So I caught up with the blogs last night, after seeing our friend’s short movie (which was better on a big screen!), and see that I’ve triggered a small squall.
Let’s discuss.
On Friday, after the Good News embargo (yes, we have one – I tend to stop non-Good News posts after about 4pm Pacific. And yes, I do get twitchy about it sometimes, but since I think it’s a great idea – even though we don’t emphasize publishing the good news enough – I’m happy to do it), I read Matt’s post on the horrible attack in Baslem, which I’ll reproduce in its entirety here:
Not Good…
… busy as I’ve been with the convention, I haven’t been following the story of the Russian kids held hostage that’s now reached its awful conclusion. Worse, even, than the reality of the crime is the knowledge that things will get worse. The situation, clearly, can only be resolved by Russian concessions on the underlying political issue in Chechnya. At the same time, in the wake of this sort of outrage there will not only be no mood for concessions, but an amply justified fear that such concessions would only encourage further attacks and a further escalation of demands. I don’t see any way out for Russian policymakers nor any particularly good options for US policymakers. Partisanship and complaints about Bush’s handling of counterterrorism aside, this business is a reminder not only of the horrors out there, but also that terrorism is a genuinely difficult problem — I think we’ve been doing many of the wrong things lately, but no one should claim it’s obvious what the right way to proceed is.
Now I think it’s a dumb post, badly thought through and worse written, and I started to write a post that went something like this: “Does Yglesias even read what he writes before he hits ‘post’ anymore?” but the embargo was approaching, I tend to hammer on Yglesias too much anyway – and to be honest, I’m getting tired of it.I also thought this was an important post, because it profoundly misunderstands the issue with terrorist movements worldwide, and that misunderstanding lies at the heart of the policy difference between me and Matthew and his peers. Matt believes that there’s really no difference – to make a broad example – between Gandhi’s National Party and the Sepoy mutineers. They’re just different manifestations of the same political goals, and the way to respond to each would be to understand and deal with those goals.
He’s smart enough to undercut his absolute point (made in “The situation, clearly, can only be resolved by Russian concessions on the underlying political issue in Chechnya.” with what comes next: “At the same time, in the wake of this sort of outrage there will not only be no mood for concessions, but an amply justified fear that such concessions would only encourage further attacks and a further escalation of demands. I don’t see any way out for Russian policymakers nor any particularly good options for US policymakers.”
Now “Wow, we’re screwed.” is certainly one response to these issues, and it’s one that’s certainly appropriate to a personal website like the ones Matthew and I keep. But one of Matthew’s core points – one that believes that terror can only be resolved by granting political concessions to terrormasters is so wrong in my view that I thought it should get some attention.
So I forwarded the entire post to a few people, with the followon comment of
“…can only be resolved by Russian concessions on the underlying political issue in Chechnya.”
Right.
It fit neatly into Glenn’s highlight of the sarcastic post by David Kaspar, which lists the appropriate response to this act of terror as including:
1. We may not condone their killings – if there were any at all -, but we have to look for the root causes for a better understanding of their behavior. Were they inconvenienced in practicing their religion? Delays during rush hour in Chechnya? Election losses? Only if we know exactly what drove these young men and women to their somewhat regrettable actions can we make a final judgment.
2. Avoid the term “terrorists” for the hostage takers by all means. They have families with mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and it would be a great disservice for them to have their relatives labeled with derogative terms.
3. The hostage takers have full rights for proper legal procedure. They should be assigned the best lawyers available, preferably from France or Germany. Both countries have a proud tradition of setting proven terrorists free, either as a result of faulty court hearings or by giving in to blackmail.
4. It must be investigated in full detail if Putin is behind the hostage taking. He has every interest in the world to appear as a hardliner, and he desperately needed another victory over Chechnyan freedom fighters. While this is only a non-confirmed hypothesis so far, we have not heard any rejection of it from official Russian government sources – which is quite telling in itself, of course.
5. There can be no – repeat: NO – capital punishment for the hostage takers. Capital punishment is a cruel and inhuman act that violates the human rights of the accused.
6. We request that an internationally reputable organization such as the Red Cross be permitted to monitor conditions and report cases of abuse and torture in the prison where the hostage takers are held.
7. Free flow of information between the imprisoned hostage takers and their peers from Al Qaida must be permitted at all times. Access to telecommunications and the internet must be guaranteed.
8. The search for a political solution of the conflict is imperative. Meetings between representatives of the Russian government and the hostage takers, under the supervision of the United Nations, are the only way out of the crisis. The cycle of violence has got to stop!
Matthew took offense at Glenn’s link, and replied somewhat colorfully:
Fuck you, Glenn. The entire item I wrote was one goddamn paragraph long would it have killed you to accurately reproduce what I wrote?
UPDATE: Via e-mail:
Misquote you? I cut and pasted. And it seemed like what you meant, judging by the post and your comments. If it’s not what you meant, I’ll happily mention that — but it was Armed Liberal who sent me the link, and *he* certainly read it that way, too.
I’ll reproduce the post in question, this time with italics for added emphasis:
[snipped – you read it above]
What I was saying, in case this is for some reason genuinely unclear, is that to get Chechens to stop making war on Russia requires Russia to do something to resolve the underlying grievance — Russia’s mistreatment of Chechnya. At the same time, taking steps to resolve the underlying grievance would, under the circumstances, be just the sort of appeasement that would invite further attacks. Therefore, it’s not clear what the Russian government can or should do in order to prevent future massacres like this.
Yeah, Matthew, what you were saying was unclear – both times. And big points for responding with “you’re a moron” instead of “I should have been clearer.” Way to take responsibility Matthew!!
Now let me put Matthew aside (literally; I’m going to have to find a new liberal for the blogroll, because I’m done with him. Suggestion in comments, please) and go to the core point that he’s missing.
Geopolitical conflicts are not new. Religious and ethnic groups and nations have fought for control of populations, territory, and resources for quite a long time.
The Chechens mounted an army against the Russian Federation; they lost. They are engaging in guerilla war (which I’ll define as ‘terrorist tactics’ like fighting in civilian clothes, suicide and other bombing, etc. – targeted with some precision at the military of one’s opponents). And they are engaging in terrorism against the civilian population of the Russian Federation, as we saw yesterday.
I would support negotiating a political settlement with any country that was overtly at war with us, given that such a settlement was reasonably in our interest. I would not even object to a political settlement with a country that engaged in guerilla warfare against our forces.
But I am – violently – opposed to negotiating political settlements with groups that practice terrorism as a core tactic (note that in conflicts, all sides typically do some things that could be classified as ‘terroristic’) – because there is fundamentally no one home to negotiate with.
Like the legendary pirates who made their crews eat human flesh so that they could never again live in ‘civilized’ society, groups that adopt terror as the core tactic of their struggle cross a line which makes it impossible for them to live among us as members of the world ‘society of civil societies’.
Note that I am not calling for the death or imprisonment of all the individuals who are part of those groups.
But the groups themselves must, I believe, be reconstituted.
I say this because I believe that there is a simple proposition that we should keep in mind:
If terrorism is about ‘liberation’ – about birthing new states, like Chechnya or Palestine, or about ‘freeing’ states like Iraq – we have to ask ourselves what kind of states will be born or won through that process.
