War, Revolution and British Imperialism in Central Asia

No, it's not about International Crisis Group's work after the breakup of the USSR, rather Frederick Stanwood's 1983 book, based on documents from the Foreign Office and other primary sources, explains Britain's policy in the Caucases and Turkestan roughly from 1914-1922. The war in the title is World War I, the revolution is the Bolshevik revolution, and British imperialism involved a very real British Empire (colored red on the maps).

That said, the fascination of this historical study is that it is demonstrates the cliche that even paranoids have enemies. For in the wake of World War I, not only did Britain peel off bits of the Ottoman Empire, drawing the lines in the map for today's Middle East and Balkans; Britain also had plans to break up the Russian Empire and take bits of it as well. The places mentioned in British policy memos from 1918 read like today's headlines: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Trans-Causasia (Chechnya), Dagestan, Armenia, Turkestan (today's Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, et al.), Persia (today's Iran), Siberia. As today Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Afghanistan play pivotal roles in the proposed forward strategy, designed to take advantage of Russia's weakness due to revolution and civil war. Russia itself was to be divided in two--an Eastern Siberian republic, with its capital in Omsk, intended as an ally of Britain against a Western Russia that stopped at the Urals. A series of British allies in Turkestan and the Balkans would form a "cordon sanitaire" around the Bolshevik revolution, containing it from spreading to other countries (George Kennan didn't come up with the strategy of containment, it turns out). Britain would obtain a League of Nations mandate to administer a protectorate in Georgia and other such small countries--eerily reminiscent of Lord Patten's position as UN administrator of Kosovo today (Patten is chairman of the International Crisis Group,). These small, weak buffer nations ringing Russia would have been dependent on British financial support. Muslim leaders and white Russians were seen as the natural allies of the British against the Bolsheviks.

Sound familiar?

Anyhow, the policy failed, in part because the British were outfoxed by Lenin, who offered national autonomy to the rulers of Turkestan; and later by Stalin who redrew the maps of both Turkestan and Eastern Europe. And in part because of America. And in part, the author argues, because they didn't know what they were doing. On the British side, only the Government of India (based in Delhi), which opposed the plans and advocated an alternate strategy that sounded a lot like "benign neglect," comes off looking good. One element that really struck this reader was that the British appeared to be equally opposed to both Leninist Bolshevism and "Wilsonian Idealism." They worried that American rhetoric of national self-determination might harm the British Empire, although they preferred an alliance with the US against their perceived enemies at that time: the French and Germans.

Indeed, one might conclude from Stanwood's account that in the aftermath of World War II, it was the the victory of America's Wilsonian Idealism and Lenin's Bolshevism that did cause the collapse of the British Empire. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, it is almost as if we have returned to 1918, with everything in flux once more. No wonder the Russians are worried that the US and EU want to break up Russia. Because, as Stanwood documents, in the aftermath of WWI, that was indeed official British policy. Perhaps we in the West have forgotten what the Russians remember...

Sharansky's Alternative Gaza Plan

He spoke with Newsmax.com about his opposition to Sharon's disengagement strategy:

Sharansky's own roadmap to peace: no concessions, no funds, no legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they adopt democracy. On the other hand, however, hold forth a lush "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinians if they choose the path to true freedom and democracy.

It's a hard line, but Sharansky recalls that it worked like a charm for Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union - and it would work for Israel against the Palestinians.

"I am convinced that all people desire to be free," Sharansky writes in his latest book. "I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe."

Bull Moose: Bush a Divider, Not Uniter

And he thinks that's why America is losing in Iraq, as support drops at home.

The President is now suffering a loss of support from a deeply divided public. Instead of uniting this country, the Bushies have divided it during a time of war and are now paying the price.,,

...We must prevail in the Iraq - but that is impossible without the support of a unified nation. In pursuit of partisan advantage, the Bushies have squandered the unity necessary to win a war.

Our country desperately needs a new politics of national unity and service. For too long, the national interest has taken a back seat to the obsessions of the left and the right to score polarizing, partisan, political points. Can either of the two parties produce an elevated politics?

Or is there a need for a new vehicle?

Actually, a credible third-party "Reagan Democrat" candidate (such as Zell Miller) might help the Democrats re-take the White House in 2008, as Perot did in 1992.

Where are Hollywood's War Heroes? (continued).

