Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

September 14, 2004

Cathy Young suspects Putin will grab Beslan and run.

← New at Reason | Main | No Pest Strip →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|9.14.04 @ 1:11PM|

obviously, beslan was an horrid tragedy that one hopes never to see repeated (even though one is almost certain to). but i have to say, i find some of the assumptions ms young makes to be questionable:

Beslan today could be Anytown USA tomorrow.

i don't see any evidence for this. new york or washington, perhaps -- but the idea that al-qaeda will start targeting non-symbolic targets is completely unfounded speculation at this point. there's no noble objective served by scaremongering.

Palestinian militants seek the destruction of Israel, not just a state of their own

some do -- but many militants and most palestinians would settle for negotiated independence and peace, the accomplishment of which would certainly end the wider intifada.

Nothing that the Russian military has done in Chechnya excuses or even mitigates the horror inflicted by the terrorists on their victims in Beslan.

i could not disagree more strongly. putin's nationalistic approach with a genocidal russian army is exactly why chechens are compelled to kill russian children. and compelled why?

If a policy change comes about as a response to the terrorist attacks, the rest of the world will have learned precisely the wrong lesson: terror works.

not only is terror the last and only resort for chechens seeking independence -- "terror works" is in fact exactly the right lesson. it plainly does -- it drove the french from algeria and the brits from palestine, kenya and large parts of ireland. asymmetric terrorism can and does force negotiation out of "vastly superior" economic and military powers.

for all the machismo of american arrogance, this is a lesson that we are going to learn one way or the other. if military assault, financial destruction and secret policing could do something about terror, would not israel have "solved" their palestinian "problem" by now? instead the israelis are reduced to wall-building economic isolationism and the contemplation of an apartheid government.

sooner of later, imo, we will probably be forced to humble ourselves a bit and recognize that negotiation is likely to be the best possible resolution, in spite of our pride. read al-qaeda's mission statement. they have demands that could be met, if we chose to -- or were forced to. (and we could be forced to, just as the british and french were -- after all, how many american deaths would we trade for continued american imperium in the middle east? it's an open question that will likely be decided by the american people at the ballot box.)

The right lesson is this: Even if you have valid grievances, you will squander whatever sympathy you are due by resorting to the murder of innocents to further your cause.

and could not this have applied equally to the united states on september 12, 2001? or russia now? let's not pretend that "they" are fundamentally different from "us". if we civilized nations do not learn this "right" lesson, why should they terrorists?

|9.14.04 @ 2:10PM|

"i don't see any evidence for this."

You are privy to CIA briefings, gaius ?

|9.14.04 @ 2:13PM|

"Even if you have valid grievances, you will squander whatever sympathy you are due by resorting to the murder of innocents to further your cause."

The problem is that Beslan just gave Putin one hell of a lot of sympathy to squander.

|9.14.04 @ 2:14PM|

"i could not disagree more strongly. putin's nationalistic approach with a genocidal russian army is exactly why chechens are compelled to kill russian children. and compelled why?"

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,1302366,00.html

Naipaul has always been clear about the iniquities of the world. 'Hate oppression,' he says, 'but fear the oppressed.' The thing he sees in the current terrorism is the exulting in other people's death. 'We are told the people who killed the children in Russia were smiling. The liberal voices were ready to explain the reasons for their actions. But this has no good side. It is as bad as it appears.'

|9.14.04 @ 2:33PM|

Gaius-

I hope you're right, I hope that Al Qaeda doesn't start hitting non-symbolic targets. Because if they do, well, the fear level in America will escalate rapidly, and understandably (even though the odds of being chosen as the non-symbolic target will be much smaller than the odds of dying in a car crash). And with it will come more acceptance of a domestic police state.

As long as they hit high-profile targets, we can persuade ourselves that security can come from more cops at airports, more inspections of ports, more calls for security around chemical plants, even more frisking at the Super Bowl, etc. But we cannot possibly secure every mall, school, and restaurant from determined terrorists. Maybe we can't even secure the high-profile targets, but at least we tell ourselves that we can.