Take Mandela, Gandhi, Havel – the tools they used to free their people resulted in states that could act like states ready to participate in the world of civilized society.
What kind of states would be born if they were led by bin Laden, Arafat or the terror masters of Chechnya? Do we want to grant statehood or political power to people whose vision is so clouded in rage and blood?
The Stern Gang?
Yeah, I expected that one – but note that the Stern Gang wasn’t the dominent political/military force in Israel at the time – it was the Irgun, which was far more restrained…and which militarily confronted the Stern Gang leaders on a beach, if you’ll recall.
A.L.
AL: I really disagree with Matt. I think things are going to get better. Given that Basayev and Al Saif are obvious Al Qaeda creatures (see Dan’s analysis) this has to be a wakeup call for the Russians, and our other indifferent allies in the WoT.
This is beyond the issue of the war between Chechnya and Russia. Regardless of how anyone thinks about that this is different. This is a deliberate and deliberately brutal attack on unarmed children and their parents and teachers. You do not concede to such barbarity. You defeat it. Or you travel that long dark path away from civilization toward lawlessness and common brutality. That is not a good path, though it is well travelled.
Who’s Pavel?
Bryant Durrell at Population:One is good, albeit less well-known than Big Media Matt – I’ve been debating with him for a long while now on my site and he’s always been civil, reasonable, and thoughtful, even when I wasn’t. I’ve benefitted a lot from our exchanges. Plus, he’s a top-flight Mac geek to boot.
If you are looking for a new liberal blogger, I’d recommend Meryl Yourish, of “www.yourish.com”.
Oh, and in answer to your final question: no. No, we don’t. Or at least I don’t.
Excellent post.
Apropos the Stern Gang. I am obviously no fan, but can anyone recall them planting bombs in schools, stripping children and shooting them in the back? Perhaps I missed something. The operative point is that Jabotinsky et al were continually and rigorously criticized and militarily opposed from INSIDE the Jewish community. Where is the Islamic community in all this? It is time for them to save themselves.
I think it’s a typo and is supposed to be ‘Havel’, more precisely the former Czech (and before that Czechoslovak) president Václav Havel.
Your point may be vunerable to the fact that the ANC (Mandela’s group) engaged in terror for a many years prior to becoming the dominant political party in South Africa.
For what I take to be a Russian Liberal view on Chechnya, a guest column in Slate. It’s not unsympathetic to Chechen political demands, qua demands.
In any event, in Real Life Putin’s attacks on Chechnya aren’t constrained by any of those snarky little suggestions; in fact, they take place largely away from Western press and almost certainly not by pre-Abu-Ghraib Western standards of decency.
So why aren’t they working?
It was a very Soviet thing to believe “When force doesn’t work, apply more force.” What isn’t clear is that the doctrine works towards the nominal goal, or merely lets us work out frustration and vengeance.
I agree with your general sentiment, but not with its applicability to Chechnya.
The Russians clearly have a policy in Chechnya of targeting civilians. The rape and murder women and children as well as combatants.
This isn’t like the Israelis who kill civilians by accident while trying to target combatants. It’s deliberate attacks on civilians.
You ask:
We might ask the same about Russia. Frankly, I think the answer is already clear – Russia has become a fascist state.
In this context, I don’t see the Chechen guerillas as any worse than the Russian military. (Are you willing to accept a military as a terrorist force?)
However, the Chechens do have a far more legitimate grievance than Russia – Russia is following a policy of genocide against the Chechens that began in the 1800s, peaked under Stalin (when the entire population of Chechnya was deported to Siberia) and continues today. The Chechens aren’t trying to take over Russia. They just want the Russians to get out of Chechnya. I hope they avoid further terrorism, but I also hope that they win.
Fixing typo now…responses soon.
A.L.
Do we want to grant statehood or political power to people whose vision is so clouded in rage and blood?.
We got that with Germany,China,the Soviet Union and Cambodia,to name a few.Terrorists invariably rule by terror,by their very nature it is impossible to forgo the destructive abilities that brought them to power.
>>Yeah, I expected that one – but note that the Stern Gang wasn’t the dominent political/military force in Israel at the time – it was the Irgun, which was far more restrained…and which militarily confronted the Stern Gang leaders on a beach, if you’ll recall.
Not quite. It was the HAGANAH who confronted LEHI. Irgun was another terrorist group which cooperated with LEHI (Stern Gang) in the Der Yassin massacre.
TJ –
You’re right, and that’s two errors. I’m going to go have a cup of Morning Thunder and see if that helps.
A.L.
I’m with Mike here. In fact, if the Russian, Soviet, and Tsarist governments hadn’t treated the Ivan I. Chechenovich so badly, there wouldn’t be much desire for independence or revolution.
If the Russians had held a referendum on Chechen independence back in 1990, the Chechens might very well have left peacefully and all this nonsense would have been avoided.
But no, issues like “national pride” and “maintaining credibility” had to come into play. Then horrors like the Siege of Grozny occured, and we’re surprised that some Chechens have turned to the Dark Side?
I’m always amused when imperial governments use the existence of small numbers of nutjobs as an excuse to throw “consent of the governed” out the window. It’s so very CONVENIENT.
Sorry, T.J., but bull****.
Look far enough back and you can find an excuse for anything. “No dogs or Irishmen.” Does that mean the Irish in New York should have leave to use terror?
Our history here in California – the the Native Americans, Chinese, and Japanese isn’t a pleasant one.
When they start blowing up schools, do we go “…but…”?
How far back do we wind the clock of history? Bin Laden is pissed about losing the Battle of Vienna. Is that a legitimate cause?
So where, exactly, do you draw the line, TJ?
A.L.
*This is not another 911*
You can’t compare The United States of America with Russia and say that the recent events are similar. The events in Russia are a civil war with both sides acting as terrorists. Recently, the Chechen President was assassinated and Putin put his man in office after a Saddam Huissain style election.
Don’t get me wrong, the death of those children is horrific and the Chechen rebels are to blame for putting the children in this position in the first place.
At the same time, the Russian Government did not do everything in their power to save those children. It is very sad, but from what is being reported, Putin may have used those children just as much as the Chechen rebels and may have contributed to their ultimate death as well.
“Toll rises as Putin admits fatal errors”:http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/05/1094322642688.html?oneclick=true
The most elite of Russia’s special forces, the Alpha team, was so unprepared to tackle the Chechen terrorists inside the school that it did not arrive until more than 20 minutes after some of the estimated 1200 hostages started escaping.
A failure by other troops to secure a perimeter around the area allowed armed civilians to rush into the school, impeding the effort to rescue fleeing mothers and children. It also made it difficult for the soldiers to identify the hostage-takers, allowing some to escape.
A lack of medical provision outside the school meant that most of the freed hostages were unable to be treated quickly, further increasing casualties.
Earlier decisions by the Russian authorities also appear to have exacerbated the problems. Freed hostages said that the terrorists’ mood deteriorated on the second day of the siege, when President Putin and Murat Ziazikov, the North Ossetian President, refused to travel to the scene. The terrorists then denied the hostages any food and water.
