Monday, December 31, 2012

Why is the defense budget a museum piece?

Look But Don't Touch

On the eve of 2013, there is one word on every pundits lips- sequestration.
This will not happen

Sequestration is the automatic tax increases and budget cuts that will be imposed on January 2nd if the United States goes sailing over the "fiscal cliff". The major concern is that these cuts and tax increases will send the United States back into a recession.

On the table is $100 billion in cuts per year for 10 years... or $1 trillion dollars

$1 trillion is a large cut, but considering our gigantic debt and geopolitical conditions, it is necessary.



Why? 

Well, because the world is becoming more peaceful.

That sounds contradictory to what we see on the news every day, but the reality is that a war between major powers has not occurred since 1945. There have been plenty of proxy wars, and a large increase in civil wars, but the reality remains the same-- superpowers are not fighting.

What's more, the nature of war has changed. There is no threat from a large standing force. What was done with boots on the ground sixty years ago can now be done by pressing a button-- this is a fact the Pentagon refuses to recognize.

With advances in technology and training, we can accomplish a whole lot more with a whole lot less. And with the US refocusing on the Pacific, we now have the perfect opportunity to reorganize our military and even take a substantial dent out of our debt.

How?

Decrease the total number of personel and sell assets.

The foes faced by the US today are stateless, small, and hard to find.  As we saw in Afghanistan, sending a ton of soldiers didn't win the war; it simply put a lot of targets on the ground to shoot at. By decreasing the total number of our personel, we would open up the possibility of maintaining a small but extremely efficient fighting force. Basically, train the number of actively deployed men to a special forces level of readiness.


This would allow our forces to go in quietly, do what they need to do, and get out without committing billions in resources to the operation. It would also allow us to maintain a strong R&D budget, and hyper-efficient standing force (small number of highly advanced aircraft and numerous ABM batteries) on US soil.

I've talked before about selling our assets abroad, and I think that in light of the ongoing budget battle it remains a necessity. There is no conceivable reason to field over 70,000 men in Europe- even in a support capacity. By selling off our European assets- the bases, outdated aircraft, and weapons- we could generate extra revenue to pay down our deficit. The Department of Defense gets a win from the initial purchase and by no longer having to pay for maintenance, staff, and upkeep. The defense contractors (such as Boeing, Raytheon, and BAE systems) get a win because they will need to supply parts, maintenance, and ammunition to the European Union.

What about jobs?

Obviously, all that I have outlined above will mean that many people will lose their jobs. There is no avoiding that, but what is more important: jobs (short term) or deficit ?

If we don't need so much manpower to protect our national interests, why do we still have them? Couldn't that manpower be put to better use here in the US? Our infrastructure is dangerously outdated, and no matter how much I'm against big government, it would be nice to have the Works Progress Administration around to repair all of the things they built in the 1930's.

In conclusion, is sequestration bad? In the short term, it won't be pretty... but ten years from now, will it be looked at as the thing that saved us from bankruptcy? Will it be the motivator for creating a better and safer style of national defense? I certainly hope so.

Monday, December 10, 2012

What Comes After Democracy?

Over the last century, the world has become more democratic. Kings, Fascists, Tyrants, and Colonialists have disappeared from most governments in the world.

Most people attribute this to globalization through the trade and financial markets. Former Soviet States are joining (or attempting to join) NATO, the EU, WTO, etc... The Arab Spring has swept autocrats out of power across the Middle East. Despite the continuing unrest and problems throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the African Union has stepped up its ability to promote peace on the continent, notably in Darfur, Sudan and Somalia. Even the military government of Myanmar had a historic election this year.

There is no question that democracy leads to less conflict between other democratic nations, and that democracies give greater value to human rights and individual liberty than non-democratic states. My question is what comes next? Is there a higher system of government than democracy? Will technology allow individuals more influence over the government, or will it be used to give government more power over the individual? Will democracy evolve into something new, or devolve into something we've seen before? What comes after democracy?

I posted that rather innocuous question on Facebook, and one of my friends gave a pretty awesome answer:

"I say servitude follows democracy. If I had been living in Athens since Pericles, I would have been lorded over by my own democratic assembly, Spartans, Macedonians, Romans and their Greek speaking Roman heirs (Byzantines), Frankish Crusaders, Greek Romans (Byzantines) again in their last bid for survival and then Turks. I would then live under Monarchy, Nazi occupation, Dictatorship and finally this current system which now lives under the EU. After living all that time, I'm not sure whether I'd be so confident that any system of government works that well or truly has people's best interests in mind."


"Hipsteristotle"
While this is a pretty awesome answer for what historically occurred following Athenian democracy, it does not account for one thing: Athens was unique. Essentially, Athenian democracy was "hipster democracy". Athenians liked democracy before it was cool.

With so many states now democratic, and with the levels of conflict between states greatly diminishing -- what comes next? Here is where my friends answer definitely applies. Servitude does come next; however, it is not servitude to an outside, nondemocratic power. It is servitude within the democracy.

I recently read an incredibly interesting paper by Albert Bartlett, a retired physics professor from the University of Colorado, titled "Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation". The paper puts forward two items that impact liberty: 1) that as populations grow, the relative power for one person to give input on government decisions decreases and 2) that as technology advances, so does the human ability to annoy each other with those advancements -- translating into more legislation and regulation (i.e. loss of freedom).

Bartlett's points make total sense, and to a very large degree he is right. Earth is a finite resource, and constant population growth will eventually be unsustainable. However, I do not think that technology will destroy democracy through regulation. If anything, I think that technology could greatly improve democracy.

Over the past century, there has been a trend that smaller administrative areas wish to break away from the larger nation. The collapse of the Soviet Union created 15 new countries. The break up of Yugoslavia created another 7. Africa is constantly changing, most recently with the creation of South Sudan. Even now, Scotland is having a referendum on independence from the UK. Catalonia is attempting to leave Spain. And of course, there are all the pathetic secession attempts on the White House petition site.

This fracturing of states may go a long way toward proving Bartlett's first point. As the relative power to influence the government decreases, groups that feel disenfranchised leave to create their own democracy. If we play out this trend over hundreds of years, it could be extremely possible that the world map will look more like it did during Aristotle's time: a collection of self administered city-states.

So what about his second point?

In the age before the internet, representative democracy was the only option. Voting took an inordinate amount of time, and with communication taking days, there was no feasible way to have a direct democracy. Now, all the information you need to make an informed decision is available in a matter of seconds. You can communicate your decision with the click of a button. In 100 years, will there be a need for an elected body of officials? I don't think so.

I say that a "digitocracy" will replace democracy. People will be able to vote on any issue in a matter of seconds. In a way, it is a return to the New England Town Hall meeting. Everyone could participate. Decisions could be made quickly, and the impact of those decisions (for better or worse) would be limited to the people that made the decision.

Of course, this is an awfully optimistic view for the future. It could easily go the way Bartlett describes in his paper, but I like to think that humanity will somehow rally around the common good of civic participation. All that being said, either view would make a pretty good sci-fi novel.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Forecasting A Russian Revolution


When I say "Russia", Americans typically think one of three things: Vodka, Caviar, or Communism.

I think differently. Having studied Russian political history for several years one word stands ahead of all those: revolutionary.

The only revolution most remember is the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.  Russia's first televised revolution sent many strong images, notably Boris Yeltsin addressing a crowd atop a tank before the besieged Russian Parliament.

However, this was neither their first nor will be their last revolution.  The years of 1917, 1905, 1881, 1825, 1773, 1708, 1670, 1610, 1607, and 1605 all witnessed revolutions or armed uprisings of some type. These are only revolutions that occurred within Russia's borders; for now I am omitting the Prague Spring, Polish October, Hungarian revolution, and the various post-Soviet color revolutions. That being said, Russian revolutions are predictable; they arise when a perfect blend of variables align, and their successes or failures depend on how the population is impacted by the variables.