The realization of this fact will lead to calls for the "next best" thing: A domestic police state.

|9.14.04 @ 2:41PM|

gaius, You stated "read al-qaeda's mission statement. They have demands that could be met"

What are you talking about? There were only three demands that I recall. 1)End the Iraqi embargo 2) U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, 3) and Isreal out of Palestine.
1 and 2 are done already. If war is politics by other means then the whole invasion of Iraq is simply Clintonian triangulation writ large and bloody. We tried 3 with the now defunct "road to peace" plan.
I can't think of any other demands Al-Qaeda has. Unless they made new ones of which I'm unaware.Tn which case I say kill them all before they come up with any new bright ideas or demands.

|9.14.04 @ 2:50PM|

Why would one assume that the fellows who order others to their deaths in the name of religion are doing anything other than making a power grab? The US government has ulterior motives, but AQ doesn't?

|9.14.04 @ 2:54PM|

"for all the machismo of american arrogance, this is a lesson that we are going to learn one way or the other. if military assault, financial destruction and secret policing could do something about terror, would not israel have "solved" their palestinian "problem" by now? instead the israelis are reduced to wall-building economic isolationism and the contemplation of an apartheid government."

Nice. So, lesson for all you non arrogant types out there. Kill as many innocents as you possibly can and you will get what you want because nobody can stop you.

|9.14.04 @ 3:20PM|

but AQ doesn't?

maybe they do, mr ligon -- i don't pretend to know -- but we aren't going to find out without exploring what it is that would make them rescind their fatwa.

Kill as many innocents as you possibly can and you will get what you want because nobody can stop you.

for lovers of realpolitik. fwiw, i'm simply reading the historical record as best i can. the british have been fighting this in ireland since 1916, and peace (such as its been) has arrived only as the result of negotiation.

|9.14.04 @ 3:24PM|

You are privy to CIA briefings, gaius ?

no, sm -- but neither do intelligence briefings constitute evidence (insert slam-dunk reference here).

i mean only that AQ has attacked successfully exactly two targets in the united states -- the wtc and the pentagon. until they attack something else, there's no evidence that "anytown" is in jeopardy of anything.

|9.14.04 @ 3:32PM|

I can't think of any other demands Al-Qaeda has.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

it's somewhat more complicated than "troops in saudi arabia" -- what they really call for is an american withdrawal from the arabian peninsula and its neighbors and an end to american rule by proxy through the monarchies of the mideast -- and the other points are similarly complex.

but the point is that they are physical and political requests, not ideological fantasy demands such as "convert all christians to islam" or some such. they are, or could be, the basis of a negotiation.

|9.14.04 @ 3:47PM|

"for lovers of realpolitik. fwiw, i'm simply reading the historical record as best i can. the british have been fighting this in ireland since 1916, and peace (such as its been) has arrived only as the result of negotiation."

Question: What incentive does the terrorist faction have for accepting anything less than 100% of what they want in a negotiated peace? The IRA had thousands of dead, and so they negotiated. Are we just saying that after killing each other in sufficient numbers, we get tired and come to the table? I think that may just be a restatement of what war has always been, if you add the proviso that I have leverage in proportion to the number and "quality" of casualties I inflict.

|9.14.04 @ 3:47PM|

As far as AQ's choice of targets in the US....the intelligence that we know of states that they're still into symbolic targets and still like planes. At least that's what they're (US intelligence) telling the public. AQ could unfortunately do great damage psychologically if they struck a mall in middle America, similarly to the tactics the Pals have been using in Israel. Hopefully AQ won't decide to go there.
It's unfortunate that Chechen nationalistic aspirations have become mired with Islamic fundamentalism. If they kept those aspirations solely nationalist and kept within certai boundaries of fighting, maybe I could have a little respect for them. But wholesale targeting of folks in theatres, and kids and parents in schools doesn't bring sympathy to anyone's cause. As shitty as the Russians have been to the Chchens over the years, the Chechens aren't scoring any sympathy points in any sane person's book

|9.14.04 @ 4:01PM|

Putin is already "running", increasing his powers along the way - and Cathy Young is only suspecting?

