THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

err, tico, could you try to find a more heartland kinda avatar. seeing a heartland poster with a pic of mr big-business/hollywood media is so ... weird.

nemmind. it's starting to make sense.

Published on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Iraqi Whispers Mull Repeat of 1920s Revolt Over Western Occupation
by Hannah Allam and Tom Lasseter


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Whispers of "revolution" are growing louder in Baghdad this month at teahouses, public protests and tribal meetings as Iraqis point to the past as an omen for the future.

Iraqis remember 1920 as one of the most glorious moments in modern history, one followed by nearly eight decades of tumult. The bloody rebellion against British rule that year is memorialized in schoolbooks, monuments and mass-produced tapestries that hang in living rooms.

Now, many say there's an uncanny similarity with today: unpopular foreign occupiers, unelected governing bodies and unhappy residents eager for self-determination. The result could be another bloody uprising.


To many Iraqis, today's U.S. occupation reads like an old play with modern characters: America as the new Britain, grenade-lobbing insurgents as the new opposition, and Ahmad Chalabi and other former exiles on the Governing Council as the new kings.

"We are now under occupation, and the best treatment for a wound is sometimes fire," said Najah al Najafi, a Shiite cleric who joined thousands of marchers at a recent demonstration where construction workers, tribal leaders and religious scholars spoke of 1920.

The rebellion against the British marked the first time that Sunni and Shiite Muslims worked in solidarity, drawing power from tribesmen and city dwellers alike. Though Shiites, Sunnis and ethnic minorities are rivals in the new Iraq, many residents said the recent call for elections could draw disparate groups together. A smattering of Sunnis joined massive Shiite protests last week, demanding that U.S. administrators grant the wishes of the highest Shiite cleric for general elections.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al Husseini al Sistani has been unbending in his demand for direct elections instead of U.S. plans to select a new government through caucuses. At the request of L. Paul Bremer, the American envoy to Iraq, and several members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, the United Nations is sending a team to Iraq to study the feasibility of holding elections in time for the transition of power this summer.

Sistani's representatives expect widespread civil disobedience and violence if elections are deemed impossible.

"They know what will happen if they do not listen to us," said Sabah al Khazali, a religious scholar who joined last week's demonstrations. "They know this is a warning."

The historic rebellion has broad resonance. A band of anti-American insurgents has named itself the "1920 Revolution Brigades," and Sistani himself, in a newspaper advertisement this month, asked Iraq's influential tribes to remember that year.

"We want you to be revolutionaries ... you should have a big role today, as you had in the revolution in 1920," the ad said.

Elderly tribal leaders recently discussed revolution amid plumes of incense smoke and the gurgle of tobacco-filled water pipes. Many men on the 50-member Independent Iraqi Tribes council proudly claimed ancestors who rose against the British in 1920. They likewise would join a revolt if Sistani and other clerics gave the word, they said.

History writers are less kind in their assessment of the rebellion's outcome. In 1920, the League of Nations awarded Britain the new mandate of Iraq as part of secret deals made during World War I. Just six months into British rule, Iraqi opposition was growing. After the unrest deteriorated into three months of death and anarchy, the British plucked an Arab nationalist fighter from exile in the United Kingdom and installed him as king. The monarchy lasted until 1958, when a military coup turned Iraq into a republic.

To many Iraqis, today's U.S. occupation reads like an old play with modern characters: America as the new Britain, grenade-lobbing insurgents as the new opposition, and Ahmad Chalabi and other former exiles on the Governing Council as the new kings.

"We've sacrificed many martyrs and we would do it again," said Sheik Khamis al Suhail, the secretary of the tribal council. "In 1920, we faced a struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims in Iraq. We are living under basically the same conditions now, and revolution is certainly possible."

Iraqi Shiites, who make up 60 percent of the country's population of 26 million, look to Sistani for leadership.

"If Sistani called for revolution, I would sacrifice my life for the good of my country," said Hamdiya al Niemi, a 27-year-old street vendor whose father raised her on stories of the 1920 uprising. "My father was so proud talking about that time, how we kicked out the British and how we should never allow foreigners to rule our land."

The al Hamdani tribe, with thousands of members across Iraq, provided key organizers of the 1920 revolt. These days, the family name is linked to the cream-filled confections sold at the popular al Hamdani pastry shops throughout Baghdad.

Yaser al Hamdani, a 28-year-old tribe member whose great-uncle fought in the revolution, said he'd give up his job in the steaming bakery for a rebellion.

"Of course I would join," Hamdani said. "There would be bloodshed along the way, but sacrifice is important for success."

(c) 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services

The best way to do what Cycloptichorn is suggesting is to get them working on their own infrastructure. Pay them to fix their own neighborhoods. When the terrorists blow them up, they will be blowing up Iraqi interests instead of US interests. Iraqi's are a proud people and I do not think they would idly sit by and watch their own work be decimated.

There is no reason for there to be even one unemployed Irai right now.

The insurgents are petty thugs and terrorists who would otherwise be in jail.

err, tico, could you try to find a more heartland kinda avatar.

are serving as macrophagic agents in order to dispel the invading organism

Quote:

are serving as macrophagic agents in order to dispel the invading organism

Ge, do you even....?

In September 2002 President Bush urged the United Nations to encourage Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions or "actions will be unavoidable." Bush said that Saddam has repeatedly violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, which include a call for Iraq to "disarm its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs". Iraqi officials rejected Bush's assertions.

In November, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution (UNSC 1441) giving Iraq a 30 day to provide the Security Council a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its military programs, demanding that Baghdad allow U.N. arms inspectors unhindered access to any site suspected of producing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, recalls, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

Iraq agreed to the resolution and inspectors returned to Iraq on November 26. The resolution also requires Baghdad to provide a list of its weapons of mass destruction to the Security Council by December 8. Iraq denies having any weapons of mass destruction and says the resolution is the result of the desire of the United States and Britain to launch military attacks on Iraq.

On 17th of March 2003, President Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq, threatening that their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of his choosing.

Saddam has rejected President Bush's ultimatum that he and his sons leave Iraq before early Thursday the 20th of March, or face military action. A statement from the Revolutionary Command Council was broadcast on Iraqi television, saying the Iraqi regime "denounced the reckless ultimatum directed by American President George Bush." It said Iraq is ready to confront a U.S.-led attack.

It was 5:45 in the morning in Baghdad on Thursday 20th of March 23, 2003 (Wednesday 9:45 PM EST) when more than 40 satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from U.S. warships in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf at a "target of opportunity" as described by U.S. military sources. U.S. President George W. Bush announced Wednesday night he had ordered the coalition attack on Iraq to begin with what the Pentagon called a "decapitation attack."

total hits since Sunday, April 20, 1997

Page was last updated on Friday, June 18, 2004 at 11:37 PM