I mean who wouldn't vote for that...
This is incredibly important today.  Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin just won his third term as President of the Russian Federation.  CNN and the BBC have blasted the results citing ballot stuffing and carousel voting (people being bussed from poll to poll, each voting multiple times).  Russian state-run network RIA Novosti said that Putin "trounced the rivals with 63.6% of the vote", and while opposition groups are beginning to plan rallies against Putin, they are being met with substantial force from the government with many protestors being arrested for attending "unsanctioned protests".

Yes, protests must be sanctioned by the government in the motherland...

Many people are wondering if Russia is headed toward yet another revolution, and it could be.  However, we must first examine the variables.

The first and most important variable in Russian revolutions is the price of food.  Historically, the price of grain/bread determines the willingness of the population, particularly low-income citizens, to participate in an uprising.  The Revolution of 1905 and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 were marked by bread riots occurring in major cities.  Likewise, Pugachev's Rebellion of 1773-74 also originated in-part because of crop failure.  Even outside Russia, food price is a major variable in revolutions.  The French Revolution was marked by high wheat prices, and the many revolutions of 1848 had origins in the 1845-47 economic recession and food shortage.

Even the recent Arab Spring may have been caused by food (ironically enough, Russian food). Plagued by drought and wildfires in 2010, Russia stopped exporting grain.  A report by Oxfam highlighting the impact of the ban stated that, "Egypt was Russia’s biggest customer and the Egyptian government committed to maintaining the price of the cheapest bread. This was enormously expensive for the government and ultimately the population as a whole, but will have minimized the impact of the price-rise on the poorest households."  Though the Egyptian government was "committed to [maintain] the price of the cheapest bread" they did not have time to do it.  Their government was overthrown within 6 months of the Russian export ban.
Price of Wheat from 1960-2011

Also, grain prices in Russia have remained unusually high for the past several years, and even now Russia is considering curbing their exports.  An extremely harsh winter this year has wreaked havoc on the production of winter wheat, and exporting ports have been unable to keep up quotas because of ice. While lower exports may stabilize the price at home, it will likely cause more trouble in the Middle East (Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan are a few of the largest importers of Russian grain, so prices in these countries will rise most, meaning these countries will have a higher chance of political turmoil in the next year).

The second major variable in Russian revolutions is newly accepted ideology. As a population begins to reflect the values of a new line of thought, they are more likely to challenge the status quo.  This was most obvious during the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth century with the emergence of nihilism, anarchism and communism. Nihilism was first labeled in Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons (I highly recommend reading it).  The book highlights the difference in values between generations, notably the difference between those who still had faith in the Russian crown and those who value nothing (more specifically, those who did not respect another mans authority over him).  This belief was carried further by the actions of The People's Will, one of the first terrorist organizations, who successfully assassinated Tsar Alexander II on March 13, 1881.  This group and the other radical organizations of the late nineteenth century were not met with the success they had hoped for.  Despite assassinating the Tsar and successfully unionizing some factories in southern Russia and Ukraine the population was not yet willing to join a revolt largely because the economy was successful, Russia was not involved in costly wars, and the peasantry was repressed to a point where they feared joining a cause.

This changed by 1905.  Russia had taken a beating from Japan during the Russo-Japanese war, and the economy was hurting.  The people called for political reform, and got it to a degree.  The government became a constitutional monarchy with the formation of the State Duma (like the Senate) and even had a multi-party system.  But these reforms were too little too late.  WWI brought extreme dissatisfaction to the crown, and bad logistics caused more crop failures and higher prices.  Combined with this was the ever charismatic Vladimir Lenin, whose platform of "peace, bread, and land" proved irresistible...

Is there a wider acceptance of new ideology in Russia today?  When one looks at the voting record between 1991 and 2012 it does not seem that way.  However, a lack of evidence on record does not mean the phenomena does not exist.  Non-Putin parties have grown from 20% to 40% of the vote in recent years, and given Moscow's record of vote fraud, that number should probably be a bit larger.  More than this, opposition parties have begun to cooperate during protests.  Communists have marched alongside Liberal Democrats and other parties, showing that while divisions remain, there is growing unity behind anything that is not Putin's United Russia.
December 2011 protests
The final variable is foreign support through either NGO's or direct action. In Russia's Imperial past foreign interference has been a major factor in revolts.  The aptly named "Time of Troubles" in the early 1600's saw three foreign sponsored (Polish) "heirs" to the Russian throne; each claiming to be the son of the late Tsar Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible). More recently, during the Russian Civil War (1917-1923) American, French, and British soldiers invaded, trying to keep the Tsar in power.  Beginning in the early 90's many Pro-west NGO's set up shop in Russia and other former Soviet Socialist Republics. Their impact has been limited in Russia, but they have produced direct results elsewhere (anywhere a color revolution occurred, a western NGO was involved).

So, given these factors, will Russia experience a revolution?  As of right now, no.

Western ideas have caught a larger base in Russia due to the impact of NGO's, but the Russian government is not stupid, and they know the exact agenda of these groups meaning their impact can be curbed by state measures.  Ideas about market capitalism have also struggled, not because they do not work, but because the privatization campaigns of the early nineties were poorly executed, which caused a handful of very corrupt men to become enormously wealthy. Finally, and most importantly, the cost of food has been high but stable, meaning people are less willing to step up for a cause. If a major drought bordering on famine impacted Russia, then the government should worry, but for now and despite the best attempts of Russian opposition, a revolution remains unlikely.

However, the growing unrest is becoming louder, and civil society has begun to flourish. A change for the better remains close at hand, but it will likely come through reform rather than revolution.

Monday, February 20, 2012

President's Day

Seeing that today is President's Day, and due to a recommendation from my friend Scott, I decided to take a look at JFK's inaugural address.  The climate in which JFK took office is not unlike our own.  The world was a tumultuous place in 1961; arguably it was one of the most dangerous periods in American history.  I will venture to say that it was more dangerous than it is now.
Khrushchev famously slamming his shoe on the podium at the UN

The Soviet Union was at the height of it's power; Nikita Khrushchev scared the crap out of Americans.  The Civil Rights movement was just taking shape. Nuclear fear gripped America from "duck and cover" to the construction of fallout shelters nationwide.
Bert the Turtle: "Duck and Cover"

In the mire of fear surrounding the decade, a young Senator from Massachusetts was elected to the highest office in the country.  His first words to our nation were not of fear; they were words of hope and came with a promise: a restoration of American values.

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

Today, we still hold the power to help all men, and we still have the power to wipe all life from the face of our planet.  We know our rights come from our existence, but many amongst us have bought into the fear of the modern world. People have sacrificed our rights for the government's "security". 

Now, there is a new generation coming of age; we are the heirs of bad policy, spiraling debt, a forgotten constitution, and a crumbling empire. We have been tempered by 11 years of war.  We have been disciplined by the hard and bitter peace of the 90's. We are more proud than ever of our heritage because our government has forgotten it. We want the torch to be passed to us, and with it we will reignite the dwindling fire of liberty, not only in the American spirit, but in the whole world.

"In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

It is the last two sentences that are most forgotten today. Americans expect the government to be the creator of jobs, the guarantor of economic survival, and the defender of liberty. The governments track record in all of those endeavors is, quite frankly, terrible.

Citizens have come to expect their existence to originate from their government, and the government has come to expect itself to do the same. Most people know that second-to-last sentence: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".  Yet few believe it.

Even fewer know the last line: "ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Many states in the world have come to expect America to be there for them, to protect them with our hot lead umbrella. They have intentionally allowed their own defenses to be weakened to the point that now, should a conflict arise, they are hopelessly unprepared. They join with us, not because they wish for the freedom of man, but because we have subsidized their right to exist.