[gaius marius]

if I were a terrorist, I would hope a "reasonable and thoughtful" person such as yourself would be in-charge of my opponents :-)

|9.14.04 @ 4:11PM|

gaius marius,

1. What certainty do "we" have that A.Q will stick to their end of the bargain (after the said grivances are addressed)?

2. We had "agreements" with nation states such as North Korea, and they didn't keep their side of the contract. If nations can do that, isn't it much easier for nebulous organizations to not keep their word?

3. What prevents A.Q from coming up with more demands after you agree to all of their current demands? What will you do then?

4. I remember reading about Osama's pining for 'Andalusia' - are you ready to give up Spain for 'world peace'?

5. Even if we agree that "they" are not different from "us", it will come down to "their" interests versus "our" interests. I want to support "our" interests (just like they try to achive their goals) - what do you want to do?

|9.14.04 @ 4:24PM|

"Even if you have valid grievances, you will squander whatever sympathy you are due by resorting to the murder of innocents to further your cause."

The slaughter of Chechen innocents by Russians has occurred on a far greater scale than the reverse. Which leaves us in quite a bind. Do we allow ourselves to be seen sympathizing with the Russian murderers, or the Chechen murderers? Shall the Russians learn the lesson that terrorism by the military works, or shall the Chechens learn the lesson that terrorism by covert operatives works?

|9.14.04 @ 4:31PM|

Nothing to say about Cheneya but this looks like Russia is slowly warping into CCCP II on us. Or am I nuts? Maybe the best we can hope for is some sort of authoritarian state that doesn't feel the need to be directly hostile to us. Like China. And maybe in another generation or three a middle class will develop and they can try democracy again.

|9.14.04 @ 4:42PM|

Thoreau - do you think it would be a police state? I think the avwerage americans will project their insecurites outward, noit inward. People in other countries tend to forget that the US's hobby is peace but it's business is war. If enough innocents in Plains, GA or Waterville, NY get killed in bus bombings I really think there will be an atomic explosion over Mecca during the next Haj. And that will be a warning.

In regards to the IRA, they were brought to the table partly because of the NORAID weapons smuggling convictions in the late 80s/early 90s. When the well off expatriots in Boston and New York stopped funding the IRA they were forced to come to the table.

|9.14.04 @ 5:05PM|

Charlemagne ... merovingian killer ... hmmm ...

|9.14.04 @ 5:13PM|

Charles Martel-

The average American might not demand a police state, but I bet a lot of people would accept it. Especially if we also invaded somebody.

And I like where Jason's going with his musings on the "Merovingian Killer". Might this person be "The Judge", the one who outed GG as JB?

I wonder if a new poster will appear soon with a similar manner about him. Probably somebody with a wide knowledge who loves to argue with Shannon love, responds to a single point with several posts in quick succession, and harps on nitpicky interpretations of somebody's posts so he can "win" the argument without proving a point.

(BTW, I'm not "the judge." When I post under alternate names it's to be silly, e.g. Sen. Santorum, or Ann Coulter, or Al "I invented proportional fonts" Gore. If I had found the evidence that JB and GG are the same person I would have posted under my customary screen name.)

|9.14.04 @ 5:31PM|

1. What certainty do "we" have that A.Q will stick to their end of the bargain (after the said grivances are addressed)?

the same they have from us, zorel.

2. We had "agreements" with nation states such as North Korea, and they didn't keep their side of the contract. If nations can do that, isn't it much easier for nebulous organizations to not keep their word?