Thanks to Roger L. Simon for the link to this confession by Hollywood screenwriter Robert J. Avrech:

Hollywood, once upon a time, was one of the most patriotic colonies on the planet. During World War II, Frank Capra made a series of propaganda films titled “Why We Fight.” Marlene Dietrich put herself through a most grueling schedule visiting and entertaining our troops and selling war bonds. Jimmy Stewart joined the Air Force. Numerous movie stars put their careers on hold to help the war effort. These men and women loved America and understood who the enemy was and why the enemy had to be not only defeated but obliterated from the face of the earth.

Look at Hollywood now. Sean Penn goes to Iraq and apologizes for American war crimes. Hollywood’s patron saint is Michael Moore, its liturgy his package of lies, the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.” When this film had its Hollywood premiere, the red carpet was choked with stars just dying to make an anti-Bush statement. We’re talking about movie stars who know basically nothing about politics. To call them fools would be generous. I have spent time with too many of these people, and believe me, if you’re not talking about how beautiful or how talented they are, the conversation sort of just dies.

It is, I kid you not, a badge of honor in Hollywood to hate America....

Inside 9/11

Little Green Footballs recommends watching this new television documentary from the National Geographic Society, on the National Geographic channel. For those who don't have cable, like myself, you can click on video clips at their website.

One question: Will this be shown on PBS, for those who don't have cable?

What's Wrong with Scotland Yard?

Now they are accused of a cover-up in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the unarmed Brazilian, by anti-terrorist police. IMHO Something must have been wrong with Ian Blair's police force, even before July 7th, for the bombing plot to have been able to succeed in the way it did...

What Do Russians Think?

Konstantin's Russian Blog has the results of a Russian public opinon poll that give some idea of how Russians see themselves, as well as how they see Westerners. These results are not surprising to someone who has lived there, but might come as something of a shock to those who didn't know what they thought of us...

Andrew C. McCarthy on Michael Graham

From National Review Online

Why has brutality in the name of Islam endured? Well, it is because, as Graham posits, this violence--driven by an interpretation of scriptures that self-evidently lend themselves to just such an interpretation--has long been coupled with 'an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name.''

The eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis described the phenomenon in his 1993 book, Islam and the West. Divergences among Muslims in the interpretation of Islam, Lewis explained, are not easily labeled 'heterodox' or 'heretical,' for such notions are Western ones that have 'little or no relevance to the history of Islam, which has no synods, churches, or councils to define orthodoxy, and therefore none to define and condemn departures from orthodoxy.'

Taken together, the lack of formal hierarchy, the plain language of Koranic passages, and what is, indisputably, the military tradition out of which Islam emerged, have made it difficult for Muslims convincingly to condemn terrorism as antithetical to their creed. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism have continued unabated. Thus, the system is open to the reasonable conclusions that: (a) it promotes violence, (b) it has spawned violence, and (c) it has been unable to restrain violence despite the vastly superior number of non-violent adherents.

Michael Graham connected these dots and reasonably found that the system, Islam, was to blame. Now, do I wish he hadn't phrased it quite so bluntly by calling Islam itself a 'terror organization'? Yes. Even if his conclusion was within the bounds of acceptable argument, in the same sense that branding the entire company a 'fraud' is not unreasonable in my multi-national corporation example, the comment was not helpful. It was certain to irritate our allies in the war--authentic moderate Muslims--to call their religion 'a terrorist organization.' And even if Graham was convinced he was right, being right is not always a complete defense to incivility when one has been gratuitously provocative. He certainly could have found a way to apologize for his tone without apologizing for his point.

But all this is substantially mitigated by Graham's closing sentiments. He pointedly left his listeners with the 'good news' that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terror committed in the name of their religion. And he offered what sounded like a very sincere hope that they can and will take steps to marginalize and discredit the militants’ use of Islam.

On balance, Graham did what successful radio hosts do. He made a defensible argument in a manner designed to startle. The controversial phrase was ill-advised, but it was very far from the hanging offense it has become. And while it seems unduly stubborn for him to have resisted at least some expression of regret about his phrasing, that should not, in any event, have been a precondition for keeping his job.

The role of Islam in terrorism is a crucial issue. There is currently a good deal of contention, much of it from Muslim interest groups, that terrorism is a reaction to political conditions rather than a result of doctrine. That many of us would disagree--vehemently--with that assessment hardly means the argument should not be heard. But it is at least equally viable and appropriate to air the position that much of the problem of Islamic terrorism lies with Islam itself--something that even courageous Muslim moderates have acknowledged.