Americans, today, we need another John F. Kennedy.  We need a President who is fearless, but not reckless.  Who is impatient, but not permissive. A president who leads from the front with support from all walks of life. Most importantly we need a President who truly believes in the value of the individual, because from the individual will stem all successes and failures of our species.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Did the Great Game ever end?

For those unfamiliar with the history of Afghanistan (as most Americans are) the US-led coalition and Hamid Karzai's "Afghan tested, American approved" government are not the first time a greater power has attempted to control the region for political supremacy.

We've all heard the statement that "the third times a charm", but in the case of our coalition it's more like the 4th or 5th time is a charm.  In fact, only one person ever successfully conquered and held Afghanistan: Genghis Khan, all way back in 1219AD.

Afghanistan's high point of regional power came in the early 18th century, when, after expelling their Persian leaders (the 1st failed foreign occupation), they attempted to conquer India and were subsequently expelled by the Sikhs.

Coinciding with this, the empires of Great Britain and Russia hit a phase of rapid expansion.  Great Britain acquired many of it's colonial holdings, most notably India.  Russia expanded from the Baltic, to the Black and Caspian Seas, across the endless Siberian steppe, eventually to the Pacific.  This placed Afghanistan and most of Central Asia in the sights of the two superpowers.  Afghanistan was seen by Great Britain as the path of least resistance to it's Indian holdings; likewise, the Russians saw Afghanistan and Central Asia as buffer states along their massive border to prevent British expansion into the Russia's open, exposed prairie.

With the onset of the First Anglo-Afghan War, the Great Game began.  After the initial invasion, a puppet government was installed, but after a few years mobs on the street were attacking any European they could find.  The military garrison and government was driven out and completely decimated in their retreat back to India. (2nd failed foreign occupation)

Then came the Second and Third Anglo-Afghan Wars. Each were minor victories for Britain, but only because they learned from their first experience in the Kush Mountains. They did not occupy the country. The second war allowed Afghanistan to retain it's government, but it lost control of it's foreign policy; the third saw control of foreign policy returned to the Afghans. Instead of wasting man power trying to occupy and hold Afghanistan, the British set it up as a buffer state to Russia.

With the onset of World War I and the rise of Bolshevism the Great Game ended... or at least that's what most historians think.  I believe it was postponed and the rules were altered a little.  The United States began to play alongside Great Britain and the Soviet Union replaced Imperial Russia.  The Great Game resumed with George Kennan's X article; only the name of "the Great Game" was changed to "containment policy" (...the Great Game sounds better, doesn't it?).

Afghanistan was left out of the new Great Game for the better part of the twentieth century, until 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded to promote the growth of the fledgling People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan.  The Soviets were there for ten years, spending billions and killing millions.  And for those familiar with US policy, we funded the fight, supplying the mujahedeen with funding, advanced weapons, and training.  The funding continued until the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. (3rd failed occupation)

In the time between 1989 and 2001 Saudi Arabia and Iran backed opposing sides in a civil war to establish regional hegemony.  It was a costly and bloody fight, coming right on the tales of the Soviet Occupation.  This made the country extremely weak. So, over the years, Afghans who trained in Pakistan made their way back into the country and consolidated power, calling themselves the Taliban.

Now I should not have to explain anything past 2001. I'm pretty sure that being in the Kush Mountains eleven years and spending trillions on the Afghan Money Pit has, at least, shown Americans that our great building project isn't really working as intended.

Really what I want to know is why we thought we could do it.  We've all heard the adage that those who don't examine history are doomed to repeat it.  Every modern nation that has invaded Afghanistan before the US-led effort failed, spending themselves into oblivion while trying to maintain a valueless land area.  There are no major resources or ways to gain revenue in Afghanistan, and I'm sure that the people there, having been in a constant war since 1979 (or 33 years), would much rather be left to their own devices. No bureaucrat in London, Moscow, or Washington can understand the way this ancient nation functions, nor should they try to bend the Afghan people to their will.  It is clear that we are not wanted, as it was clear the Soviets were unwanted, as with the British and Persians before.  The people of Afghanistan want the same things we all do: a home, a family, a job.  A foreign government can not adequately provide those things, and history shows that it is completely foolish to try.

A final item of some importance: what happened to the governments of Persia, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain after failing in Afghanistan? Persia descended into anarchy because the Afghans killed the Shah. The Soviet Union went completely bankrupt and collapsed in 1991. Great Britain had the only positive outcome. After learning from their first mistake that occupation was foolish; they left Afghanistan to govern itself issuing in a period of peace in the region.

Friday, February 3, 2012

On the Balance of Threat Theory

In 1985, Stephen M. Walt (from Foreign Policy and The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy) published an article in International Security titled "Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power".  Speaking to idea that states either balance --join with another state against a growing threat-- or bandwagon --join with the threat to guarantee survival--, Walt's theory of international relations (IR), now called Balance of Threat theory, postulates that 4 distinct threats shape alliance formation in IR:

1) Aggregate Power- total combined resources of a state greatly exceeds others
2) Proximate Power- location of a threat shapes alliances for neighboring states
3) Offensive Power- military capabilities of a state
4) Offensive Intentions- an aggressive/expansionist foreign policy

When these threats are applied to the balancing/bandwagoning argument Walt proposes two different hypotheses:

Balancing- "If balancing is the dominant tendency [in IR], then threatening states will provoke others to align against them... Credibility [of allies] is less important in a balancing world because one's allies will resist threatening states out of their own self-interest, not because they expect others to do it for them."

Bandwagoning- "If states tend to ally with the strongest and most threatening state, then powers will be rewarded if they appear both strong and potentially dangerous. International rivalries will be more intense, because a single defeat may signal the decline of one side and the ascendancy of the other... Moreover, if statesmen believe that bandwagoning is widespread, they will be more inclined to use force to resolve international disputes. This is because they will both fear the gains that others may make by demonstrating their power or resolve, and because they will assume that others will be unlikely to balance against them."

Following this, Walt goes on to say that, historically, balancing is the norm (example- France/Russia vs. Germany/Austria-Hungary in WWI); however, bandwagoning occasionally occurs (example- Finland/USSR during the Cold War).

The balance/bandwagon argument becomes complicated with the addition of ideology. In much political rhetoric, especially during the Cold War, ideological birds of a feather, indeed, flocked together; yet, through the examples of international communism and pan-arabism Walt also notes that birds of a feather can fly apart:

International Communism supposed that Moscow was the vanguard, and it exercised it's global influence accordingly; however, as China became more powerful it began to break away from Moscow's influence culminating in the Sino-Soviet split. In Yugoslavia, Tito also split from the Soviet Union with the idea that there are many roads to socialism.

Likewise Pan-Arabic ideology, despite the obvious cultural commonalities between middle eastern countries, could never really take off.  Pan-Arabism required states to relinquish their power to become part of the larger picture, but the problem was to whom would power be relinquished? Nasser's Egypt or Saddam Hussein's Ba'athism?  In the end no consensus was reached, and with Nasser's death the experiment also died.

I wish to apply the two above examples to our modern international climate.  More specifically, I want to address how the United States, by subsidizing the defense of Europe with NATO, has elicited a bandwagoning response by EU nations and others.  I must give credit to Walt in his assertion that balancing against power is the historical norm; however, norms do change with time. Starting in 1945 through the collapse of the Soviet Union to present, bandwagoning has been the normal response to the United States in it's alliances.