3. What prevents A.Q from coming up with more demands after you agree to all of their current demands? What will you do then?

these are pat arguments from the war-party side of any conflict. what is the validity of any treaty? why enter any contract? i can't claim that AQ would be reasonable, nor that they would adhere to any peace indefinitely -- especially if provoked. magically wiping them out would be my second preference -- to utopian world peace.

i'm simply saying that, as realists, we may not have the choices we would like. if we all put aside the national jingoism for a moment, we clearly see that -- if britain can't clean out northern ireland, israel can't clean out the west bank and gaza, and russia can't clean out chechnya -- we have no practical hope of defeating territorially-unbound AQ. that's an indisputable fact, imo -- we may slow them down, but we can't stop them evne by instituting thoreau's police state (which is already becoming manifest). if one also concludes that, in time, they will acquire wmd and position them in the united states, we are faced with the scenario of periodic very lethal attacks about which we can do essentially nothing but wait for.

so the question seems to me quite clearly to be this: what price in american lives, morality and treasure do we put on our imperial pride and material benefits from our mideast dalliances? this was ultimately the question that britain and france were forced to answer in the 20th c.

4. I remember reading about Osama's pining for 'Andalusia' - are you ready to give up Spain for 'world peace'?

ask him. i have no idea if he wants that -- but obviously "negotiation" does not mean "complete concession".

5. Even if we agree that "they" are not different from "us", it will come down to "their" interests versus "our" interests. I want to support "our" interests (just like they try to achive their goals) - what do you want to do?

as i hope my analysis above indicates, "our" interests are the interests that concern me too. i'm simply not as optimistic as most seem to be as to what exactly our choices are.

most seem to believe AQ and/or terrorism can be "defeated" at a reasonable cost (moral, financial and human) or at least so mitigated that mitigation will resemble defeat -- and, so doing, we can maintain our imperium in the mideast unconcerned.

i am saying that our scenario more likely resembles the british/ira or israeli/palestinian standoff of attrition, punctuated by periodic successful massive attacks (eg 9/11 -- or conceivably much worse) -- that the maintenance of that situation will be very expensive (morally, materially and in lives lost) -- and that that price of imperium is one which we will find to be unreasonable, as the brits and french did before us.

note i mention not one word about arab rights or interests.

|9.14.04 @ 5:58PM|

"We had "agreements" with nation states such as North Korea, and they didn't keep their side of the contract. If nations can do that, isn't it much easier for nebulous organizations to not keep their word?"

The fact that we have negotiated bad pacts in the past (and the one with NK was a doozy) should not mean we should never negotiate. (Although I think we should leave Jimmy at home building houses in future).

However I really don't think AQ is the kind of cohesive unit one CAN negotiate with. And as others have pointed out some demands have a certain nonnegotiable quality. I would say hunt down and kill or prosecute the leaders, through a combination of military and law enforcement means. At the same time unilaterally institute policies to placate the aggrieved in the muslim world to try to stem the flow of new recruits.

On the other hand it should be possible to negotiate and get agreements with many of the other entities. Israel with the Palestinians, Russia with Chechens, US with Sunni and Shiite insurgents etc. Doing this might work to remove these groups from under the umbrella of AQ.

gaius marius
"but obviously "negotiation" does not mean "complete concession"."

Indeed, it is important to remember that.

|9.14.04 @ 8:55PM|

I'm skeptical about American acquiesence to gross restrictions on civil liberty, even for security reasons. I guess it depends on what particular restrictions you're talking about, but still.

Projecting power outward seems more likely to me. Mass explusion of non-citizen immigrants, too. (Although that will brush the civil liberties issues to some extent.) And Fortress America.

I hope to never be proven right or wrong!

|9.14.04 @ 9:08PM|

"..read al-qaeda's mission statement. they have demands that could be met,..."-gaius marius

I think that "could be" is more wishful thinking than realistic, but for the purposes of this post, I'll let it stand because the statement begs the question of whether Al-Qaeda's demands should be met. Is what Al-Qaeda wants acceptable to our people's interests, and the kind of world we want to live in? I think not. Obviously, gaius thinks differently.

Tell us, gaius, which of Al Qaeda's demands would you accede to, and which would you reject?

|9.14.04 @ 9:24PM|

"...obviously "negotiation" does not mean "complete concession"." - gaius marius

Er, why not, gaius? Your reasoning for negotiating is that we cannot fight a terrorist enemy, not that their demands are reasonable. If they consider a demand that you reject to be nonnegotiable, what will you do? You are already negotiating from a position of weakness, as you don't believe we can beat them. On what rationale do you not completely capitulate? What reason does Al Qaeda have to think that if they maintain the pressure that you will not completely capitulate?

|9.15.04 @ 7:20AM|

Charles Martel is not The Judge.

