Author: Mick Hartley

tary point of view,” he favored an invasion of Iraq to clean out PKK havens. If the Turks do attack, counters one Kurdish official, “their own border will not be respected. They will not be the only ones to choose the battlefield.”

A wild card in the Kurdish problem is Iran. Like the Turks, the Iranians have a restless Kurdish minority and would be tempted to intervene militarily against a militant group called PJAK that operates out of Iraqi Kurdistan. Indeed, top Iranian military officers met in Ankara recently for discussions with the Turkish General Staff about possible military contingencies in Iraq, according to one US official.

Kurdish sources report that the Iranians have recently shelled Kurdish targets inside Iraq, and that Iranian-backed Islamic groups have attacked border posts in northern Iraq. The Iranians want to destabilize Kurdistan, partly in an effort to damage America’s wider policy aims in Iraq, Kurdish officials argue.

The extent to which Iraq’s neighbours are doing their best to undermine any hope of a successful outcome there is surely one of the great untold stories of the current mess.

Update: here, with perfect timing, is Michael J. Totten’s latest report, from Kirkuk:

From the safety of the Kurdish city of Suleimaniya – where the war is already over – Kirkuk looks like the mouth of Hell. It’s outside the safe fortress of the Kurdistan mountains and down in the hot and violent plains. The city doesn’t look much better up close, and you can feel the tension rise with the temperature in the car on the way down there.

It’s well worth a read, as usual:

I had heard much the same from members of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Suleimaniya. What frustrates them most about the U.S. military strategy is the American prioritization of Al Qaeda. The vast majority of the violence, according to my Kurdish sources, is committed by Baathists and old Baathists under new names. Failure to identify Iraq’s principal terrorist organizations and treat them accordingly is the number one reason why Iraq is such a catastrophe. At least this is what I have been told. Kurdish officials I’ve met who try to explain this to the Americans are dismissed out of hand and ignored utterly.

“So their goals are not local to Kirkuk,” I said. “They are for the whole of Iraq.”

“They want all of Iraq to fail,” Mam Rostam said. “They want the Americans to feel that they are not able to succeed in this area. They want to force the Americans to negotiate with the Baath Party.”

“So they aren’t necessarily targeting you or us,” I said.

“They are targeting anyone just to achieve instability,” Mam Rostam said.

“So there’s no plan other than violence,” Patrick said.

“There is no plan,” Mam Rostam said. “It doesn’t matter where. It’s just random violence. Sometimes they bomb a kindergarten in their own neighborhood. Or a university. Or the civil office. Or a municipality. Or wherever. In these offices there are people of every nationality and religion. There is no way to say there are only Sunnis or whatever in these places. This is a multicultural country. Everyone is everywhere.”

Most Americans have soured on the war and want out. I was once optimistic myself, but I no longer am. I can’t help but notice, though, that those I’ve spoken to who actually live in Iraq are more confident and less fatalistic.

v AN26 aircraft on the military apron of al-Fasher airport, the Darfuri regional capital. Guarded by soldiers and with bombs piled alongside, the plane was painted white and has the initials “UN” stencilled on its upper left wing. Another Sudanese military aircraft was disguised in the same manner. The report said that white Antonovs were used to bombard Darfur villages on at least three occasions in January.

A similar ploy was employed to conceal the identity of three Mi171 military helicopters which were painted white. The report said that from a distance the aircraft could be mistaken for similar helicopters operated by the UN and peacekeepers.

It’d be interesting to know who was responsible for leaking the document. With indications that China, Sudan’s key ally in the UN Security Council, may be getting concerned about the bad publicity coming its way, perhaps things may at last be starting to happen. Too late, of course, but still…

The Times has a hard-hitting editorial:

Sudan has been caught red-handed flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur, in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Even more damningly, the UN has photographic proof that the Sudanese have been trying to conceal this arms lift by painting their planes white and stencilling “UN” on the wings. The aim is clear: to continue the unabated support for Janjawid militias in their campaign of killings and violence in Darfur villages while mendaciously assuring the world that Khartoum is committed to ending the conflict.