Much of this argument extends from other portions of Walt's paper.  He cites "bribery" as a leading cause for states to form/remain in alliances.  To quote Walt on bribery, "the provision of economic or military assistance will create effective allies, either by demonstrating one's own favorable intentions, by invoking a sense of gratitude, or because the recipient will become dependent on the donor." He goes on to highlight the big problems with buying allies:

1) That in a world with multiple superpowers a recipient who is displeased with the aid it is receiving can get it elsewhere.
2) Recipients will try harder to get more aid because they are weaker than the one providing it, and if the provider feels that stopping the aid will lead to vulnerability, they are more reluctant to cut the funding.
3) The more important the ally is to the provider; the more aid it will receive. This gives the smaller state a substantial advantage for bargaining when it knows it's own importance.
4) By providing aid, the weaker state gains more strength and, eventually, has less need to follow the provider's wishes.

Throughout the Cold War, the United States was the sole protector of Europe.  At the time it made sense for the United States, being relatively unscathed by the second world war, to defend Europe.  It allowed European nations to place a limited amount of resources in defense spending freeing up the funds for rebuilding their economies.  It made the dollar, based on gold, the international standard, propelling the US to new heights of wealth and prosperity.  Finally, it took away much of the perceived threat from the Soviet Union because, if one American were killed, it would be all out war.

However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact left NATO in an identity crisis.  It's use as a balancing force against the Warsaw Pact ended. So instead of completely restructuring itself, allowing the EU to take over the function of collective defense; it expanded becoming an offensive instrument of Washington's foreign policy with Europe bandwagoning because of dependence.

This can be seen by NATO's roll in Afghanistan. If troop commitments to a conflict are taken as a test for bandwagoning behavior in an alliance, coalition forces that are not US military personnel account for a minimal number of soldiers on the ground. As of 6 Jan 2012, 90,000 (69%) of the total 130,386 soldiers in the ISAF are US forces. That means the remaining 40,386 (31%) of the total are from the other 49 nations in the coalition. Naturally many of these nations can not afford to contribute more; they are artificially weak from dependence on American personnel for 67 years.

In the Korean War 341,600 men made up the United Nations Security Council force; 300,000 (88%) were US personnel. In Vietnam the total international troop count was 601,100; of this, 536,100 (89%) were US personnel. In both cases, the governments of Europe bandwagoned with the US as it balanced the communist threat on their doorsteps.  With the removal of that threat in 1991, international support for US foreign policy objectives has plummeted.

This is where the failed examples of bribery --international communism and pan-arabism-- enter the discussion.  When subordinates of the Soviet Union or unified Arabic states had enough power to "fly apart" or step out of line with the ideological leader, they did.  That split is happening with our allies now.

Despite the economic woes of the Eurozone, the EU economy remains larger than that of the United States. According to the 2011 CIA World Factbook, the EU's economy is 15.39 trillion dollars compared to the United States' $15.05 trillion. Without threat from communism they no longer need us, the only reason we have not yet fully lost their support is because we give them a free ride on defense spending.  In order to be a member of NATO, states are supposed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

In a 2011 article to The Daily Caller, the Cato Institute's Ted Carpenter highlighted the problem caused by bribing Europe:

"...even before the economic crisis led to drastic budget slashing, spending levels in several countries (including such major allies as Germany and Italy) were closer to one percent of GDP than two. And matters have gotten worse in the past two years. The $700 billion US defense budget now accounts for an astonishing 74 percent of total spending by NATO members.  The other 26 members of the alliance spend a mere $220 billion-- despite having a collective economy larger than that of the United States."

So, if Europe bandwagons with the United States because of dependency, and if we believe Walt's theory that a bandwagoning world is substantially less safe than a balancing world, then we must evaluate whether NATO is costly or beneficial to the United States.

As seen above, financially, it is not. And in these economic dire straights, that reason should be paramount. Beyond that and within the last two years, we have also witnessed a new phenomenon: Europe championing regime change, but expecting the United States to fight the battle, as was the case in Libya and will soon be the case in Syria. Yes, in each case the leaders are/were terrible men; however, if Europe wants the fight so bad, let them do it without our help.  The United States needs to get its economic house of cards in order domestically before spending itself into oblivion by policing the world.  Moreover, (and repeating Walt's argument) if we really want a safer world, we need to let our birds fly apart.

One would think that this is easier said than done, but really it could be accomplished fairly easily keeping Europe safe and allowing the US economy to recover.  The biggest problem is appeasing our own Military Industrial Complex (MIC), but even that can be done.  If we sold our European bases, and their subsequent fighter/bomber/support wings this whole problem would be solved.  The aircraft we field in Europe are all outdated, built in the 70's and 80's.  However, each year we spend billions refitting and updating them.  If Europe took over their maintenance, then the MIC would be satisfied as they would still receive revenue for parts and maintenance.  Europe would be safe because all of a sudden it would have it's own military capabilities again.  The United States would be more secure economically, and again, the MIC would be satisfied because we could focus efforts at home on building more advanced aircraft, making our own nation even safer than it is now.  We would not necessarily have to leave NATO, but our membership as well as Europe's would finally reach a point of balance and safety for the first time in 67 years. This is the logical step, and one that should be taken before our house of cards collapses.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Droning on and on...

Tonight, in a Google+ "hangout" with the American People, our tech President confirmed the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) in Pakistan's tribal regions.  This news is obviously no surprise, these strikes have been going on for years, and will continue for years to come.

This post is not as much about the President confirming our covert war in Pakistan as it is about the use of drones worldwide.  UAV's are remarkable weapons that are a tremendous benefit to our soldiers in combat.  They provide realtime intelligence to men on the ground, can fire on enemies with 1000lb guided bombs, can laser designate targets for larger air strikes, and can track multiple individuals simultaneously all while keeping the pilot safe in a warehouse somewhere in America's heartland. The technology is pretty damn incredible.

However, what implications do our use of drones beyond the combat zone have on our foreign policy?  Let's play devil's advocate for a moment:

Imagine that a radical Canadian terrorist group -L'Maple Leaf- flew a passenger jet into the Kremlin.  Russia declared war on Canada and has been caught there for ten years.  A large number of Canadians fled to Minnesota and are slowly funneling weapons and supplies back to Canada to fight for a restoration of their sovereignty.  It's been nearly impossible for the US to adequately manage Minnesota because of the large influx of refugees from neighboring Canada.  Russia has agreed to give the US money in return for flying drones in Minnesota.

You are a cab driver in Minnesota. You have a wife, two kids, mother and father, and a pretty comfortable life.  One day you pick up a man, he is running late to his daughter's wedding.  You get him there as quickly as possible.  He is so grateful for your talented driving that he invites you in for the ceremony (and the open bar, which is the best part anyway).  You go in, there is music, dancing, everyone is happy... but you did not know one important detail... that a member of L'Maple Leaf, whom Russia is tracking,  was also in attendance then...

FLASH the building is gone. You are alive but severely burned.  The children you saw playing, the people dancing, the bride and groom, all lie dead.  Burned, bleeding body parts lie strewn about like leaves in fall.  It's nearly impossible for you to move. You're taken to a hospital; you have to pay for your treatment.  Russia pays no restitution and insists that they are taking the necessary steps to keep Minnesota, as well as Canada and Russia, safe. You decry your government for allowing this violation of sovereignty; you demand payment for your bills, but nothing comes.  Finally, the US does complain, so Russia cuts off most of the aid money they were paying to intervene in Minnesota.  The aid stops, but the overflights do not.  Each day more of your fellow Minnesotans are killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. With the US failing to act, with the bombs still falling, and with outrage constantly growing you decide it's time to act.  You take up arms with L'Maple Leaf, not out of any ideological reason, not because you want to keep your way of thinking, but because your home, family, and nation are all at stake.  Does that make you a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

So go back and replace "US" with Pakistan, "Russia" with United States, and "L'Maple Leaf" with Al Qaeda/Taliban.  Can we really sit here in the comfort of the most powerful, prosperous society in the world and scratch our heads when we hear about Pakistani anger with the United States? We refuse to take a walk in their shoes; we refuse to imagine what it would be like to live in constant fear of patrolling aircraft; we lack the capacity to understand someone who is not us.  If my devil's advocate scenario above was actually happening I can tell you without a doubt that I would be a "terrorist" (but I would know I was a "freedom fighter").