North Ossetia’s Interior Minister, Kazbek Dzantiyev, resigned yesterday, saying: “After what happened in Beslan I have no right to hold this post, both as an officer and a gentleman.”
Visiting the injured in hospital early on Saturday, Mr Putin, who declared Monday and Tuesday days of national mourning, stopped to stroke the head of one injured child in a gesture of tenderness the Russian people do not normally associate with him.
The crisis in North Ossetia underlined the strength of President Putin’s grip on Russia but also showed up the weak foundations of his state. As live pictures of the harrowing stand-off were broadcast around the world the majority of the Russian population, who are without access to Western satellite channels, were kept in the dark. Critics said it harked back to the era of Soviet censorship.
Now Russia has the world’s attention and can destroy Chechnia with the world’s blessing.
SBD
>>Apropos the Stern Gang. I am obviously no fan, but can anyone recall them planting bombs in schools, stripping children and shooting them in the back? Perhaps I missed something.
“Yep.”:http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dypail.htm
Luckily at Deir Yassin some ultra-orthodox Jews stopped the terrorists from blowing up the schoolhouse:
“Meanwhile a crowd of people from Givat Shaul, with peyot {earlocks} , most of them religious, came into the village and started yelling ‘gazlanim’ ‘rozchim’ – (thieves, murderers) “we had an agreement with this village. It was quiet. Why are you murdering them?” They were Chareidi (ultra-orthodox) Jews. This is one of the nicest things I can say about Hareidi Jews. These people from Givat Shaul gradually approached and entered the village, and the Lehi and Irgun people had no choice, they had to stop. It was about 2:00 or 3:00 PM. Then the Lehi and Irgun gathered about 250 people, most of them women, children and elderly people in a school house. Later the building became a “Beit Habad” – “Habad House.’ They were debating what to do with them. There was a great deal of yelling. The dissidents were yelling ‘Let’s blow up the schoolhouse with everyone in it’ and the Givat Shaul people were yelling “thieves and murderers – don’t do it” and so on. Finally they put the prisoners from the schoolhouse on four trucks and drove them to the Arab quarter of Jerusalem near the Damascus gate. I left after the fourth truck went out. ”
Joe,
Your good news only day is a major inhibitor of discussion. Events do not respect personal preferences. If people cannot discuss matters which concern them here, they will do so elsewhere. That has happened.
You can’t have it both ways anymore. It is time to choose between a personal affairs blog and a current events blog.
Joe,
Your good news only day is a major inhibitor of discussion. Events do not respect personal preferences. If people cannot discuss matters which concern them here, they will do so elsewhere. That has happened.
You can’t have it both ways anymore. It is time to choose between a personal affairs blog and a current events blog.
>>Sorry, T.J., but bull****.
>>Look far enough back and you can find an excuse for anything. “No dogs or Irishmen.” Does that mean the Irish in New York should have leave to use terror?
You misunderstand me. The crazies are almost certainly lost to us and will likely have to be killed. I’m talking about preventing the formation of _more crazies_ and _getting the population to help us kill/capture the crazies_.
If a population is treated badly enough for long enough, and/or is fed enough bad information (Madrassas), two bad things happen. Members of the population will crack and become crazies, and the population will lose all enthusiasm for assisting in their elimination.
This doesn’t make what the terrorists do _right_, _smart_, or _sane_. It’s quite obvious that the terrorists are _wrong_, _stupid_, and _nuts_.
That’s why we need to stop more from being created, and convince all the sane people to help us. “Punishing” the non-terrorists for the actions of their insane neighbors isn’t just unjust, it’s _counter-productive_.
>>The problem with fighting terrorism is that if you want to be effective (at least in societies where there is wide spread sympathy for the terrorist cause), you end up causing as much damage as the terrorists.
If you choose the Dark Path and decide that the civilians are the enemy, I’ve only one piece of advice: you’d better kill ALL of them. _Leave no one alive._ That’s because once you’ve killed a certain percentage of the civilians, you’ll have proven yourself right.
>>In Iraq, the US has taken the civilized path, and as a consequence is losing Iraq slowly, but surely, to the terrorists.
I find this statement to be factually lacking. What was done to Fallujah back in June 2003 was both uncivilized and stupid. It’s also dubious that either the terrorists or the USG are winning. It’s equally unlikely that the terrorists/guerillas/whatever are unified and have consistent objectives.
>>What if the only way to defeat such barbarity is to brutally attack unarmed children, parents and teachers?
Assume that this is true. I would claim that in this case defeat is inevitable. However, by refusing to _become_ the enemy, by refraining from using terrorist tactics, one may at least die with one’s honor and dignity intact.
What would Jesus or Buddha recommend in such a situation? If you are Christian or Buddhist, this recommendation should be binding. If you are not, please explain how their recommendation is unwise.
So in the worldview of SBD it is always necessary to blame the victim. So the Russians are to blame because they failed to respond in an ‘appropriate’ or ‘timely’ manner, or they are culpable because they did not have medical supplies on hand sufficient to treat children suffering from severe dehydration and gunshot wounds to the back. Yeah, Putin seized on this event as an opportunity to put forth his own final solution.
Whatever standing the Chechens may have had is now forfeit. What rational being would attempt to stand with the perpetrators of such carnage directed at the weakest and most innocent members of humanity. That the Chechens may once have had a just cause is now regretable but it is the price of going to far. Live free or die is a proud motto and worthy of consideration. Live free or slaughter the innocents is not.
Or, perhaps it is, apparently in the eyes of some, if not many, the Rubicon has run dry.
I have a little problem with the Salon article linked to above:
Correct that to “Russia’s terrorism problem is not just international Islam” and I’d be okay with it. To deny that “international Islam” is involved is simply false. The recent attack probably was financed with money from outside Chechnya. For background see here.
FWIW I’ve just posted my own commentary on the situation.
If you are willing to wait a few days you could replace Matt the Brat with Andrew Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan has almost completely shed his conservative costume at this point.
>>Whatever standing the Chechens may have had is now forfeit.
I see. So the Chechen civilians who knew nothing of this terrorist plot, didn’t support it, and don’t approve of it now can now be shafted justly, eh?
The terrorists are crazy because they believe in COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT. Those kids didn’t have it coming, and neither does the average Chechen.
The terrorists have it coming, but the average Chechen is Not That Man.
But what is punishment, T.J.?
I propose to you a scenario. You may agree with it entirely, partially, or not at all, but I think that you will find it closer to your viewpoint than: “Kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out”.
We can divide Chechens broadly into two groups: the guilty and the innocent. The guilty consist not only of the terrorists on the ground, I think you would agree, but also the organizers and financers of those operations.
The innocent, of course, consist of all other Chechens (naturally, there will be ambiguities and errors in judging them; for the sake of discussion, however, I shall speak as if we can always make a correct judgment). However, you seem to agree that now-innocent Chechens can be corrupted by, e.g., exposure to propaganda in madrassahs and the like. Naturally, killing them on the theory that “nits grow into lice” is outside the sphere of morality; however, the problem can be resolved simply by closing all madrassahs (and equivalent; I will use “madrassah” as shorthand).