Daniel Pipes on Michael Graham

I disagree with Congressman Tom Tancredo about keeping the option open to "take out" Mecca and with Michael Graham that "Islam is a terror organization." But I do think it vital that they and others be able to conduct a freewheeling discussion about the Koran, jihad, radical Islam, Islamist terrorism, and related topics, without fearing a reprimand from the U.S. government or a loss of their livelihood.

Michael Graham Speaks Out

He's apparently been blacklisted by ABC because he criticized Islamic fundamentalists--here's his statement. I hope he sues ABC and CAIR for a million dollars...

Democracy and Terrorism

I just received the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs in the mail, and this article on Democracy and Terrorism is worth the cover price. Basically, examination of the available data appears to suggest that democracy fosters terrorism, that authoriarian states have less terrorism, and that while democracy is good in its own right, it may not be a solution to the terrorism problem. China suffers less terrorism than India, for example.

IMHO Bush's use of democracy in an instrumental way actually cheapens the cause of democracy. It is not just a tool for another purpose--democracy is an end in itself. Which is why I'm of the mindset to crush terrorism first, build democracy second...which is the point of another excellent article in the same issue, titled, How to Win in Iraq.

My Cousin's Heart...

...has its own website. and you can read all about it--here.

Russian Intelligence: Terrorists Seek WMD

An article in today's Moscow Times reports Russian FSB (successor to the KGB) charges that terrorists are currently seeking chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

More Iraqi Blogs

For an Iraqi point-of-view on what is going on there right now (Healing Iraq seems to be a little out of date these days), take a look at Iraq The Model. It's put together by two brothers, and has a blogroll of yet more Iraqi blogs.

One of them is called Neurotic Iraqi Wife, and seems very interesting. Here's an excerpt from a recent post:

I ve lost hope in the future of Iraq. I know many of you will find this distrubing but this is generally my own views and what I came to realize by being here. Im sorry, but the free democratic Iraq we all are hoping for wont take place, not now, not in 5 years not even in 10 years unless we get a real government who cares sincerely about the Iraqi people. Iraq needs someone who is honest yet firm, someone who is caring, yet strong. Someone who really is serious in building a country and reviving the people.

People here have no faith in anyone anymore. All the dreams they had during the elections have evaporated, all the hopes have gone and now they live their day just to survive the moment. Some people might think Im painting a very dark picture, Im sorry, but the picture I see from where Im at is dark, extremely dark. Yes you see schools being rehabilitated, yes you see hospitals getting renovated , yes you see construction taking place, bridges, roads, airports, but what does all this mean if people cant enjoy what they see. What do newly painted schools mean, when children get kidnapped???

What does this whole reconstruction mean when you cant even go out and enjoy it. I look at peoples eyes and theres no lustre, its filled with sadness and hopelessness, even me, when I used to see that before, I would try to make them feel better by saying things will change, just give it time, now I dont even dare say these words, for I dont believe in them myself. And whoever says things will change is a dreamer. People are still living in dire circumstances. Electricity is barely there, do you know how that feels when you are in this scorching heat??? Water is not continious. Corruption is everywhere. What kind of a life is this??? Yet Im amazed at how Iraqis are so resilient, they really are survivors, they really have the spirit of Life.

Kurds Charge US Creating Islamic State in Iraq

Ellen Knickmeyer reports on Kurdish unhappiness with Bush administration attempts to establish Islamic law, in today's Washington Post.

The working draft of the constitution stipulates that no law can contradict Islamic principles. In talks with Shiite religious parties, Kurdish negotiators said they have pressed unsuccessfully to limit the definition of Islamic law to principles agreed upon by all groups. The Kurds said current language in the draft would subject Iraqis to extreme interpretations of Islamic law.

Kurds also contend that provisions in the draft would allow Islamic clerics to serve on the high court, which would interpret the constitution. That would potentially subject marriage, divorce, inheritance and other civil matters to religious law and could harm women's rights, according to the Kurdish negotiators and some women's groups.

Khalilzad supported those provisions and urged other groups to accept them, according to Kurds involved in the talks.

"Really, we are disappointed with that. It seems like the Americans want to have a constitution at any cost," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the constitutional committee. "These things are not good -- giving the constitution an Islamic face.

"It is not good to have a constitution that would limit the liberties of people, the human rights, the freedoms," Othman said.

IMHO The Kurds are right and the US is wrong in this case. Neither Great Britain nor Israel, both fullly functional parliamentary democracies, have a written constitution...

And Now. . . the Return of the Taliban?

