What you are saying is true, but that is not the point I’m trying to make. Vroom said that you could continue to bomb for fifty years and still nothing will change. I disagree because bombing has such a dreadfull, psychological impact, that within time you can break the will of the population. The WWII analogies apply because the will of the German people were broken by the end of the war, which made the transformation to democracy possible. Look at the documentaries of Berlin before the fall of the Third Reich. That place was in rubble and submission was written all over the population’s face. The will to support the Nazi government was no longer there.[/quote]
Sorry, you are in contrast to most historians on that matter - the bombing of German cities in WWII had more of a unifying effect on Germans. Luckily the Germans lost the war in the end, but the massive bombing of cities did not break their resistance against the allied forces.
"But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been “we’ll get back to you” or “we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want.”
Putin blamed what he called a “Cold War mentality” on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the U.S. talking to al Qaeda.
These are not “freedom fighters,” Putin said. “Would you talk with Osama Bin Laden?” he asked.
Putin said the Chechen separatists are trying to ignite ethnic tensions in the former Soviet Union and it could have severe repercussions.
“Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of policies in the Middle East,” Putin said. “Do you call him a freedom fighter?”
Putin’s comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the “foreign minister” of the Chechen separatist movement."
[/quote]
I heard the same thing. I don’t understand how we keep on doing this. If I was leading America I would give support to Russia in crushing Chechen rebels. Thats Russian sovern land. Plus its rich in Oil and the last people I want to see have their hands on that would be an islamic state.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sorry, you are in contrast to most historians on that matter - the bombing of German cities in WWII had more of a unifying effect on Germans. Luckily the Germans lost the war in the end, but the massive bombing of cities did not break their resistance against the allied forces.
Hence, I question your analogy.
Makkun[/quote]
Germany was bombed - Germany lost.
Japan was bombed - Japan lost.
France was bombed - France threw up their dainty little hands and waited for the U.S.
England was bombed - was on the verge of speaking German until the U.S. stepped in.
The analogy holds in as much as bombing accomplishes it’s intened goals - victory.
The idea that we can invite the terrorists over for a Saturday night cookout and workout our problems over brats & beer is a joke.
Force works. I don’t expect those from more ‘enlightened’ countries to understand it - especially since those ‘enlightened’ countries have had this country defending their east-sides since NATO was formed.
Keeping the peace always sounds easy coming from those that know nothing about defending their borders.
What you are saying is true, but that is not the point I’m trying to make. Vroom said that you could continue to bomb for fifty years and still nothing will change. I disagree because bombing has such a dreadfull, psychological impact, that within time you can break the will of the population. The WWII analogies apply because the will of the German people were broken by the end of the war, which made the transformation to democracy possible. Look at the documentaries of Berlin before the fall of the Third Reich. That place was in rubble and submission was written all over the population’s face. The will to support the Nazi government was no longer there.
Sorry, you are in contrast to most historians on that matter - the bombing of German cities in WWII had more of a unifying effect on Germans. Luckily the Germans lost the war in the end, but the massive bombing of cities did not break their resistance against the allied forces.
Hence, I question your analogy.
Makkun[/quote]
In the beginning Germans unified during the bombings, but towards the end of the war the German population was sick of all the bombing. They were tired of having living necassities redirected to the front because the manufacturing plants that were bombed couldn’t produce anymore. I can go on and on with how their lives were affected from around-the-clock bombing from the Americans and British. This comes from my grandmother’s sister-in-law who lived and still lives in Cologne, Germany.
You say that I’m in contrast to historians. I would like to know what historian said that the bombings unified the German people to the end.
Remember the bombings in Yugoslavia over Kosovo? The Yugos were defiant during the first nights of bombings, even holding a large concert of solidarity. In the beginning they all stand together until the bombs start taking their tolls.
[quote]ArnldNaledUrMom wrote:
and the best part is that G. W. Bush has granted asylum for the foreign minister of the group responsible.
[/quote]
If Bush really does this, then he’s going to look worse than Kerry on flip-flopping.
I hope it’s just diplomatic rhetoric without any real substance. I’ll be pissed if this happens. WTF are they thinking?
Maybe they’re leveraging their stance with the Chechans with Russia’s support and assistance with Iran’s nuclear ambition. It’s a complicated world out there.
"But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been “we’ll get back to you” or “we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want.”
Putin blamed what he called a “Cold War mentality” on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the U.S. talking to al Qaeda.
These are not “freedom fighters,” Putin said. “Would you talk with Osama Bin Laden?” he asked.
Putin said the Chechen separatists are trying to ignite ethnic tensions in the former Soviet Union and it could have severe repercussions.
“Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of policies in the Middle East,” Putin said. “Do you call him a freedom fighter?”
Putin’s comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the “foreign minister” of the Chechen separatist movement."
[/quote]
If you read to the article you quoted, it makes it clear the problem is with some midlevel bureaucrats in the State Department – Bush doesn’t generally review asylum applications.
That said, I hope he fires them. Many of the career bureaucrats in the State Department should be fired, especially those working in any way with granting visas.
Sigh, how to get in and talk about these things without having people read the wrong message into it.
Of course, force has an effect. Overwhelming force is one of the ways to ensure victory in military conflict.
I believe the conflict we face today is not solely a military one. I seriously doubt overwhelming force is going to be applied to the entire Muslim world. I could be wrong on both counts, but I suspect time will prove me correct.
Anyway, the bombing anology is very flawed. The bombing itself hasn’t been shown to sap the will of the people. In fact, it is often used to villify the enemy. England wasn’t facing a crisis of determination before the US finally figured out that maybe it should get involved. However, it may indeed have been facing a crisis brought about by bombing.
As for not understanding, this issue applies to both sides. People are outraged by events and condemn discussion of the course of events as justifications. This is nonsense. For sane rational people nothing can justify these actions.
One lack of understanding is thinking that everyone in the world is civilized and rational. This is clearly not the case. To realize this and consider the ramifications of it is appropriate.
Another lack of understanding is to equate the desire to tackle means other than force as a stand against force or as a weakness. Adding other components to the struggle is obviously appropriate. Consider measures taken to confiscate assets and dry up sources of funding, for example.
Finally, another lack of understanding is to assume that our actions today won’t have repercussions tomorrow. Just as events today are shaped by history, we are shaping the events of tomorrow by our actions today. Again, this is not justification, but simple inescapable fact. It does not in any way imply that military action is not a useful tool in the current struggle.
Quite simply, and it is something we are already doing, we need to minimize inflaming the hatred of the general local population while fighting terrorism or even generally promoting our own national interests. This is why we don’t intentionally target civilians, we don’t target holy sites and generally we don’t engage in wanton abuse of the local populace.
Personally, I’ll get excited when the Muslims themselves vocally decry terrorism. While military action might share the credit, this will truly represent the beginning of the end of the age of terrorism.
The war on terror is not just a war against the terrorists. Bush said that the war on terror is against those that commit acts of terror as well as those countries that give terrorists safe harbor.
Afghanistan will not knowingly and willingly give harbor to terrorists again. Iraq won’t either. Neither would listen to rational thought. Force was used to achieve victory. the terrorists that are there are operating under a cloak of anonymity.
There are other countries that should be dealt the same measure. Force creates a willing listener much more effectively than negotiations or diplomacy. Why? I think it stems from the ignorance you speak of.
After 9/11, I don’t think the U.S. has the time for these nations to see the light.
There has been war in the middle-east since there has been a middle-east. I’m sorry to say that I don’t share your optimism that these nations will one day see the light.
Rainjack, we’ve come to a point where we can honestly and respectfully have differences of opinion. I’m very willing to be wrong, but I doubt that forcing the terrorists into hiding is going to be enough to make the problem go away.
Admittedly, the actions so far are indeed a step, but my contention is that it is but a battle, not the war. Sure, there may be other countries that end up suffering the same fate, but still, those are but battles.
Just because I’m already trying to eye up the endgame doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate the current actions. I’m not pointing the finger at you, but I get tired of being attacked as an appeaser or a pacifist or a kook bedause I believe there are also non-military (and perhaps clandestine) avenues to explore.
On another note, sometimes an enemy can collapse unexpectedly. Maybe a few more battles are all it will take for the problem to fizzle out on its own. I won’t say it isn’t possible. Does this snake have more than one head?
Well what can you say to the attitude that mass carpet-bombing of civilians is a good way respond? Forget about the moral problems for a moment, whom are you going to bomb? Mecca as a proxy? There is not much left in Groznyy btw, did levelling Groznyy stop Chechen terrorism?
Both sides share this idiotic of kill em all. As a result million will likely be slaughtered.
If you said that from this point there would be zero immigration, zero travel from hostile countries and regions (internal boarders in Russia?s and Israel’s cases) the terrorist problem would be dealt with much more efficiently. Plus all those people would be alive. The Beslan terrorists cross from the Muslim republics of Ingushetia and Chechnya (possibly from outside Russia also Uzbekistan, Arabia?) to the Christian republic of Osscitia. An internal boarder here would have stopped them. Moroccans crossed the straights of Gibraltar to blow up trains in Madrid. Saudis and Egyptians immigrated to Germany and France first before crossing the Atlantic to execute 9/11. Would closed boarders be a better option than military revenge after the fact? It does not really matter any as it will never be done and hence the West its people its culture are most likely finished. Whether it be through a bang (i.e. war) or a whimper (i.e. immigration) does not really matter.