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Ayn Rand and the Prophesy of Atlas Shrugged

I recently had the privilege of seeing Ayn Rand and the Prophesy of Atlas Shrugged in theaters a few days ago.  It is a full length documentary that discusses the "prophesy" of the novel; the prophesy being that government regulators and crony capitalists will destroy the United States.  The film likens todays society with its floundering bureaucracy and uncontrollable debt to the dystopia presented in Rand's masterpiece; the resemblance is uncanny.

If you have read Atlas Shrugged before this movie is a must see.  If you have not read it; go pick up a copy, read it, then go see the film.  The movie is not called "objectivism for dummies" so familiarizing yourself with Rand's themes before hand comes in really handy, and to be honest, no film is better than its paper counterpart.  Don't let the staggering 1,250 pages intimidate you either.  Yeah it is really long... but you will thank me when you're done reading it, I promise.

So how does the prophesy of Atlas Shrugged tie into this blog?  Foreign policy is only briefly discussed by Rand; however, the one foreign policy item she talks about in detail -foreign aid- is incredibly important.  As Mary Beth Sheridan noted last year in the Washington Post:

"President Obama's 2012 budget proposal says that funding for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) would increase only 1 percent over 2010 levels, to $47 billion. But that's not the whole picture.

The document would move funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan into a separate account, for "Overseas Contingency Operations," following the practice of the Department of Defense. Taken together, the two accounts would represent an 8 percent increase for the State Department and USAID over the 2010 budget--or total spending of nearly $58 billion.
$58 billion of our money; our taxes.  In harsh economic times we should not be handing out cash like candy on halloween.  The goals of USAID sound so great: combating HIV/AIDS, feeding the hungry, clean water, etc... but why is the government doing it? Aren't there some fantastic NGO's already doing the same thing? (Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, etc...) These NGO's only receive funding out of the kindness of people's hearts, and they do not give the support with conditions (like Anti-Terrorist Certification).

I've often heard the argument that "we're the wealthiest nation in the world, so we can afford to give to others." But there is a tremendous flaw within that statement: we are not the wealthiest nation in the world; we just have the wealthiest citizens.  There is nothing wealthy about -$15,000,000,000,000 of national debt.  Take the $58 billion spent annually on USAID and use it to fix problems here!  The infrastructure of our country is rotting (currently we have a D on our infrastructure report card).  This has led to problems like bridge and levee failures, and the problem will only get worse.  Though it may sound counter-intuitive to encourage more spending after I just criticized our national debt, an initial investment in infrastructure secures our future for years to come.  It will make more citizens wealthy, it will create jobs, and it will allow people to donate to organizations that promote humanitarianism for the sake of humanity, not politics and influence.

We [to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher] are succumbing to the common socialist dilemma: we are running out of everyone's money.  The last thing I will leave you with is a quote from Atlas Shrugged.  It is the theme of the novel, and it is the prophesy Rand made for our nation:

"The great oak tree had stood on a hill over the Hudson, in a lonely spot on the Taggart estate. Eddie Willers, age seven, liked to come and look at that tree. It had stood there for hundreds of years, and he thought it would always stand there.  It's roots clutched the hill like a fist with fingers sunk into the soil, and he thought that if a giant were to seize it by the top, he would not be able to uproot it, but would swing the hill and the whole earth with it, like a ball at the end of a string. He felt safe in the oak tree's presence; it was a thing that nothing could change or threaten; it was his greatest symbol of strength. 


One night, lightning struck the oak tree. Eddie saw it the next morning. It lay broken in half, and he looked into its trunk as into the mouth of a black tunnel. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing inside -- just a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape it left had not been able to stand without it."

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

A Brief Complaint

Last night, the Grand Ol' Party slugged it out in Myrtle Beach, SC. While answers were largely unsatisfactory across the board, I wish to briefly discuss one thing:

Why was Ron Paul booed for citing the "golden rule" in reference to American foreign policy?

In such a predominantly christian place as South Carolina, one would think that the idea of treating people as you would like to be treated would carry resoundingly in the audience.  In fact, the opposite happened. I'm pretty sure that Jesus did not say that "do unto others as the United States sees fit".

This pervasive lack of respect for non-Americans or our "American exceptionalism" should frighten us. It is the reason why nations fear us, but do not respect us. Even though Teddy Roosevelt said to carry a big stick; he also said to walk softly. We have forgotten how to walk softly, how to show respect to others, and most importantly, how to respect our own constitutional values.

The people in that room, the ones who disagreed with Congressman Paul's assertions, have forgotten the roots of our nation.  Yes we, as a nation, were born of a war.  But war is not, and should never be our national agenda. Our track record is hurting any diplomatic endeavor we undertake be it anti-missile defense or trade agreements.  It is no surprise that nations are hesitant to enter into contracts with us; we do not respect our counterparts.  We walk loudly with our big American stick, and flip the bird to people who disagree. That policy, that as Americans we know best for the world, DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked since 1945, and it will continue to fail.  The only reason it has not yet happened is because we still have the biggest stick in the room.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Is war with Iran really a good idea?

I feel like I should not have to ask that question, but the more I speak with people, the more a favorable opinion of intervention arises. You hear all the same arguments from the Iraq War: What if they get a nuclear bomb? What about our ally, Israel? What about oil security? They support terrorists/they are a terrorist state.

 I will answer all of these arguments, and make a case for why war with Iran is a terrible idea. But first, let's look briefly at the history of modern Iranian-American relations. I recently saw a brilliant video about this on youtube. As the video explains, the current spat between the United States and Iran did not begin, as most believe, with the 444 day long Iranian Hostage Crisis, but instead in 1953 when the United States overthrew the government and installed a dictator (as we have done in more than 20 other nations since 1945). While this video makes a compelling case about the history of the dispute and it's true causes; it does not address most modern american's reasons why they think war is a great idea. I'm going to start with the most obvious concern:


What if they get a nuclear bomb?
The real question is not if they will get one, but if their acquisition of a bomb is really a bad thing. I believe that a nuclear Iran could be very stabilizing for the entire Middle East. Much like Europe at the end of the Second World War there is, as of now, only one nuclear power in the region. The United States greatly feared the Soviet Union getting a bomb, but once they had it and after the initial panic caused by the Soviets getting it, the Cold War stayed cold. Currently, Israel is the only nuclear power in the region; it is an advantage they definitely do not want to lose. Practically speaking, a nuclear war between Israel and Iran is completely impossible, especially because of the theocratic government in Tehran. All of Islam's holy sites other than Mecca are located in Jerusalem. A nuclear attack on Jerusalem itself would destroy all of those sites, bringing massive anger from Islamic populations worldwide. So no nuke in Jerusalem. What about other leading population centers: Tel-Aviv,Beersheeba , or Rishon LeZion. While these places could be destroyed without harming holy sites, another huge factor comes into play. Fallout. While the distance fallout travels varies due to wind and the type of radioactive isotopes, it can still travel a long way. This places neighboring countries (including allies of Iran) at major risk. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gaza strip, and their populations would all be at risk of contamination. Therefore, Israel cannot be attacked. What about the United States? Firstly, Iran does not have the capabilities to strike the United States or it's territories by conventional means (like a missile); even if they did have a missile we have such incredible missile defense systems that it would likely take hundreds of independent warheads to slip through the safety net. The only other way a nuclear bomb could enter the United States would be through smuggling, and even if they somehow made it through the countless radiation detectors at a port or in an airport the relative impact of a single devise (though incredibly tragic) would be small. The type of bomb allegedly being developed by Iran is very small compared to what is in our arsenal, and it's blast radius would likely be similar to that of Hiroshima meaning that even in an incredibly dense population area there would be much less death and destruction than the bombs we would immediately drop on Iran. Which brings up my final point on this subject: Using a nuclear bomb would be an act of national suicide. The entire Iranian population would be eliminated in the matter of about 5 minutes. One American "Peacekeeper" missile drops ten 300 kiloton hydrogen bombs (for comparison "Fat Man", the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was 21 kilotons). The entire country would be turned to glass.