Jonathan S. Landay says they're back in Afghanistan, with funding from Al Qaeda. (ht War and Piece). Which may explain today's news of a bomb blast killing 4 US soldiers. This is serious, as the US loses international prestige. It's like wearing a "kick me" sign...

You just can't have terrorists in government and expect to defeat them. The US didn't allow the Nazi party in Germany after WWII, or Japanese militarist parties in Tokyo. Or Communist parties to share power in Greece or Latin America during the Cold War. So it seems like it was a big mistake for the Bush administration to force Afghans to accept the Taliban in their government. They obviously used restored political clout to protect terrorist operations.

When is a Terrorist Not a Terrorist?

Apparently, whenever the US government says so...

In a number of recent cases, the Bush administration appears to be acting an accomplice to Islamist terrorists, rather than their adversary.

For example, Islamist Chechen terrorists were hailed by a Radio Liberty correspondent who interviewed their spiritual leader, as suspected Uzbek Islamist terrorists were whisked to safety in Romania, in an American-supported airlift. Now, Uighur Islamist terrorist suspects are being protected by the US government. China wants them back, but according to this article in the Taipei Times:

...as part of its policy to return most of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay to their own countries, the US is making an exception in the case of Uighurs. It is reportedly seeking to find a European country that might accept them.

IMHO, if Uighur terrorists aren't terrorists, then nobody is. Their goals, tactics, and organization manifest their ties to Bin Laden's international network.

For example, in a 2003 article published by the Jamestown Foundation, Ahmad Lutfi analyzed a February 25th, 2003 Uighur terrorist attack in Beijing , exploring its strong resemblance to 9/11. He found that the bombers employed Osama bin Laden's modus operandi.

The Chinese government would eventually be forced to admit that it suspects the Xinjiang militant Islamist Uighurs are behind the Beijing bomb attacks. They employed a similarly clever use of symbols: Tsinghua University (China's own MIT), where the first bomb went off, is the alma mater of both Premier Zhu Rongji and Communist Party Chief Hu Jintao. And Beijing University (China's version of Harvard) is where future leaders of PRC are trained, and where some of the country's finest minds are based. This choice of targets by the Uighurs is no coincidence: it highlights, in true bin Ladenian fashion, that Beijing is the enemy against whom the militants are carrying the banner of Jihad. Although his televised statements have made no mention of the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang as a justification for war against the West, bin Laden did list Uighur Muslims among the many nationalities that fill al Qaeda's ranks. Recent reports also indicate that a number of Uighur Mujahadeen are being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.

No wonder suspected terrorists in Iran are demanding asylum from Western embassies in Tehran.

With this kind of stuff going on -- especially after the July 7th bombings in London -- the omens bode ill for American leadership in the Global War on Terror.

Generations of Winter

Over the summer vacation, I had a chance to read Vassily Aksyonov's Generations of Winter, about Russia from the 1917 Revolution until the end of World War II. It's not quite War and Peace, but it is very good, and I couldn't put it down. Aksyonov does a great job of having different characters take you through the ups and downs of modern Russian history. and has some good love stories which ring true, as well. Plus the intergenerational family dynamics are fascinating. The family's dacha is the only constant in a turbulent world, a haven of middle-class sanity and a tie to a lost past. Aksyanov's new book, Voltaire and the Voltairians was on the bestseller lists in Moscow last winter, so I'm waiting for the translation.

Islamist "Terrorist Culture"

After the London bombings, Tony Blair changed course. Yet had he done so years earlier, perhaps the London bombings might have been avoided. Experts have long warned of the dangers from extremist organizations in the West. For example, in June 2001 -- before the 9/11 attacks in NY and Washington-- Reuven Paz, of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, explained the threat from a growing world-wide "Terrorist Culture."

...there is a danger that violent Islamist ideologies, doctrines and activities will bring about two further developments, the advance signs of which may already be seen in the present time. The first of these is the development of new bases of Islamist radicalism and political violence, including terrorism, in Muslim communities in the West, as a result of the consolidation of two relatively new Islamist doctrines: the globalization of the Islamist struggle, and the doctrine of the 'non-territorial Islamist state.' The globalization of the Islamist struggle is aimed against what the Islamists perceive as the global conspiracy against Islam, both as religion and culture. The second doctrine -- that of the 'Non-territorial Islamic State' -- revolves around the tenet that the Muslim communities in the West should be perceived as a kind of Islamic State, lacking territorial dimensions, but entailing the religious duty of establishing Islamic rule. This doctrine, which grew out of the work of Islamic scholars in the UK, emphasizes the socio-cultural, economic, and political character of the Muslim community. At the same time, the doctrine grants free rein to the principle of Islamic pluralism, allowing the activities of a variety of organizations and institutions, from every trend of modern Islamic thought. This pluralism is mostly an outgrowth of the democratic and liberal environment of Western countries, but it also reflects the fundamentalist nature of many of the Islamic movements in their homeland. These two doctrines together could result in Muslim communities in the West -- particularly those in Europe -- becoming havens for radical political violence