There is one real underlying reason why many in Chechnya, are doing what they are doing. For that want to have their own rule. There own soverignity and independence from Russia. And Russia is not going to allow it to happen.
Here is an article printed in 1999:
rebels sowed the seeds of violence in Dagestan, Russia has unleashed a whirlwind of destruction that has swept across the border into Chechnya. Since August, Russian-Chechen relations have further deteriorated as Russia has taken measures to regain control of the Caucasus.
.
In their most recent move, Russian forces have begun air strikes on the capital and have seized over a third of Chechen territory under the pretext of establishing a “security zone” and rooting out Islamic militants believed to be in Chechnya. With Russian troops within 12 miles of the capital, Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov has declared martial law and called on religious leaders to proclaim a holy war.
An Old Battle
Resisting foreign domination has deep roots in this part of the world. The Chechens, a distinct Muslim people with a unique language and culture, have survived attacks from numerous would-be conquerors in their 7,000-year history. Over the last 200 years, however, the gravest threat has been from Russia. Both Imperial and Communist Russia successfully annexed the Caucasus, and both met persistent Chechen resistance.
After the breakup of the USSR in 1991, Chechnya declared independence from Russia, only to be consumed by war three years later as Russia tried to regain control. The long and bloody war, which resulted in over 70,000 casualties, was finally brought to an end in 1996. But the terms of the peace were indecisive: the belligerents decided to defer a decision about Chechnya’s formal status until 2001.
Chechnya considers itself independent. In 1997 it held internationally monitored democratic elections in which Maskhadov won the presidency, and changed the name of its capital from Grozny, a Russian name, to Djohar, a distinctly Chechen one. Despite Chechnya’s de facto autonomy, the international community still considers the area Russian.
Russia Reasserts Itself
Although Russia has been operating under the pretext of fighting terrorists?it has blamed Chechen rebels for at least three recent bombings in Moscow?its ultimate goals carry far graver implications for independent-minded Chechnya. Since early September, Russian air strikes have systematically destroyed Chechen communications and infrastructure while ground troops pour in from the North indicating that Russia is reasserting its military and political authority in the region.
Meanwhile, the Chechen population is paying the price of Russia’s reassertion: 125,000 Chechens have fled since Russian airstrikes began. This number will surely rise as Russia expands its ground operation. If the previous war is any indication, however, the Russians will not easily break Chechen resolve.
See all the people of Chechnya are asking for is freedom. And how has Putin answered?
30 August 2004 – Kremlin-backed candidate Alu Alkhanov has won an overwhelming victory in Chechnya’s presidential election.
Russia To Step Up North Caucasus Military Presence
24 June 2004 – Russian President Vladimir Putin said today Russia will increase its military presence in the North Caucasus region following deadly attacks by militants this week in a republic bordering Chechnya.
Russian officials have fired a prominent telejournalist after he publicly criticized orders not to broadcast his interview with the wife of former acting Chechen President Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, who was assassinated in Qatar earlier this year. Reporting about Chechnya is restricted in Russia, which is in the fifth year of a seemingly intractable conflict in the North Caucasus republic. Adding to the Kremlin’s discomfort is the fact that nearly a month since the assassination of Chechnya’s pro-Moscow president, Akhmed-hadji Kadyrov, the conflict appears no closer to resolution.
Again the people want freedom…Putin says “Nyet!!!” And will not give to these people. And because he won’t these people will try even harder to add more pressure on Russia. Even if it means working with Al Queda.
I had a really interesting conversation the other day with some Blackwater Security guys who were on vacation from Fallujah. They seemed to believe that we came within hours of dropping a MOAB on Fallujah in the week after the Blackwater contractors were burned and hung from the bridge. We had already given the women/children/people who didn’t want to die a chance to evacuate.
Russia: On Beslan, Putin Looks Beyond ChechRussia has been fighting a brutal war in Chechnya the past five years. Over the same period, Chechen militants have carried out multiple acts of terrorism on Russian soil. Yet to hear Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent days, the Russia-Chechnya conflict seemingly had little to do with the school hostage crisis in Beslan. In spite of claims by the hostage takers they were acting for an independent Chechnya, Putin – instead – pinned the blame on “international terrorists.” RFE/RL reports Putin may be hoping to legitimize the Chechen war as part of the wider global struggle against terrorism – and at the same time discrediting Chechens’ aspirations for independence.