1. Is closing madrassahs cultural genocide?
2. Is cultural genocide to be equated with physical genocide?
Talk about the Stern Gang and Irgun is dwelling on a ridiculous point: no one handed them a country, and no one was even considering it. B-G confronted both groups and in no uncertain terms not only read them the riot act, so to speak, but told them in no uncertain terms who held the reins of power. He destroyed their ship loaded with arms, fercryinoutloud, to which AL refers early in the thread.
In the case of these terrorists in Russia, giving in to their demands means giving them and their leadership an Islamist Taliban-like state that is free from Russian intervention – which means free to export jihad to Dagestan and other neighbors.
Matt is being unimaginative; pick up a recent VDH book and read about Sherman’s part in the civil war – he took the war to the leadership and to the folks funding the thing. We did the same recently in Afgahanistan and Iraq. It is possible, though very difficult, for Putin to do the same. E.g., find to whom the cel phone calls were made from the school and eliminate those people. Find the money sources in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere and kill them as well, and apologize to the U.S. State Dept. later. And so on… there is no need to do what Assad did in Hama (kill 20,000 people and pave over the neighborhood) although in hindsight Assad’s strategy worked very well. Find the camps and madrassas that produced the terrorists, at least 9 or 10 of them, and obliterate them without warning.
None of these things qualify as destroying Chechnya, nor do they qualify as becoming the monster that is our enemy.
AL: If you want a smart and civil liberal blogger, check out Kriston Capps at Grammar Police. Kriston also happens to be Matt Yglesias’s roommate …
[ThomasD] _So in the worldview of SBD it is always necessary to blame the victim. So the Russians are to blame because they failed to respond in an ‘appropriate’ or ‘timely’ manner, or they are culpable because they did not have medical supplies on hand sufficient to treat children suffering from severe dehydration and gunshot wounds to the back. Yeah, Putin seized on this event as an opportunity to put forth his own final solution.
Did you miss this part of my post while you attributed my worldview as blaming the victim?
*Don’t get me wrong, the death of those children is horrific and the Chechen rebels are to blame for putting the children in this position in the first place.*
First of all, Russia is not the victim, those children are the victim.
Second, Putin himself “admits to fatal errors” and yes, it is Russia’s responsibility to provide the obvious when its citizens are in need of medical attention. It’s not as if the Chechin Terrorists had just arrived and started killing those children. There was plenty of time to do the basic security measures as well as provide medical attention. It should have been very clear to everyone that this situation was not going to end without bloodshed especially since the theater incident a few years back.
Your statement is absolutely and positively wrong and I resent the fact that you are accusing me of blaming the victim.
SBD
Hi, I’m new to this blog. I apreciate the civility everyone is showing. I don’t think ayone is arguing that the attacks on schoolchildren were justified. I don’t think anyone is arguing that terrorism is justified. I think that some people are trying to make the point that given the historical treatment of the Chechnyan (did I spell that right?) people within recent memory, terrorists responses are inevitable. The massive terrible abuses of the Stalinist era aren’t the distant past to people who lost relatives, homes and property.
The problem with the Russian response is that they will kill more civilians and that will reinforce the support for terrorists who will attack Russians so the Russians will attack more civilians…..
I agree with almost everything you said in the article. The only exception I take is the founding of the Irish Republic. The leaders of the IRA, Michael Collins and Eamonn De Valera, conducted a bloody civil war and the country they founded was a political success. Of course that is true only of the Irish Free state and does not take into account Northern Ireland.
don –
You raise a good question, and one that exposes the limits of my knowledge. I’d assumed (yeah, I know) that most of the Collins/De Valera era violence was aimed at the British forces and rulers. (i.e. was more guerilla warfare than terrorism) This may come from an overly romanticized set of histories, so I’d be interested in hearing from folks who know about this.
A.L.
My recommendation for token liberal: Dawn Summers at Clarified.
“Now, we’re faced with two unacceptable options: surrender or becoming monstrous.”
That is exactly the dilemma “terrorist theory” wants to put the opposition into.Ruthless behavior outside the bounds of what ordinary people can stomach gives great power to those willing to engage in it and that is as true for criminal behavior as for politics.
It is almost impossible to square the circle and find a moral and behavioral position to combat “terrorism” that is comfortable or is appropriate to any and all situations. One really has to take it on a case by case basis and not be backed into the positions the terrorists depend on.
In the case of Chechnya, it is clear that the Soviet Union and later the Russian federation, have behaved in their typical heavy handed, incompetent, and damaging manner. However, they consider it a key political interest to keep Chechnya from breaking away, rightly or wrongly. We can only argue with that if we consider our reaction if lets say, New Hampshire decided to break away. Chechnyians have the right to fight for independence of course. But one has to judge how horrific their governance by the Russian federation would be versus their self governance. And nothing I have ever read about the situation indicates that self government by brutal, corrupt, Mafioso style warlords would benefit the people of Chechnya at all. So I don’t think anyone involved holds the moral or political high ground.
The resistance from Chechnya consists of three groups with some overlap of course: those who bear a valid grudge against the Russians through personal loss, those who are radical religious zealots and want to set up a Muslim theocracy, and plain ordinary criminals. In my view none of these people have the right or justification to engage in a terror war to achieve their ends. Therefore, the outcome of this latest attack should not give carte blanche to the Russians to use any and all tactics but rather to stiffen their will and declare that because the Chechnyians have crossed the line, they will never ever be allowed to achieve independence no matter what the cost. No terrorist group can fight forever when there is no hope of victory. They will either die in the attempt and eliminate themselves as an opposition force, give up, or be restrained by the larger group they exist within.
The tactics against terrorists are no different than in any other war. One has to be willing to take casualties, one must fight ruthlessly on the battlefield and kill the enemy without mercy (one thing the Chechnyan terrorists have learned is that Russian forces will inevitably kill them), and one must have the will to see it through. And although one must try to keep the fight versus the combatants rather than bystanders, it must be demonstrated that while restraint will be used, it will go only so far.
While this involves tragic consequences it does not necessitate becomming “monstrous”.
Hold the phone.
The Chechen separatists are to this event as the ETA was to the Spain bombing. Let’s not lump all of our terrorists into one homogenized group.
These animals were Wahabists, not Chechen separatists. They were assisted by Islamist/Wahabist foreign terror-mongers. There may be a blurring of the lines of separation here, but I think it is important to distinuish who the Real Enemy is here.
This event is the most devestating terror act in Russian history. They think it is their 9/11. If you understand the enemy we face perhaps you agree, unless you think their 9/11 has yet to come. That’s all relative.
The bottom line is, the Russians didn’t invite this attack on their children any more than we invited the attack on the twin towers.
“…the ANC (Mandela’s group) engaged in terror…”
And they terrorized not only agents of the apartheid regime, but also blacks who did not hew sufficiently to the ANC’s methods of fighting apartheid. And that included killing kids who failed to obey the boycott of schools. (Who needs education?)
And most of the lefties I knew had absolutely no problem with that terror, even when it involved the killing of children.
Sorry to offend your sensibilities SDB, but trying to draw a distinction between ‘the children’ and Putin, or ‘Russian authorities’ just wont wash. Sure those children were just pawns, even at their most bloodthirsty moments the terrorist did not specifically blame those children. However they did choose to torture and kill those children as a means of targeting Russia. To say that Russia is not a victim is disingenuous at best.