The second imminent development is the evolution of what we might call 'social terrorism' -- terrorism motivated primarily by social factors, such as hatred of foreigners, growing unemployment, economic circumstances, difficulties in coping with Western modernization, changing and dismantling of traditional values and of family ties, etc. Such factors may affect other groups of immigrants as well, however, the influence of these factors on the Muslim emigrant communities is particularly acute. The growing Islamic and Islamist activity among Muslim emigrant communities, in addition to Islamist doctrines of conspiracies and global struggle with the West, encourage the growing potential of radical doctrines spreading among the younger generation.

And Paz explicitly linked terrorist violence to ostensibly non-violent supporters and front groups, including so-called "human rights" organizations.

...But there is another very important element to note here, with regard to Islamist terrorism. This is what we may call 'Islamic atmosphere' created by movements and groups that are themselves unconnected to political violence or terrorism. Some of these groups even publicly condemn terrorism, or at the very least, express reservation towards its use. The influence of these groups thus revolves around two linked elements:

* These groups and movements carry out the vast majority of Islamic political, social, cultural and educational work, both in the Muslim world and among Muslim communities in the West. Therefore, they are central to creating and preserving the 'Islamic atmosphere' that is used by more extremist and violent Islamist groups. They are in many cases 'greenhouses' for the emergence of violent groups and the preservation of worldviews advocating hostility towards the West or toward Western culture.

* The infrastructure of these movements, originally built to facilitate cultural, political, educational, and charity activities, make them the main venue for finance and support for Islamic projects, with the result that some them are also used to collect funds for radical groups. At the same time, they are active in consolidating Muslim communities in the West, and therefore set the grounds for massive fund-raising, political support, and in some cases recruitment, for militant Islamist groups in these communities.

The Islamic societies, both in the Muslim World and in the West, and the 'Islamic atmosphere,' even when non-violent, thus play a crucial role in the finance of Islamist terrorism as well as of social and cultural activity and of charity. Social Islamic work is also in many cases part of social protest, either against secular Muslim regimes or Western societies -- form of protest that facilitates the activity of some of the Islamist groups.

The Islamist 'terrorist culture' can be sketched as a pyramid; at the base is the large-scale activity of the Islamic moderate and non-violent organizations, institutes, and projects of all kinds. At the top of the pyramid is the radical and pro-terrorist activity. In the middle there are various processes that channel certain social factors into hatred, revenge, the search for power and violence. This violence is in many cases indirectly supported and financed by innocent elements as a result of cultural influences.

BTW In 2003, this same organization published Yoni Fighel's article on Londonistan.

Bride and Prejudice

Last night, we watched the Anglo-Bollywood musical Bride and Prejudice (of course, based on Jane Austen) on DVD. A lot of fun, really charming. Gurinder Chadha is the director of Bend it Like Beckham, a veteran of the BBC and ITV, and does a great job with the musical numbers. Her husband, Paul Mayeda Berges, wrote the script. He's an American from Los Angeles, so that explains the authenticity of the Beverly Hills scenes in the picture. (There is an interesting interview about the couple's artistic collaboration here. You can order their first film together, What's Cooking? from Netflix.

The film stars Aishwarya Rai, a former Miss World. Martin Henderson is Mr. Darcy, and it is interesting to see how Americans look to others (the actor is actually a New Zealander)--in this case, he's all business. Nitin Ganatra steals the show as a Los Angeles accountant come home to find a bride. His theme song, "No Life Without Wife," is the best in the film. The locations are terrific: Amritsar's Golden Temple, the London Eye, the Hollywood Sign in LA. Marsha Mason has a cameo. Plus the family scenes are charming, and the four daughters are all cute. Colorful, without a single nasty moment.

Seeing London and Los Angeles almost as Indian colonies was neat, a turnabout to Western stereotypes of the East. And one line really sticks. when Darcy tells Lailita: "I'm not British," and she answers, "I know." That's the moment cupid's arrow shoots them both.