avoid oppression.
#1
As I've mentioned here before, if there are hostilities with Iran, the whole deck could be reshuffled. A still-contentious Iraq could find Kurdistan becoming independent after joining with Iranian Kurdistan.
And though Iraq itself could enlarge with the southwestern Arab lands of Iran, both Syria and Turkey would have cause to sweat bullets with a unified Kurdistan.
#2
Or the Shia portion of Iran, Iraq and Saudi could form into the mega oil state of Shiarabia and let the rump of Iraq join the rump of Syria as a Snuuniarabia or as provinces of the Hashemite kingdom and let the Persians be Persia. This would be an outcome Sistani would buy into.
#3
sure, but moose's point is still the key: the whole deck could be reshuffled. You could argue endlessly about most likely outcomes, but the fact is it is impossible to predict how it would play out. It is finally becoming clear to the Arab/Islamic world that if they poke us with that stick just a little bit harder, then we are all in for a bloody world war. They used to think we would back away, but now they are starting to get a clue.
Mr. Sistiani, would you like to take home your winnings or go for what's behind those doors -
#4
I've never understood why the Britts didn't elevate the Kurds as a way to help control Iraq. Much as they did with the Sikhs in India. Kurds have been great fighters since Saladin while the Arabs have been great posturers and pretenders for far longer. With British support the Kurds could hve kept control of the region.
(via Mudville Gazette)
(This title will be released on May 16, 2006.)
Check out the Publisher's Weekly review of 'Home of the Brave: Honoring the Unsung Heroes in the War on Terror':
U.S. soldiers are fighting for our nation's survival, yet too many Americans couldn't care less, according to former secretary of defense Weinberger and Hall (coauthor with Richard Wirthlin of The Greatest Communicator: What Ronald Reagan Taught Me About Politics, Leadership, and Life). The fault lies with the liberal media, they add, which denigrates the military's valor and disparages America's war on terrorism. The authors aim to counter this misinformation with stories of 19 soldiers decorated for actions (rescuing endangered comrades or killing large numbers of the enemy) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weinberger and Hall detail these accounts in breathless, overheated prose ("Rafael Peralta was not born in America, but he died defending her") and quote many fervent patriotic declarations plus expressions of love for democracy, commanders, wives, parents and God. These 19 soldiersand the authorsbelieve absolutely that America's cause ("defending freedom") is just. Each chapter concludes with the official written citation that accompanied the soldier's medal. Readers searching for a deeper understanding of the war will end up no wiser.
"The fault lies with the liberal media, they add..." The New York Times has acknowledged the same shortfall in coverage. (And it's only fair to note that local papers do a wonderful job of covering the stories of heroes - and aren't afraid to call them heroes.)
But the review above brings an entirely different tone to the debate - sneering at the "breathless prose" used to describe those who "believe absolutely that America's cause ("defending freedom") is just".
"Readers searching for a deeper understanding of the war will end up no wiser" - true, if "deeper understanding" is code for validation of their own misconceptions. This is exactly the sort of book that people seeking a full understanding of the war should read - along with many others that deal with other specifics - and I'm curious as to why Publisher's Weekly seems so frightened by the propect that they might. It's no surprise that the media will fixate on their own brief mention in this book, but those who actually read it will discover it's about heroes - not reporters.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