What about our ally, Israel?
This is a fair question given the incredibly deep ties our nations have with each other, but there are some very practical points that need to be considered. The first being "should our support be unconditional"? No, it definitely should not be. I certainly do not wish to be drafted into a war that was not started by us and especially when we were not attacked. The "logic" of unconditional support is what started World War I, and was the reason it was such a bloodbath. Another thing to consider is Israel's own military capabilities. They are incredibly talented in combat, and have successfully defended their nation on numerous occasions. Also, as mentioned above, they are a nuclear power. The fact stands that Israel does not really need our unconditional military protection. I have no problems standing with them diplomatically, but if Israel were to be the aggressor in a conflict that support would be morally wrong.


What about oil security?
This question has been the most recent one to arise because of threats to close the Straight of Hormuz. Like using a nuclear bomb, this move would also be national suicide. However, instead of being physical it would be economic suicide. 50% of China's oil comes from Iran and passes through the Straight. China is already the second largest consumer of oil in the world, and they certainly would not stand losing half of that. Oil prices worldwide would skyrocket, and odds are that both China and the United States would strike to reopen the supply route. Also, Iran produces 4.252 million barrels of oil a day. At a market price of $101/bbl that is equal to a daily profit loss of almost $430 million a day if the straight were to close. In all, threats to close the Straight are completely hollow threats, and should not be taken seriously at all.


They support terrorists/are a terrorist state
This may be true, but it is not a cause; it is an effect of US manipulation in their country and in their neighbors countries. If we look back in history the United States is actually the largest single supporter of terrorists worldwide. Bay of Pigs, Contra affair, the recent Fast and Furious operation, and most importantly we built Sadam Hussein to fight Iran. If we left these people alone international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda would likely go the way of the dinosaur. Al Qaeda is not an ideological group that all Muslims rally around. They are a tool to fix a regional problem. Their support would plummet in a matter of years if we radically changed our foreign policy back to what our Constitution intended. 

In all, war with Iran would be terrible. It would be completely unjust and would only continue to ruin our claims of "installing freedom and democracy" around the world. More than all of that we simply cannot afford it. The last ten years wars have added over $4 trillion to our debt, and even as I write this the number is growing exponentially from $15 trillion to new heights. Another war would be our final tipping point; it would completely bankrupt us.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

The Lone Wolf in the Moonlight

A Case Study of Chechen Terrorism

The lone wolf under the moon is the national symbol of Chechnya, and it is a full embodiment of their national identity. For thousands of years they have maintained and preserved their own culture: under Turks, Tatars, Ottomans, Tsars, Soviets, and modern Russians. Under each they have faced challenges unknown to any American from the earliest settlers to present, yet they have managed to maintain their completely unique language, customs, and way of life in an area the size of Connecticut. The Chechen people are as rugged, mysterious, and violent as the mountains they call home, and their conflict is possibly the most complicated in the history of the world. It is ethnic, it is religious, and it is deeply personal. In modern times, the history of the conflict for this small mountain republic has largely been ignored. The media portrays the Chechens as “Islamist separatists” or “militant insurgency”[1]; however, prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies were beginning to call for an investigation into the atrocities being committed by Russia in Chechnya. These calls fell silent with the collapse of the World Trade Center, and the United States began to group the Chechen conflict into the “global war on terror” against Al-Qaeda. Though acts of terrorism were used prior to September 11, it is not until the West began ignoring the conflict that acts of terror began to be committed on a large scale in areas far removed from the war zone. This study will examine the history of violence between Chechnya and Russia from ancient to present, offering justification to Chechnya’s modern use of terror as a weapon in their fight against the giant Russian bear.

Under the Tsar

Chechnya’s complicated relationship with Russia began in the middle of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century when the regions of the Caucasus lay firmly in the hands of the Ottomans and the Persians. Tsar Peter the Great attempted 2 pushes south, seizing the costal areas of the Black Sea (at Azov) from the Turks and the Caspian Sea from the Persians[2]; this time also saw the first conflict between Chechens and Russians. The Chechens joined up with Cossack Old Believers, who stood against Peter’s pro-western stance, seeing it as a threat to their way of life. To complicate matters more, the Russians fought the Chechens on their own soil, resulting in a massacre[3]. Catherine the Great launched a new war with the Ottomans in the mid-eighteenth century, annexing areas northwest of the Caucasus and opening the plains to Christian Russian settlement[4]. The region firmly came under Russian control under Tsar Alexandr I with the peace treaty of Adrianople in 1829[5].

The people of Chechnya have always attached great significance to their ancestors. Before the first Chechen War in 1994, journalists saw that a painting of Mansur, a shepherd’s son who led a Chechen insurrection against the Empire in 1785, hung on the wall of then President Dzhokhar Dudaev[6]. Mansur declared himself Imam of Sufi Islam in 1784 and in his sermons called for Islamic unity, an abandonment of the corrupt common law, and a turn to shari’a law. He declared a gazavat, or holy war (what would now be called jihad) against corrupt Muslims who had assimilated into Russian society[7]. Mansur eventually built a force of 12,000 men and marched on Russian territory where he was defeated; however, his insurrection succeeded in completely converting most of the Caucasus to a strict adherence to the Islamic faith, which has not changed to this day[8].

It is following this first rebellion that Russia adopted a hard line toward the Chechens. They were to be “’constrained within their mountains’ and were also to lose the ‘agricultural land and pastures in which they shelter their flocks in the winter from severe cold in the mountains.[9]’” In a string of economic warfare, Chechens who would not submit to Russian rule had their fields and villages devastated and their women sold as slaves or distributed to Russian officers[10]. This time also witnessed the first deportation of Chechens to Siberia, but no figures were kept on the numbers banished[11].

During the Caucasus War, fought between 1840 and 1859, a new historical figure emerged, Imam Shamil. Moshe Gammer has written that he “was a born leader, commander, diplomat, and politician… [who] was far from extremism or blind fanaticism[12].” Shamil sought peace with the Russians and agreed to cooperate with them if he could establish shari’a law in the mountains; however, the Russians did not view his rise to prominence with favor and demanded his surrender[13]. The Russians decided that Chechnya was no longer suited to rule itself and began sending soldiers to the region with permission to seize food, livestock, and weapons from the Chechens[14]. For 20 years, the Chechens fought off the Russians but were inevitably defeated with nearly half of the population dead[15]. Following the combat, Tsar Alexandr II had the region “ethnically cleansed” by forcibly exiling 100,000 Chechens to Turkey, where at least one third died en route[16].

Shortly before the October Revolution in 1917, oil was discovered in the region; greatly increasing it’s value to the Empire[17], but revolution would distract Moscow’s focus from the region. In the time period before the Bolsheviks firmly came to power a group of Chechen intelligentsia created a “Central Committee of the North Caucasus and Dagestan” and on 11 May 1918 declared the region an independent state. By 1919, in the midst of the Russian Civil War, they defeated a force of the Tsar-loyal White Army and declared the entire region the “North Caucasus Emirate.”[18]

Under the Soviet Union

Though the Chechen experience under the Tsars was full of bloodshed, the rise of Stalin’s Soviet Union, with its collectivization program and “war communism” would take the obvious ethnic divide to new heights of violence. Stalin, then the Bolshevik People’s Commissar of Nationalities, cut a deal with the peoples of the mountains. He would grant them sovereignty over their land if they formed a semi-Bolshevik government. The new government consisted of the 6 main regions of the Northern Caucasus (Chechnya, Ingushetia, Ossetia, Karbada, Balkariya, and Karachai) and it would have an Islamic/Bolshevik constitution based on shari’a law[19]. However, this deal was incredibly short lived, lasting only a year and a half, and by 1922 the Soviets began to “pacify” the region: disarming the population and burning down the homes of “bandits” (the rhetorical term “bandit” as John Dunlap points out, will be used again by Yeltsin and later Putin when defending the wars in Chechnya[20]).