Sudan has predictably denied the charges. But its word now carries no weight. This latest deception marks a new low. That the Government should attempt to hijack the humanitarian relief efforts in order covertly to arm the criminal gangs who have brought such devastation to the region is truly despicable. It displays a cynicism about what is going on that belies all Khartoum’s protestations that it exercises little control over the militias. Fellow African nations that have rallied behind Omar al-Bashir’s Government on the ground that it is standing up to Western interference in Africa should look at the evidence of the confidential UN report. And they should ask themselves whether “ethnic cleansing”, officially sanctioned and covertly supported, will lead to greater or lesser respect for their continent.

ces moves into Iraq, according to The Jamestown Foundation. …[T]he US, European Union, Arab states, and Iraq would all oppose an incursion, though, which Ankara must weigh heavily.

Desperate women in Afghanistan:

Gulsoom is 17-years-old and married. Last year she tried to commit suicide – she failed.

She set fire to herself but, against the odds, survived with appalling injuries.

Her plight reflects that of a growing number of young Afghan women, campaigners say.

Driven to desperation by forced marriages and abusive husbands, more and more are seeking release through self-immolation…

She’s not alone – there are hundreds of other women who have tried and failed to kill themselves.

Some women do manage to end their lives, but many survive with huge burns to their faces and bodies, like Gulsoom.

In many cases they have no choice but to return to the husband and the abuse from which they sought escape.

Gulsoom looks hopelessly at her scarred hands saying her only wish now is to be made better, although she says no one will marry her again with her burnt skin.

“When I wore nice clothes my husband showed jealousness,” she recalls.

Forced marriages, a culture of family violence and many other social problems are given as causes for the suicides.

Afghan women have long had to suffer violence or mysterious deaths. Even now girls are still handed over in disputes or as compensation in murder cases.

The BBC’s Salmi Suhaili, who works on women-related issues, says women taking their lives is not a new phenomenon in what is traditionally a very conservative society.

But the rise of a civil society and a free media is helping to publicise their acts, he says…

Campaigners say violence against women must not remain hidden or it will not stop.

Deputy women’s minister Maliha Sahak points to last year’s protocol involving many Afghan ministries, the Supreme Court and the human rights commission.

It was passed with President Hamid Karzai’s approval and banned the marriage of a woman if she is under 18 years old.

She says another law is in the pipeline which will require agreement from both man and woman for their wedding to be legal.

The women’s ministry is to mount an awareness campaign targeting men in an attempt to reduce the violence.

After decades of war, Afghanistan’s civil society is still in its infancy.

Dear me – here we go imposing Western values again.

I love the image they’ve chosen to illustrate this story:

Polygamous husbands settling in Britain with multiple wives can claim extra benefits for their “harems” even though bigamy is a crime in the UK, it has emerged.

Opposition MPs are demanding an urgent change in the law, claiming that the Government is recognising and rewarding a custom which has no legal status and which is “alien” to this country’s cultural traditions.

Officials said yesterday a review was now under way into whether the state should continue to pay out income support, jobseeker’s allowance and housing and council tax benefits to ‘extra’ spouses.

Islamic law allows a man to take up to four wives, providing he can provide for them fairly and equally. But British law only ever recognises one spouse, while bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in jail.

However, if a husband and his wives arrive and settle in Britain having wed in a country where polygamy is legal, then the UK benefits system recognises his extra wives as dependents and pays them accordingly.

From the NYT:

A confidential United Nations report says the government of Sudan is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in violation of Security Council resolutions and painting Sudanese military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft.

In one case, illustrated with close-up pictures, the report says the letters “U.N.” have been stenciled onto the wing of a whitewashed Sudanese armed forces plane parked on a military apron at a Darfur airport. Bombs guarded by uniformed soldiers are laid out in rows by its side.