If you so freely admit the ‘rebels’ are to ‘blame’ then why did you seek to apportion blame to Putin or anyone else?
Monday morning quarterbacking of the authorities’ repsonse to a terrorist/hostage crisis may have some merit – if only to improve the response to the next atrocity – and only if you also concede that more atrocities are coming.
Which do you prefer – a better medical response to the next kiddie massacre or destruction of movements that resort to terror?
Oh, stop calling them rebels. Rebels don’t hang nail bombs from the rafters of a school auditorium.
I think JohnPV is making a good point: not letting Chechnya break away might have been a mistake, but at this point letting it have independence should be out of the question. Any political aim that has terrorism as a dominant tactic should be out of the question.
I am surprised that in this forum people overlook the fact that many of the terrorists were not Chechen at all. All the traces lead to Al-Qaida and the Wahhabis. In general, I am upset with how little attention is being paid to the similarities between political goals of Al-Qaida, and Islamist ideology that is promoted and exported by the Saudi government.
You can call Putin’s regime totalitarian, but what many in America fail to realize is that nothing less totalitaritarian is possible in Russia in the foreseeable future. While it is important to pressure Putin on human rights in Chechnya, it is far more important to have unity in the face of common enemy. If America wants an ally in the war against Islamofascism in Russia, Putin is as good as it is going to get.
pst314 –
Actually, I don;t recall reading of any significant ANC terror acts not aimed at fellow black South Africans and intending to consolidate their hold on power within Soweto and the Bantustans.
And the acts of terror were the – tragically – commonplace public murders of political rivals or unreliables, not the mass attacks on schools, churches, etc.
A.L.
Hey, thanks, Mike! I’m flattered. I should probably note that I haven’t been doing as much political blogging lately as I once did. I am deeply fed up with both the left and the right, for similar but not identical reasons. Daily Kos is full of people whining about how Kerry’s losing, Redstate.org is full of people whining about how stupid the left is, and when you get right down to it I don’t see much but a bunch of wanna-be herd animals looking for someone to reinforce their convictions.
Possibly I should blog more about that.
If Kerry gets elected, which is where my money would be at the moment, I will no doubt be significantly more critical of him. I just happen to dislike Bush more. I thought Clinton should have resigned for trying to lie about whether or not he hooked up with Monica, but I didn’t think he should have been impeached. If he’d just said “Yeah, I screwed up and fooled around with her,” I’d have had no objections.
I think that terrorism can’t be fought by eliminating rogue states. Afghanistan is out of the Al Qaeda business, but as the Chechens demonstrate nearly daily, that hasn’t slowed Osama down all that much. History — Aum Shinrikyo, the Shining Path, the Baader-Meinhof Gang — demonstrate the effectiveness and ruthlessness of non-state-backed terrorist organizations.
Blather blather. So, what do I think about the Chechens? I think that Chechnya has the right to be free — I am strongly in favor of the right to secede. In fact, if New Hampshire wanted to secede, I’d think they had the right too.
But… it’s not necessarily practical for that to happen right now. I don’t think the terrorism means that the rest of Chechnya forfeits the right to be independent, but I do think that it’s bad practice to encourage terrorist activity. I’d like to think it’d be possible to find a compromise under which (say) the leaders of the terrorism are handed over to appropriate courts, and in exchange for this, Chechnya gets independence. But like that’s going to happen.
There’s also the niggling little issue that if Chechnya gets to be free, there’s going to be a few other chunks of Russia that want to be independent, and Russia’s too close to chaos as it is. It would be unfortunate if Russia lost access to the Caspian Sea, let alone (God help us) to the Baltic.
Russia depresses me. I’m honestly not sure why we’re screwing around in Iraq when we could have been spending that money to help Russia get the hell out of the situation they’re in.
A.L.,
Whatever else you say about Yglesias, at least concede he got it half right (that appeasement of terrorism would be a bad tactic right now).
The New York Times gets it completely wrong! (Shorter NYT: appeasement is the only way forward, and the Russians are too stupid to do it).
However quickly Matt tossed off his post, he did better than the Times.
There are too many red herrings in this thread to catch them all. Swim on.
It’s really very simple. Yes, Russia is responsible for planting the seeds here with the barbarous treatment of the Chechens. Absent the brutal suppression, would Islamist terror be taking root there? Perhaps, but arguably not.
Yglesias and other fail miserably when they assume that making amends now would have any effect. This goes beyond the traditional “weakness invites more terror” arguments against appeasement. The Islamists are now calling shots and will direct their terror against anyone who opposes a Taliban style theocracy in Chechnia, including and especially any Chechen civilians who would oppose such a regime (and there would be plenty). Chechen civilians arguably now face more of a threat from Al Qaida than from Putin.
The solution lies in patiently driving a wedge between the Chechens and the Islamists, especially the Arab Islamists. Better treatment of Chechen civilians would not invite more terror from Chechens. It would infuriate the Arab Islamists involved but they will do their thing regardless.
Driving the wedge is what we’re trying to do in Iraq. It requires patience and from time to time it looks like tactical appeasement but the alternative is scorched earth.
Finally, note that we withdrew our troops from Saudi Arabia, which was one of Bin Laden’s demands. We did so not because he demanded it but in spite of the fact he demanded it, because it was in our interest to do so. Conciliatory response to Chechnia, carefully calibrated, could likewise be in Russia’s interest right now.
If you haven’t read “Dan Darling’s ‘Thoughts on Breslan'”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php — you should. Even if it turns out no Arabs were among the perpetrators of this atrocity, and, let’s not forget, the two airliners and the Moscow subway bombing, Dan still shows just how much the Chechen cause has joined with the Wahhabist one, if not AQ itself. Whatever Alexander II or Stalin did in the Chechen-Ingush is not the main grievance anymore, the Chechen resistance has apparently enlisted in the main jihad.
And if this jihad is run and financed by AQ then Putin has a much bigger job than simply pacifying the Chechen-Ingush. His problems may originate in Riyadh, not Grozny, and our Administration should have a word with the Saudis, should they not?
Judging by the lack of water, ventilation or even toilet facilities the terrorists imposed on the school captives, it suggests that they never meant to ransom or negotiate. Certainly the death toll from heat prostration would have been severe and maybe that was part of the design, a maximum event for a world audience. Bloody and high-visibility: that is an AQ method, isn’t it?
And some of you above are right. Good solutions may not be easy, but the creation of a Chechen Islamic Republic — if not a Trans-Caucasian Caliphate — is not any solution, not if that’s what “independence” means.
Sidebar on Ireland, mentioned above: Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera didn’t “establish” the Republic in quite the way stated above, though, yes, they did conduct a civil war — between Irishmen. Collins negotiated a cease fire and an Irish Free State with the Brits; de Valera wanted a Republic. Collins died in a Republican ambush; de Valera survived to become prime minister (a number of his colleagues were shot by the Free Staters, more than executed by the Brits) and declared the Republic in 1947. I’m not aware that the 26-county Free State/Republic was a success till the ’90’s boom and EU membership.