I think he's the reincarnation of Lazarus Long.

|9.15.04 @ 3:13PM|

which of Al Qaeda's demands would you accede to

mj, i see no need for the american government to maintain anglo-american empire in the mideast generally. why conquer what we can simply buy at less expense? this has been a problem with american imperial forays generally; whereas the british used their imperium as a marketplace for british products, americans do rather the opposite -- and where the creating and securing of markets has an obvious benefit, that benefit is much smaller for the consumer nation except to the extent that oil may be made cheaper.

so is oil cheaper as a result of american imperium -- and cheaper enough to justify incurring the costs of terrorism, not to mention imperial outlays? to borrow your words: I think not. so i see a drastic reduction in american military-political invasion as a net positive.

those would be the points i'd compromise second -- after the ending of aid to israel, which is clearly capable of handling its own affairs without such assistance, after using such aid as a lever to putting genuine pressure on both sides to institute a palestinian state in the west bank. we obviously can continue to be an israeli ally without handing billions in unrequited aid to them every year.

Your reasoning for negotiating is that we cannot fight a terrorist enemy, not that their demands are reasonable.

no, to be clear, my reasoning is that 1) there are demands we could satisfy, and 2) the ultimate cost of satisfying those demands is less than the cost of resisting them.

we can resist, and we can make life hard for AQ. what i think the historical record shows, however, is that this will be terribly expensive and ultimately unsuccessful at putting an end to AQ and the recurring costs of resisting.

in fact, i think there is virtue in taking some offensive steps -- particularly the relatively inexpensive and inoffensive police work which can do much more than the hawks seem to want to acknowledge (perhaps it isn't as vainglorious as they misguidedly see battle and conquest). such efforts could do much to make AQ more flexible at the table.

|9.16.04 @ 7:39AM|

"...whereas the british used their imperium as a marketplace for british products, americans do rather the opposite -- and where the creating and securing of markets has an obvious benefit, that benefit is much smaller for the consumer nation except to the extent that oil may be made cheaper."

Perhaps that is because America does not have an "imperium" in a similar sense of the British did. The closest we have come to one is as a result of our recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which cannot count as they are a response to Al Qaeda's atrocities. In fact, I would argue the US does not have an "imperium" at all, that the critics of US policy use that word as a rhetorical scare tactic, not that it has any real meaning. Prior to '01 the US did not exercise much influence over the internal working of Mideast states. So I am unclear what specifically what you think the US should do beyond the ambiguous call for ending its "imperium".

"...we obviously can continue to be an israeli ally without handing billions in unrequited aid to them every year."

My perception is that Al Qaeda and the Arab-Muslim world in general object to our friendship with Israel, merely ending aid will not satisfy them. Also, most of our aid to Israel comes as a result of the terms of the Camp David treaty mediated by Presdient Carter (by which we also give similiar amount of aid to Egypt). Do you want the US to renounce that treaty? Also, I don't think the US can put any pressure on both the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve their war and create a West Bank state. The main reason is that I do not think the ultimate goal of the Palestinian leadership is the West Bank, it is Israel, as a result Israel has legitimate concerns about the creation of such a state. My opinion is that it is beyond the scope of US power to force a resolution to that war.


"...1) there are demands we could satisfy, and 2) the ultimate cost of satisfying those demands is less than the cost of resisting them."

You avoided the answering the question I posed "Why not (complete concession to Al Qaeda's demands)?" Again, should all of Al Qaeda's demands be met? If you do not meet all of Al Qaeda's demands, what will you do?

"in fact, i think there is virtue in taking some offensive steps -- particularly the relatively inexpensive and inoffensive police work..."

I think that is a losing and defeatist strategy, which ultimately will get many American civilians killed. Police work in defending against terrorism is important and should be done, but as it is reactive only, it is a poor strategy for a war.

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com