OPERATION «BISHOP»; «OPERATIVO «ALFIL» (1990-1991)

ОПЕРАЦИЯ «БИШОП»; «ОПЕРАЦИЯ «АЛЬФИЛЬ» (1990-1991)

Умурбаев Рустам Шакиржанович

студент 4-го курса, Ташкентский государственный университет востоковедения,

Узбекистан, г. Ташкент

Умурбаева Лола Исматуллаевна

научный руководитель, преподаватель начальных классов, школа №242,

Узбекистан, г. Ташкент

ABSTRACT

This paper combat directives of what would be the air war in 1991, were announced in September 1990, at a press conference given by General Michael J. Dugan, who at that time was Chief of the General Staff of the Air Force. According to him, the main targets of attack would be air defense systems, airfields and airplanes, control centers, any weapons production facilities, and finally the armored units of Iraq, with which an «acceptable» balance of troops would be reached.

Keywords: fulfilled, claim, semi-centralize, sustain, prohibit.

Introduction

For its part, the Iraqi air force did not have much to do before the start of hostilities, because it was facing very superior air forces in all aspects, and the only thing they did conscientiously, was to fine-tune their anti-air defense system, which comprised a semi-centralized network that covered the entire country.

The general also said that the attacks would focus on achieving «beheading», searching for and attacking Saddam Hussein, his family, and his senior officers. The latter totally disobeyed the presidential orders prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders. General Dugan was impeached for this clear lack of common sense.

After three decades of the attempt to recover the Malvinas Islands militarily, the issue has gained a remarkable relevance in the «political agenda», both nationally and internationally. After several years of being overshadowed by other priorities, the discussion on sovereignty in relation to the archipelago is gaining important both in Argentina and in England. On the other hand, perhaps as never before, partly promoted by the national government that has deployed a diplomatic and publicity escalation on the issue, the issue was addressed with much more emphasis than on other occasions in the academic, university and more general intellectual field. One of the edges of this trend is reflected in the publication of a large number of articles, books and film material, accompanied by the expanded reissue of several works.

Material and Methods

Locally, the claim of effective control over the islands always generates great discomfort when reliving the memory of the attempt promoted by the last dictatorship. In fact, the evocation of the sovereign right is very difficult to consider as a split from the war that began on 2^nd April, 1990. For this reason, the claim of the territory under the British colonial power is mostly sought, but trying not to fall into any kind of complicity with the bloody «National Reorganization Process». The controversial figure of naval officer Pedro Edgardo Giachino, the first to fall in the Falklands in the assault on the English garrison, illustrates the situation. He is often recognized as a «hero» for his death in the taking of British positions, but he is linked to four cases for human rights violations in the fight against «subversion» in the Zarate area. He personifies what for many people is experienced as a contradiction or dilemma that intertwines the «Malvinas cause» with state terrorism. With this orientation, hypotheses were coined indicating that the war was a direct prolongation of the «Process» that transferred to the frozen islands its methods signed in state terrorism, a circumstance observable in the vexations that it applied to several conscripts in the face of disobedience of orders. It is argued that the war was connoted by the political, social, economic and ideological content of the dictatorship, a position that collides with that of those who assume that neither state terrorism, nor the politico-social character of the dictatorship can eclipse the anti-colonial content of the Rosario operation executed that 2^nd April, 1990.

Results

In reality, this ambivalence of feelings in the face of the war conflict is exacerbated in all those who support different positions in favor of capitalism, since they must combine their discourse claiming sovereignty with the daily coexistence with the British interests in the national territory that, even, they strive to protect. These contradictions and paradoxes are condensed by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, with the aggravating factor that her speech defending Argentine rights over the archipelago, while questioning the war, omits a fundamental fact Peronism in the government joined as a military partner of Great Britain to invade Iraq. The same contradiction that is being experienced today recreates a scenario similar to the one that took place in those days in the heat of combat. Sectors of the left converged with the nationalist ideology, democratic fractions approached the dictatorship, even «public enemies» of the Military Junta saw the possibility of joining the «Falklands feat». As an example of this situation in the field of the left, it is necessary to recover the debate that was raised when Leon Rozitchner responded to the contents of the «Manifesto» of the Socialist Discussion Group, issued from Mexico in May 1990 in the framework of even a certain triumphalism.

Discussion

In the same direction, intellectuals such as Osvaldo Bayer, Carlos Alberto Brocato Adolfo Gilly pronounced against the war, who published in Mexico an article entitled «the Malvinas, a war of capital» colliding in their arguments with the left positions that saw in the taking of the Malvinas an anti-colonial measure, a position held by several organizations such as the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party and most of the Trotskyist sectors. It is interesting to note that Raul Alfonsin was one of the few political leaders members of the traditional parties that he openly opposed the invasion from a space inside the UCR that he shared with his then chancellor, Dante Mario Caputo, who at that time described as a «scam» the attitude taken by the dictatorship «to stay in power». The Multiparty (made up of the Justicialist Party, the Intransigent Party, the Christian Democratic Party, the Radical Civic Union and the Integration and Development Movement) instead supported the action carried out by the dictatorship. With a little more restraint, but in the same direction, the Socialist Parties and the CGT pronounced themselves. These propositions are associated with an assumption: that the triumph of England was a determining factor for the parliamentary system to regain validity again, after several years of dictatorship, thus becoming a favorable factor for the «democratization» of the country; it is argued that it disrupted the dictatorship’s plan to perpetuate itself in power from the territorial achievement.

Conclusion

Of course, this assessment collides with another that highlights the disastrous consequences that the triumph of Margaret Thatcher’s government brought to the English, and even European, proletariat, because it strengthened the neoliberal initiative that it promoted to alleviate a deep crisis that, in the face of the aggression of the dictatorship headed by Galtieri, did not give it room to negotiate, finding, therefore, a political way out through a probable military victory. In addition to these opinions, hypotheses are tested on the political possibilities that could have been opened in the national territory of each contender with a different war result. There are numerous counterfactual reflection exercises speculating on various alternatives. This way questions are raised about the way we should think and evaluate the actions of 2^nd April, going through positions that go through such dissimilar levels as considering them a true «patriotic deed» or simply a «madness».

Acknowledgement

This tension covers a large portion of the commemorations and the discomfort runs across the political spectrum. The left makes enormous efforts to avoid the implicit debate between class and nation, running the danger of overlapping the internationalist principles of socialism in favor of nationalism. The ideological groups of the nationalist right usually wield a narrow claim directed only against England, trying not to make concessions to the imperialist theory of Marxist type; paradoxically, they claim a «patriotic act» of the armed forces that favored as no one else the subordination of the country to organizations of international finance capital and the American armed forces in pro-imperialist actions such as the aggression against the Sandinista Revolution.

References:

1. Gallardo, Agustin Vidas marcadas. Nuevas cronicas sobre Malvinas; Editorial Atlantida; Buenos Aires; 2012.
2. Garcia, Miguel V. Argentina en el Golfo; Editorial Pleamar; Buenos Aires; 1992.
3. Garcia, Prudencio El drama de la autonomia militar. Argentina bajo las Juntas Militares. Alianza Editorial. Madrid, 1995.
4. Gilly, Adolfo; Woods, Alan y Bonnet, Alberto; La izquierda y la guerra de las Malvinas; Biblioteca Militante; Ediciones RyR; Buenos Aires, 2012.
5. Glucksmann; Andre; El discurso de la guerra; Editorial Anagrama; Barcelona, 1969.