The report says that contrary to the Sudanese government denials, the freshly painted planes are being operated out of all three of Darfur’s principal airports and used for aerial surveillance and bombardments of villages, in addition to cargo transport. The report was compiled by a five-person panel responsible for helping the Security Council’s sanctions committee monitor compliance with resolutions on Darfur, the war-ravaged region in Sudan. It was made available by a diplomat from one of the 15 Security Council nations, a nation that believes the findings ought to be made public.

best solution. You can never tell nowadays just what might turn out to be offensive to someone, somewhere.

other regions of Iraq, but the brothers in the other regions, I’m sad to say, did not benefit from our experience. We adopted a culture of forgiveness, whereas they adopted a culture of vindictiveness. […]

Some Sunnis oppose Iranian interference, but seek the help of Turkey, and call upon the Turkish army to intervene. I believe these people are playing with fire. There are Sunnis who oppose Iran, but accept Turkey. What is the difference? Our problem is that the Shiites are fearful because they suffer from a complex of the past, while the Sunnis are fearful because they suffer from a complex of the future.

Interviewer: And what are the Kurds afraid of?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: Of everything.

Interviewer: What is the greatest fear of the Kurds today?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: That the dictatorship will return to Iraq.

Interviewer: How can it possibly return?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: Allah willing, it won’t. We won’t let it return, but you asked about the Kurds’ greatest fear. It is the return of the dictatorship.

Interviewer: Don’t the Kurds fear Turkey?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: No.

Interviewer: How come? If Kirkuk is annexed to you, the Turks will not be at all happy. They are constantly declaring that they will not let the Kurds annex Kirkuk.

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: For our part, we say that we will not let the Turks intervene in the issue of Kirkuk.

Interviewer: How do you intend to prevent them?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: How do they intend to prevent us? […]

Interviewer: Do you support peace with Israel – a peace agreement, and an end to this conflict?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: I support a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue. I support the rights of the Palestinian people, but at the same time, I am against driving Israel into the sea.

Interviewer: So you don’t support the plan to destroy the state of Israel?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: Of course not.

Interviewer: Some groups among the Palestinians and among the Lebanese, like Hizbullah, are still calling, in their ideology, for the destruction of Israel.

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: This is impossible.

Interviewer: Are you against it merely because it’s impossible, or because you don’t want to?

Mas’oud Al-Barazani: No, in my opinion, this policy is wrong, illogical, and unreasonable. Why annihilate a people?

Interviewer: Because many consider it to be a plundering, occupying people. I believe this statement will reverberate and draw much criticism, Abu Masrour.

A telling comment from the interviewer: a failure to support the annihilation of Israel will “reverberate and draw much criticism”.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the point of a liberal society here (via):

A speech by a best-selling author and critic of Islam will be held at the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown, despite calls by members of the Muslim community to cancel the event.

Members of the Islamic Center of Johnstown wanted Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s appearance canceled, saying her attacks on Islam are unjustified and Muslims in the Johnstown area get along well with everyone else.

“I don’t want her to poison anyone’s mind,” Mahmood A. Qazi, the center’s founder and past president, told the Tribune-Democrat in Johnstown. “She doesn’t believe in God. How can she talk about God?”

Well, it’s an argument, I suppose. So let’s hear no more nonsense about evolution from these religious types. They don’t believe in evolution. How can they talk about evolution?

From Cairo:

A senior Islamic cleric is taking a writer and a culture magazine editor to court for offending Islam after writing a poem comparing God to a “traffic policeman,” a judicial source said Sunday.

Sheikh Youssef Al Badri, of the government Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, together with 18 other plaintiffs, is suing poet Helmy Salem and Ahmed Higazi, the editor-in-chief of the culture publication Al Ibdaa, for “blasphemy” and “offending the divine being.”

Will they call the divine being as a witness, to testify how offended He was?

On the other hand you’d think, as a divine being and all, that maybe He could take care of Himself.