Prague, 7 September (RFE/RL) – Putin, in recent days, has tried to separate the school siege in North Ossetia from Russia’s policy in Chechnya.
In a major address on 4 September – the day after Russian troops stormed the school held by gunmen in the southern city of Beslan – Putin made no mention of Chechnya at all. Instead, he put the blame on what he called “international terrorism.”
“We are dealing not just with individual, isolated acts of terrorism. We are dealing with a direct intervention of ‘international terror’ against Russia, with a total, cruel, and all-powerful war, which again and again takes the lives of our fellow countrymen,” Putin said.
He made this claim in spite of strong evidence that the hostage taking was done in the name of Chechen independence – and very likely with some Chechen participation. It’s not clear why Putin might want to diminish a potential Chechen role in the tragedy.
On 3 September, shortly before Russian troops stormed the school, North Ossetian President Aleksandr Dzasokhov told reporters the militants had demanded Chechen independence as a precondition for releasing their hostages. And on 6 September, Russian state television broadcast a man identified as one of the hostage takers. He said his group was directed by Chechens. “We were gathered in a forest by a person known as the ‘Colonel.’ And they said that we must seize a school in Beslan,” he said. “They said this task was ordered by [separatist former Chechen President Aslan] Maskhadov and [Chechen rebel leader Shamil] Basaev.”
It’s not clear why Putin might want to diminish a potential Chechen role in the tragedy. After all, Putin came to power in 1999 threatening to crush the Chechen fighters. In the past, he’s rarely hesitated to blame Chechens for acts of terror.
Magnus Ranstorp, the director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland, told RFE/RL that Putin obviously sees some advantages in “internationalizing” the recent acts of violence. “It’s a very politically sensitive issue,” he said. “It is of course more advantageous for Putin to make that claim – that there is an international connection – in order to draw [Russia’s war in Chechnya] into the overall global war on terrorism.”
Putin not only stands to gain international support, but he can also discredit what many see as Chechens’ legitimate aspirations for independence.
The subject of the extent of Chechens’ involvement in international terror – or the involvement in the Chechen struggle of Al-Qaeda and its associates – remains hotly debated. Ranstorp said it’s undeniable that at some level there are connections between Chechen militants and Al-Qaeda. He said the Chechen cause – as with other struggles involving Islamic peoples – has served as a rallying cry.
“There have been long-standing units within the Chechen rebels, within the Chechen guerrilla groups, that have been individuals within Al-Qaeda. The Chechen struggle in and of itself has been cannon fodder ideologically for Al-Qaeda. There have been many members that have traveled to Chechnya to try to take part in that struggle – as they have traveled to Bosnia and to Kashmir and to other places where Islam is seemingly under siege. So there is certainly, on the propaganda level, a close connection between the Chechen struggle and Al-Qaeda’s ideology,” Ranstorp said.
Ranstorp added that Chechen expertise in assembling what are known as improvised exploding devices – in effect, homemade bombs – has been imitated by terrorist groups around the world.
The separatist Chechen leadership under Maskhadov has strongly denied it is behind the hostage-taking incident, or that the attack was part of a wider Islamist struggle.
A spokesman for Maskhadov, Akhmed Zakaev, spoke to RFE/RL by telephone from London: “[The] claims of President Maskhadov’s involvement in this terrorist act are part of a well-planned misinformation campaign, which also includes statements by [Russian] officials that there were Arab and African mercenaries among the terrorists. Their goal is to explain this terrorist act as being a part of some foreign conspiracies. Those are lies.”
He instead sought to link the school siege directly to Putin’s policies in Chechnya. “The terrorist act in Beslan is the work of local radical groups which are supported by people overwhelmed by a feeling of personal revenge for the brutalities of the Russian Army. These groups are a direct consequence of Putin’s punitive policy. If this policy continues the radicalization of the Caucasus will only increase,” Zakaev said.
The measures you espouse as remedies for terrorism are totally defensive. Why should we as a nation close ourselves off from the rest of the world?
Just because an ostrich sticks his head in the sand does not mean he is invisible.
We tried the islationist game before - it didn’t work then, nor will it work now.
Our tactic for now is one of an offensive nature. This means killing people and breaking things. Our military forces take herculean measures to avoid the killing of innocents - to make us out to be murderers is just wrong.
Additionally, the Patriot Act is being reviled by those who feel it is an encroachment on their rights - to take some of the measures you favor would make the Patriot act look like the Bill of Rights.