Relevance to this post: de Valera made a point of neutrality in 1939. No help to the UK but no threats either: seems he detained a fair number of terrorists — old IRA colleagues who hadn’t come in from the cold. More than could be said for an independent Chechen Islamic Republic.
The only bulwark against terror that Russia can ever errect in the Caucuses is a decent, civil society, with an administration which enjoys popular legitimacy. Further brutality against Chechen civilians will not advance this goal and the Russians should be dissuaded from it.
>>The only bulwark against terror that Russia can ever errect in the Caucuses is a decent, civil society, with an administration which enjoys popular legitimacy.
Yes. Exactly.
Is the Russian government institutionally capable of doing this? Sadly, I don’t think so. Hence the conflict will continue.
Armed Liberal:
Note that I am not calling for the death or imprisonment of all the individuals who are part of those groups.
All due respect, but why not?
kl:
The massive terrible abuses of the Stalinist era aren’t the distant past to people who lost relatives, homes and property.
The rest of your post aside, by that logic Germany should still be regularly subject to massacres of schoolchildren by young Jews.
If indeed the chechen ‘freedom movement’ has acquire jihadi colors, then it bodes ill for all parties concerned coz political initiatives can now no longer ‘solve’ this problem
Historical precedent is depressing at least in this case. Whenever jihad becomes any movement’s dominant theme, nothing any state has done thus far has ever been able to successfully put down a l;arge scale jihadi rebellion. I don’t see how Russia will solve this one.
AL does pose an interesting proposition, what happens after, say, a negotiated concession to a rebel/terrorist movement?
>>If terrorism is about ‘liberation’ – about birthing new states, like Chechnya or Palestine, or about ‘freeing’ states like Iraq – we have to ask ourselves what kind of states will be born or won through that process.
Take Mandela, Gandhi, Havel … << Except that Gandhi and Havel were not practicing terrorism as we know it, or armed insurgency. Arguably the ANC was, though Mandela's prison term kept him out of that. Better examples of post-terror concessions to discuss: 1979, Zimbabwe. Result: Mugabe. 1965, Kenya. Jomo Kenyatta, ex-Mau Mau, takes power. Apparent stability. Kleptocracy creeps in but much later. 1962, Algeria. FLN comes to power; nation doesn't pose any international threat but performs major post-independence bloodbath inside country. Continuing instability today. 1948, Israel. UK leaves and regional war erupts. Legitimist gov't formed by Haganah but ex-terrorists (Begin, Shamir) end up as PMs, decades later. Permanent conflict. 1922, Ireland. Master terrorist Michael Collins helps form the Free State but much of the Republican movement opts for a bloody civil war. Free Staters execute more Republicans than the British did. Some survivors drift into legitimacy after de Valera. IRA slumbers till 1969 conflict. Ireland stays neutral in WWII, something not helpful to UK. 1902, South Africa. Britain grants the Boers a form of home rule not only over their old republics but over Cape and Natal colonies as well. Apartheid government gradually comes into its own by 1948. South Africa does stay Allied in two world wars, however. Other than Kenya, it's hard to see what positive good came out of any of these, though most weren't catastrophic outside their borders. It helps that, as with Israel, (Mandela's) South Africa and India, you had countries and local leadership that had Western education and had a rule-of-law basis to build a democracy on. We don't have that anywhere in the Arab or post-Soviet world. So, some sort of magnanimous peace with the Chechen gang may be doubtful of success. Especially with no local knowledge of democracy or rule of law. Who's going to teach them? Mr. Putin?
I would like to associate myself with lewy14’s remarks on this matter.
Now, let’s consult the news and see what’s happening in the real world:
So there you have it.
The Russian solution appears to be strong statements and pledges of resolve against the terrorists on a national level combined with regional talks with those Chechens who can be dealt with. The mailed fist and the velvet glove, working together.
I say good.
I notice that most of the people condemning the Chechens aren’t addressing the issue of Russian terrorism in Chechnya.
For example,
Well, then what about Russia’s desire to keep Chechnya? Shouldn’t that also be covered? Does anyone deny that Russia has also targeted civilians in Chechnya(not just under Stalin but today and ongoing)? And that its aim is to terrorize the population into submission? Isn’t Russia even more guilty of terrorism than the Chechen rebels given the vastly larger number of victims?
I agree that Chechnya isn’t going to be a pretty country if it becomes independent – the radicals are runnign things now – but Russia isn’t a pretty country either… how are things better with Chechnya part of Russia?
oops, here’s the link
Mike, you’re kind of missing the point about terrorism. Once a state does it – with troops in uniform – it may be violent and devastating, it is certainly an act of war, but it isn’t terrorism which BY DEFINITION involves the violation of the norms of war.
So while the seight of Grozny was doubtless inuman, and various other Russian Federation military actions doubtless approach war crimes levels – they aren’t terrorism, because a state started them and can stop them and is liable for them.
A.L.
Mike raises an interesting point, but it’s worth noting that the Caucasus is, with Siberia, the last of the tsarist conquests still under the Russian flag. Just to give you a little flavor, when a Russian filmmaker shot “Prisoner of the Mountains”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008ZZ9M/qid%3D1094432886/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-9173405-5428606 in 1996, a story of Russian soldiers held for ransom by Chechen rebels, he had merely to take a story written over 150 years ago, by Leo Tolstoy, and update the uniforms.
It is true that Russian generals under Nicholas I and Alexander II tended to exterminate rebellious eastern peoples — look at what Gen. Skobelev did to Geok Tepe. It is true that Stalin relocated entire Chechen (and Ingush, and Tatar, et al) populations to Siberia. That hardly justifies this atrocity. Or a concession that gives this particular paramilitary the right to form a new Chechen government.
More to the point: the Chechen enlistment in the general jihadist/AQ cause — see “Dan Darling’s order-of-battle report”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php — suggests that surrendering Chechnya now would not give it a national identity but merely exchange Russian suzerainty for that of the greater Caliphate.
Things won’t be better for the Chechens being part of Russia. But, will it be better for Russia? Or Georgia, an ally of ours?
Or us?
(Yes I realize that Putin seems to combine the worst features of Nicholas I and Nicholas II. That’s a whole ‘nother debate, whether a weak autocratic kleptocracy is an ally that can shield us.)
I’d like to associate my self with lewy, too. praktike also, guilt by association. The ONLY solution to the problem of terrorism is to remove the substrate that feeds it. But there has to be replacement, because a void just regrows the terrorists. Russia will probably need help. Where does that come from? The UN? Heh.
I think there is a real opportunity for a deeper Russian/US alliance here.
We really blew the rebuilding of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there is a great danger that the country will revert to the old ways — Putin’s speech seemed to hint at that.
So we can help the Russians beef up their counterterrorism ability and lessen their need to resort to atrocities such as the leveling of Grozny. In exchange, Russia can be more helpful with Iran and is likely to be less suspicious of US motives in Central Asia — remember that the Russians attempted to dissuade several of the regimes there not to assist us with Afghanistan, and they’ve been trying to work with the Chinese to counter expanding US influence in the region.