Collectivization, beginning in 1929, was hard on everyone in the Soviet Union, but Chechnya was selected to be one of the first places it was implemented. This goes to show just how deeply seeded Russian hatred for the Chechens goes. All private property and real estate was seized, and the kulaks (or semi-wealthy farmers) were “liquidated as a class”.[21]

First Taste of Terror

This time period also witnesses the first acts of “terrorism” in the mountains (“terrorism” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is, “the systematic use of terror [fear] especially as a means of coercion”[22]). In 1931-1933 there were sixty-nine acts of “terrorism” in Chechnya, largely perpetrated against members of the secret police and party officials[23]. Naturally, acts of terror were not one-sided; the GPU, which was the local equivalent of the NKVD and KGB, was also notorious for their acts of violence. A common tactic would be to take a “bandit’s” family hostage in order to force his surrender, after he turned himself in, and despite promises that no harm would come to him, he would promptly be shot and his family forced into the Gulag system[24]. This tactic was incredibly brutal, but it was only the beginning of Stalin’s brutality. It only intensified in the coming years.

In the middle of the night on 31 July 1937 a “General Operation for the Removal of Anti-Soviet Elements” began in Chechnya. Under a single arrest warrant 14,000 people (3% of the population) were rounded up and either executed or sent to concentration camps[25]. In the following 2 years, most civil service workers, lower party echelons, and the educated were also rounded up. In 1937, around 435,922 Chechens were known to live in the USSR; by 1939 the figure was only 400,344[26]. In a final wave of genocide an executive order was issued for the complete liquidization of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The Chechens and Ingush were indicted as an entire people group for supporting Nazi Germany in the war, and by the end of the operation 521,247 people were loaded into rail cars and transported to camps in Kazakhstan and Kirgizstan[27]. After this mass deportation, Chechnya was literally erased from the map much like its population[28]. In the coming decades there were very few uprisings by the Chechens or campaigns against them by the Soviet government; it was a relative peace achieved through wholesale slaughter. The relative quiet was not due to last. In 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new Chechen nationalism emerged and with it a new weapon, militant Islam.

The First Chechen War (1994-1996)

The first modern war for Chechnya began under Boris Yeltsin’s Russia in 1994, after Chechnya declared unilateral independence from the newly formed Russian Federation[29]. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, member Soviet Socialist Republics that were not historically part of Russia had been granted independence. Chechnya, on the border of the newly independent Georgia, sought the same for itself. The loss of the southern Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan) had wrought havoc on Russia’s economy and regional political standing: the region is wealthy with oil, and, politically, sits between Muslim Iran and Muslim NATO member Turkey[30]. For the region, the Soviet collapse had reawakened a sleeping giant, religion. All of a sudden, the people were free to rebuild the many mosques and churches destroyed during Soviet times, and, as the minarets rose, people began to remember the historical divide between Russia and the Caucasus[31]. This divide was most pronounced by one man, Dzhokhar Dudayev. He was the leader of the newly independent Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and a former Red Air Force General who served in Afghanistan. Initially, he was a Chechen nationalist, but to secure his foundation with the people, turned to Islam. It is alleged that when he laid eyes on the mountains, he did not say how beautiful they were, but said what great territory it would be for a guerilla war[32].

The push for independence had come at a steep cost economically. By 1994, most ethnic Russians had fled, the super-rich had taken over the government, and gangs had taken over the streets. This all served as great media bait; Russian politicians labeled Chechnya the “first criminal state”[33] and began hedging their bets for invasion. By 25 August 1994, civil society had virtually died in Chechnya, giving the Kremlin an opportunity to put the wolf in its cage. The Kremlin backed a replacement to Dudayev, Umar Avturkhanov, who gained support through being labeled “the only legitimate power structure in Chechnya” [34]. The Kremlin also provided him with helicopters, tanks, and at least “forty billion in cash” (though Dudayev’s secret police chief claimed that Avturkanov’s financial support was closer to 100 billion rubles)[35].

On 26 November 1994 the operation began Russian forces covertly filled the ranks of Avturkhanov’s opposition, and 50 Russian manned tanks poured into the streets of the capital, Grozny. Thinking the fight had been won, the Russian state news agency, ITAR-TASS, announced, without mention of Russian involvement, that the opposition had taken the presidential palace. However, this was simply not true. In a series of ambushes, Dudayev’s forces destroyed the armored columns and sent the opposition into full retreat[36]. Dudayev placed 20 Russian soldiers on TV as prisoners of war (POW), so that the Russian government could no longer deny involvement. The government kept up denials; while the POWs informed the militants and the media of the excessive sums of money the FSK (secret police) was paying them to fight for the opposition[37].

After this failed attempt to take the capital, and with President Yeltsin’s approval ratings down to 8% before reelection, the full invasion of Chechnya was decided[38]. A pro-war team of corrupt officials, generals, and former KGB men supported Yeltsin. They constantly embezzled funds, and when Dimitri Kholodov, a reporter, broke the story of one general using soldiers housing money to buy a Mercedes, a bomb mysteriously killed him; his murder was never investigated[39]. This is just one of the journalists who have mysteriously died for writing negative articles about the Russian government. A total of 52 journalists have been confirmed killed for what they wrote in Russia since 1992, an additional 24 have been murdered, but it is unknown if it was due to what they wrote[40].

The official war began on 31 December 1994 with a full scale bombing campaign against the capital. The Russians claimed that only military targets were being hit, but in reality it was the entire city: neighborhoods, hotels, crowded highways, hospitals[41]. At one point up to four thousand shells were falling on the city in a single hour[42]. Despite the air assault, the invasion was going badly; Russian columns were poorly supplied and could not advance on the capital. Paired with this were guerrilla attacks by the Chechens. Dudayev’s experience in the Afghan wilderness was paying off; the Chechens fought in small, independent, mobile bands that could strike violently then vanish into the hills of their homeland[43].

Even if a Chechen despised Dudayev and his cause, he was drawn to fight from the history and culture of Chechnya. The men were not fighting to rip the Russian bear from his pedestal; they fought for their homes, families, and identity[44]. If you were a young Chechen man, and you did not fight you would enter the Russian extra-judicial “filtration camp” system. These camps operated throughout the conflict with no foreign observation and no journalists allowed near the premises[45]. One year into the conflict over 1,000 Chechens had gone missing at these camps alone (the human rights watchdog, Memorial, says a total of 5,000 went missing[46]); the ones who made it out told stories of true brutality: men kept in pits, pelted with rocks, burnt with cigarettes and boiling water[47]. The brutality went both ways. The “terrorist” Shamil Basayev, took a hospital with 1,500 Russian hostages, but this terrorist act brought the ceasefire that ended the war[48].

The war officially ended on 31 August 1996 with the Khazavyurt Accords[49], but the violence did not. In December, 6 employees of the International Red Cross were murdered in their sleep, and scores of journalists were kidnapped. None of this was investigated[50]. Estimates for civilian deaths remain unknown, but it is believed to be between 40,000 and 100,000 people from the total population of one million[51]. A conservative estimate of combatant deaths stands at 7,500 men for the Russians, and 4,000 men for the Chechens[52].