So in turn I would agree with praktike here, we should use this as an opportunity to engage Russia. Civil society has to fill the vacuum that Jinnderella describes, be it in the Caucuses, Iraq, Afghanistan, the West Bank, or Gaza.
Jinnderella is discouraged about the UN, T.J. is discouraged about Russia in their ability to foster civil society in the Caucuses.
I’m discouraged about the NYT, both for the story that praktike linked, and the editorial that I linked earlier.
I detect barely a hint of any acknowledgment that we’re dealing with terrorists here who cannot be negotiated with. Absolutly nothing resembling the analysis Dan Darling has done regarding who the enemy is here. The basic message I read from the Times is “negotiating with terrorists is the right thing to do, sorry you all are too stupid and brutal to see it”. Feh.
“Independence for Chechnia” is not the same thing as ending the brutality and creating a civil society. What is necessary is to recognize that Chechen patriots do exist, that they are not the AQ backed Islamic extremists who perpretrated the Breslan massacre, that the Russians and the actual Chechen patriots have a common enemy in the person of Shamil Basayev, that this guy can no more be negotiated with than Bin Laden, and that he cannot be allowed to establish his trans Caucus calliphate.
Funny, I think Putin is more likely to come around to this idea than the New York Times is.
Whoa…
Terrorism is the use of violence to terrorize civilian populations in an attempt to produce political or social results.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s done by a nation or not. By your definition, if the Palestinians get statehood then Palestinian terrorism would suddenly no longer be terrorism. Nonsense.
I should add, to preclude any confusion, that the kinds of negotiations described in praktike’s excerpt of the Times story are negotiations I fully support.
My problem is with the simplistic and inadequate analysis of the Times story, which indicates with approval that it sees these negotiations as appeasment.
Talks with the political wing of the Chechen seperatist movement do not constitute appeasement – these negotiations, successfully engaged, will drive a wedge between the Chechens and the Jihadis.
Agreed, there does seem to be a general confusion on the part of the Times here. I’m not sure why, but it seems like they’re viewing the Chechnya struggle through an old lens.
From the sounds of things, the Russians are open to talks with Maskhadov if he renounces any remaining ties with Basayev. So it looks to me as though the proper thing to do here would be to bring Maskhadov into the fold while getting the Russian military up to the necessary par where it can eradicate Basayev and his fellow travelers.
lewy14 (September 5, 10:52 PM):
>The only bulwark against terror that Russia can ever errect in the Caucuses is
>a decent, civil society, with an administration which
>enjoys popular legitimacy.
Except they don’t have any of this themselves. 🙂 How are they gonna erect it for others?
Just for the record, and I don’t want to let it dominate the thread, the Jewish extremists planted bombs in Arab markets, bus depots, etc. in the 1930s, with attendant loss of life. In fact, only the suicide component of the Hamas/IJ terror campaign is novel.
The Hebrew borrow-word “terorist” refers to Jews and has favorable overtones in right-wing circles. The Arab terrorists of today are referred to by another, unrelated, word.
Mike – I’ll flatly disagree here. The classic definition is:
I’ve talked about this a bunch over at Armed Liberal.
A.L.
The problem with Russia and Chechnya is that neither is a serious country.
The “Russian Federation” doesn’t provide for any peaceful means of secession. Further, it didn’t provide for a ratification process such as we had in the formation of the United States. So the Chechneyans proclaim their unilateral independence, and surprise, surprise, the Russians don’t roll over for it.
As for the current mess, again there’s a lack of seriousness in Russia. “StrategyPage”:http://strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=Russia notes that the great problem in Russia is that the Interior Ministry troops and cops are very corrupt. They take bribes from almost anyone, and so the terrorists can set these horrors up. Obviously, the solution would be to root out corruption, but a serious effort would put most of Russia’s govt. and business leaders into jail.
When Russians regard the welfare of their nation as something more important than lining their pockets, maybe there will be an end to this on-going disaster. Don’t hold your breath.
Bryant: What world are you living in?
“I think that terrorism can’t be fought by eliminating rogue states. Afghanistan is out of the Al Qaeda business, but as the Chechens demonstrate nearly daily, that hasn’t slowed Osama down all that much.”
Say what? From 1996 through Sept. 11th 2001, Al Qaeda murdered at least 3236 people in terrorist attacks aimed at the United States. That’s an average of about 600 per year. Since then, 56, if you count the attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and 2004 as attacks against us. That’s 14 per year. I’d say Osama’s been fairly well slowed down.
But then, you did say “If Kerry gets elected, which is where my money would be at the moment . . .”
There are so many posts in these things, linked only in terms of when they were posted, rather than some strain of logical of argument, that I simply can’t find any incentive to join. What’s the point?
Frankly, I’d much rather read a book by Victor Davis Hanson, or just go blog surfing.
Oh, Demosophist, you are such an intellectual snob! Try to think of it as a self-organizing system, striving for an optimal solution! 🙂
Stephen: you aren’t a stats guy, are you? You’re also fairly parochial, which is a shame.
a) You can’t just look at attacks against the US. That’s part of what got us in trouble in the first place; since Al Qaeda wasn’t attacking us, we didn’t pay as much attention as we should have. And then we found out that yes, it can happen here.
I really truly hope you don’t think that only attacks against the US matter, but that seems to be what you just said. I know some Russian families that would disagree, however.
b) You can’t just look at the number of people dead. If Al Qaeda can carry out large-scale attacks — and I’d count both Bali and Beslan as large-scale attacks — then it’s simply a matter of time before another 3,000 person attack happens.
Also, if you think the rate of American deaths from 2002 to 2004 indicates that Al Qaeda is muted… how do you explain 2001 in the wake of the relatively peaceful years from 1996 to 2000? Possibly you can’t just extrapolate so easily, huh?
Re: Kerry: anyone on either side who tells you either candidate has a slam dunk is a total fool who doesn’t recognize that his or her views are not shared by 75% of the American electorate. My money’s on Kerry; I don’t think it’s impossible that Bush will win. Do you think it’s impossible that Kerry will win?
Armed Liberal,
I don’t see how whether a particular act is terrorism can be determined by whether or not the perpetrator was a state. This also makes terms like “state terrorism” and “state sponsored terrorism” oxymorons.
Are you seriously going to claim that the Lockerbie plane bombing was not terrorism? It was the Libyans who sponsored that, remember? Or the German disco bombing? Or the North Korean attack on the South Korean cabinet in Burma? Would 9/11 not have been terrorism if it has been sponsored by the Libyan government? Get real!
To Mike:
This is my understanding of the definition of terrorism.
There is a distinction between direct actors and sponsors.
Were the Libyans who carried out the act perhaps “clandestine” or “subnational”?
Or were they uniformed representatives of the gov’t of Libya?
If 9/11 had been sponsored by Libya and carried out by subnational or clandestine actors it would still be terrorism. Had uniformed representatives of the Libya gov’t conducted 9/11 it would have been an act of war conducted by a sovereign nation.
By YOUR definition, nearly ALL actions conducted by a military prior to the advent of precision bombing could be defined as terrorism. And that is, in my view, patently absurd.
One purpose for making the distinction is to clarify violence conducted by a state versus violence conducted by covert groups who may or may not be sponsored by a state govt. An important distinction if you care about identifying both perpetrators (clandestine or subnational groups) AND their sponsors (particular when the actors aren’t subnational groups).
CBK
But it’s not self-organizing. That’s the point. It reminds me of a sandwich shop I went to once where thet guy at the head of the line just stood there until his meal was made and paid for before the next person in line was waited on. I’m sure there are a number of people in this list of 75 who have something useful to say on the topic, and one could actually carry on a conversation. But I don’t have time to read through every post to organize the “threads,” and then take the not inconsiderable risk that the posters would never ever read my reply.
Of course, I’m replying to you, but this comment section is nearly dead so your post hadn’t scrolled past the horizon by the time I got back.
Oh well, the point isn’t discussion anyway is it? The point is editorializing, which is a different sort of communication. And in that sense, if I really have something significant to say it’s probably better to just say it on my own blog and trackback, or something.
Anyway, just to show I’m still romantic:
All totalitarian states, from the kidnap and enslavement of the Helots by the Spartans to the subjugation of Eastern Europe by Stalin, are hostage situations if viewed from the perspective of sovereignty and liberalism. And since we’re in a war with totalitarianism, rather than the tactic of terrorism, it is no more surprising that the proponents of Totalitarianism 3.x would employ kidnapping as a tactic than that young puppies wag their tails just like adult hounds.
I just read “Thoughts on Beslan”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php and would like to admit that I was wrong. I guess the thought of feeling sadness for Russia got the better of me. I am glad that Dan is back and providing much needed information would find difficult to find anywhere else.
SBD
I agree it would be absurd, but you conclusion is wrong.
Even before precisions bombing there were military attacks designed to terrorize populations and military attacks aimed at war fighting infrastructure. Even Dresden and Coventry were arguably the latter, given the integration of the civilian population with economic underpinnings of the various war efforts. On the other hand, consider the traditional “pile of heads” school of warfare conducted by people like Tamerlame – clearly state terrorism.
What is the value of such a distinction? Would the moral calculus on 9/11 be different if it had been carried out by an insurgent group or by Libyan commandos?
Mike –
There’s an immense value in the distinction between open acts of war, no matter how horrible, and those performed by unidentifiable actors – it’s called ‘accountability’.
A.L.
My metaphor is the infected wound.
The would does not cause the infection. The infection looks for weakened organisms to latch on to.
Islamofascism is a virus. Its failure in Afghanistan is a proof that once it completely takes over a host, it slowly kills it.
>>There’s an immense value in the distinction between open acts of war, no matter how horrible, and those performed by unidentifiable actors – it’s called ‘accountability’.
Hmm. How exactly were Truman, Churchill, and Stalin held accountable for their mass murder of civilians?
It seems like we need multiple definitions:
Terrorism: Violence against civilians by sub-national or clandestine actors with the goal of effecting political change. (low accountablity)
War Crimes: The above committed by states without the approval of regional or global hegemons. (high accountablilty)
Strategic Bombing, Psychological Warfare, Counter-Terrorism, Field Interrogations, Population Transfer, various other euphemisms: The above committed by states with the approval of regional or global hegemons. (absolutely no accountablity)
Hence Churchill and Truman’s mass murder were _strategic bombing_, Russia’s murders in Chechnya are part of _counter-terrorism_, Saddam Hussein’s murders were _war crimes_, and Bin Laden’s and the Chechen murderers’ actions were _terrorism_.
Wow, a _romantic_ intellectual snob! 🙂
BTW, I thought your comments at Belmont Club the other day were spectacular– is Wretchard running a sandwich shop, too?
And I’ve learned a lot here. But maybe that’s because I tend to listen some. 🙂
Mike (#28603 ):
>I don’t see how whether a particular act is terrorism
>can be determined by whether or not the perpetrator was
>a state.
It’s very important to be able to determine: because a state can be held responsible, it can be punished by a number of means (including war.) Suppose such a state knows ahead of time that it cannot win a war, but still wants to further some policies of theirs. They can covertly sponsor a terrorist group that will hit their enemy non-militarily (meaning not in a direct confrontation with their army, but by hitting civilians, which will produce internal political pressure that they seek on the ruling elite of the target country, but not implicate the perpetrator-state directly — giving it the so-called “plausible deniability”.) Or such a group may be “free-lancing”, not sponsored by a state. The target state doesn’t really know where the crap comes from.
>This also makes terms like “state terrorism”
>and “state sponsored terrorism” oxymorons.
Now you can see that it doesn’t. Terrorism may not be sponsored by any particular state. Like AQ for example.
Mike, I was a bit perplexed by this:
>>Even before precisions bombing there were military attacks designed to terrorize populations and military attacks aimed at war fighting infrastructure. Even Dresden and Coventry were arguably the latter, given the integration of the civilian population with economic underpinnings of the various war efforts.
The whole point of USAAF strategy — daylight, Norden bombsight and all that — was precision bombing. Unlike the home-cottage industries in Japanese cities, German marshalling yards, factories, refineries, et al were usually distinct enough on the aerial photos to warrant precision tactics. However, I have the impression that Dresden (1) was not a major industrial target, (2) was targeted by Operation Thunderclap, a series of mass-area raids specificially aimed at the German urban population and (3) the fact that Dresden had a large number of refugees from the Russian front was a criterion for targeting it.
Mind you, you might be able to justify attacks on mixed targets. The fire raids were on a more diffused industrial effort. Hiroshima had a major HQ at ground zero, Nagasaki had a shipyard, the other two a-bomb target cities were industrial targets. But that is distinguishable from raids that were unambiguously terror missions.
It’s on-point in this thread and on “Thoughts on Beslan”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005468.php because of some of the talk about reprisals against civilian populations, children in particular. As Allied bomber operations in WWII show, we might not ask our people to kill civilians face-to-face, but from 20,000 feet it may be another matter.
My own view is that we should distinguish military necessity from simple mayhem when we attack — and try to hew to the former.
Is anyone actually arguing that Russia should “negotiate” or “talk” with Basayev or other terrorists involved in the Beslan massacre? I think what most of the Yglesiases are saying — as opposed to the Ramsey Clarks — is that one should make good-faith diplomatic overtures to moderate elements of the terrorists’ host society so as to effect progress in the region. This, in effect, would salts the petri dish of misery and conflict that produces its terrorist recruits.
There is nothing wrong with counseling this; in fact, although the means are different, it is exactly the logic behind America’s war in Iraq, which most of us support unreservedly.
In the case of the Palestinians, those who throw up their hands and await the conflagration have something of an argument: Arafat and company are incorrigible terrorist oligarchs. They are useless as an intercolutor. I don’t think the same is true for the Chechens; at least, it wasn’t until recently. Citing al Qaeda cooptation is not adequate, because Besayev is only one of several warlords in Chechnya.
I’ll end by saying that commentators who offer sanguine advice of the kind I’ve just written as a first reation to something like the massacre of Beslan risk incensing their audience. That is because the first and overwhelming response to bestial atrocities like it should be frigid, homicidal rage. Liberals would do well to study conservative reactions to these incidents, in Israel, lower Manhattan or Russia. Then their prescriptions for moving forward, sometimes the right ones, would be heeded more.
salt…