The Second Chechen War (1999-Present)

Again, Chechnya was independent, in ruin, and lawless. The Kazavyurt Accords had left the status of Chechnya as a state to be determined in 2001; however, the Russian government officially declared an end to 400 years of war, and even recognized the country by its title, “the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria”[53]. It was the first and last time the Chechens would get such recognition. No other country recognized an independent Chechnya, no aid through loans ever came, and the Russian government paid no restitution. Infant mortality stood at 100 out of every 1,000, and evidence suggests the Russians used chemical weapons during the war that destroyed foliage, caused rampant disease and birth defects[54].

Crime also ran rampant. The new Chechen president, Mashkadov, was believed to have connections in Moscow that profited from kidnapping and human trafficking[55]. Simultaneously, political circumstance drove the fledgling nation closer and closer to becoming an Islamic republic. Islam became the uniting force for nationhood, as it had in the past, since any sort of détente with the Kremlin was unobtainable[56]. It is during the second war that Chechen terrorism tactics take the appearance of the Tamil Tigers: suicide bombings. The 1994-6 war left a surplus of people with no families and a desire for vengeance. Tony Wood in particular attributes the rising prevalence of female suicide bombing to the widespread use of rape as a weapon by the Russian army[57]. The use of Islamist rhetoric proved too valuable for Chechnya to live without; it drew large amounts of financing from abroad that could pay soldiers and their families[58], but it came at a cost. It cemented the resolve of the Russians to crush them, and the West to ignore them.

Spearheading this front was Shamil Basayev (named after Imam Shamil from above), who launched a raid into neighboring Dagestan under the pretext of creating “a single, Islamic Chechen-Dagestani state”[59]. These activities were attempts to draw attention from the international community to the atrocities committed in Chechnya, but no attention was given. The West was trying to appease Russia during the bombing of Yugoslavia, and any sort of outcry about the problems in Chechnya would’ve led to a nightmare in the Balkans. There was equal silence from the UN: no tribunals, no amnesty, no communiqués of any type were issued about the violence in Chechnya.

With the Russian army already sitting on the borders of Chechnya, a string of bombings hit Moscow and other cities causing nearly 300 deaths. It was immediately blamed on the Chechens, but was never proven[60]. In fact, an unexploded bomb was found in Riazan, and the people who placed it turned out to be FSB (formerly the FSK and KGB) agents; they said it was a “training exercise,” and that the bag of explosives found was only sugar[61]. Putin stated it was time “to wipe [the Chechens] out of the shithouse”, and that the Russians “would destroy the bandits, their camps and infrastructure.”[62] Under the guise of a war on terror, Putin launched an invasion and bombing campaign that made the first Chechen war look like the US invasion of Granada. Dams, bridges, oil wells, even the central market in Grozny were bombed killing scores of civilians[63]. Refugees fled by the thousands; all were “terrorists”, and Russian aircraft fired on them[64]. In one instance, groups of surviving inhabitants were told by the Russian military that they could leave the town of Katyr-Yurt in buses marked with white flags. After their departure, the busses were hit by an airstrike killing 363 men, women, and children[65].

By 2000, the “filtration camp” system was back in operation, with Human Rights Watch claiming that by February 2001 853 illegal executions had occurred[66]. The United States had also become aware of this. In May 2001, Paul Wellstone of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter to George Tenet, the head of the CIA, requesting satellite imagery to “document publically the existence of mass graves and concentration camps in Chechnya”[67]. However, on September 11, 2001 this was swept from the public’s mind. Chechens are, according to President Bush, in league with Al-Qaeda despite denials from the Chechen deputy prime minister[68]. This sudden shift of position on Chechnya allowed the United States to use Russian airspace for the war in Afghanistan[69], and with that shift, the door shut and, outside of an upcoming hearing on human rights abuses by the Senate Foreign Relation Committee[70], remains closed to any hope of international involvement in favor of Chechen independence.

With the door to international attention closed and with the West now grouping the Chechen struggle with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the Islamist rhetoric and use of terror tactics intensified. In 2002, a group of Chechen militants took over a theater in Moscow demanding an end to the war. The Russian FSB used toxic gas to subdue the attackers; however the gas also killed 117 hostages[71]. Then came the most notorious attack, the Beslan School Hostage Crisis. In September 2004, a group of Chechens took over an elementary school in Russia, again calling for an end to the war. There were more than 1,000 people in the building; most were children. When Russian forces stormed the school a series of explosion ripped through the area where hostages were held killing 331 people including 186 children[72]. In 2010, the Moscow Metro was hit with a double suicide blast killing 34[73], and, in 2011, a suicide bomber detonated himself in the international terminal of Moscow’s Domodedovo airport killing at least 35[74]. These attacks were one of the only times the Chechen question entered the international media cycle since the “War on Terror” began, and they are the first time in modern history that the Chechens have taken the fight to the Russians. While unbelievably terrible, they pale in comparison to the state-sanctioned violence that has ravaged Chechnya for nearly 20 years. Terrorist tactics enabled the Chechens to find weak points in Moscow’s politics and effectively swayed public opinion[75]. It took what seemed like a distant war and dropped it on the average persons doorstep. The Russian “counter-terrorism operation” ended in Chechnya on 16 April 2009, but violence has continued to flare up in neighboring areas[76]. In reality, the war is not over. It has simply entered a new phase where the Chechens discretely move from place to place planning their payback.

Now more than ever, the wolf is alone on its mountaintop.  The eyes of the world no longer see the wrongs that have been inflicted on this nation; even worse, they now look with favor on the country that has committed them.  The wolf has learned that violence and the cries of the innocent are the only things that bring attention to their plight.  Even if that attention is outrage against their tactics.  This study was never planned to be in favor of the Chechens; in fact, it was supposed to be the opposite.  However, when reading the history -the use of nerve gas, the attacks on civilians, the “filtration camps”, journalists being murdered for their criticism, rape as a weapon, forced disappearances, and the West’s approval of the aforementioned tactics as the right way to defeat terror- it is overwhelmingly apparent that, because of politics, hundreds of thousands of people were allowed to die. The Chechen struggle will not end anytime soon.  If anything, it will only become more violent.  The international community must accept their acquiescence and role in a conflict that could have and should have been prevented.  The perpetrators must be held accountable, and the Chechens must be allowed their independence. Only then will this cycle of violence draw to a close.



[1] Maxim Tkachenko, Series of blasts kill 1, injure dozens in Russia's Dagestan, September 22, 2011, http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/world/europe/russia-attacks/index.html?iref=allsearch (accessed December 13, 2011).

[2] Moshe Gammer, Muslim Resistance to the Tsar (Portland: Frank Cass, 1994)(pg. 2-3).

[3] John Dunlop, Russia Confronts Chechnya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) (pg 7).

[4] Moshe Gammer, Muslim Resistance to the Tsar (Portland: Frank Cass, 1994). (pg. 3-4)

[5] Ibid (pg 5-7)

[6] John Dunlop, Russia Confronts Chechnya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) (pg. 9).

[7] Ibid (pg. 10).

[8] Ibid (pg 12)

[9] Ibid (pg 15)

[10] Ibid (pg 15).

[11] Ibid (pg 16)

[12] Moshe Gammer, Muslim Resistance to the Tsar (Portland: Frank Cass, 1994) (pg 292).

[13] John Dunlop, Russia Confronts Chechnya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) (pg. 25).

[14] Ibid (pg. 25-26)

[15] Ibid (pg. 29)

[16] Ibid (pg. 30)

[17] Ibid (pg. 34).

[18] Ibid (pg 36-39).

[19] Ibid (pg 42-43).

[20] Ibid

[21] Ibid (pg 49).

[22] Definition of "terrorism", http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism (accessed December 13, 2011).

[23] John Dunlop, Russia Confronts Chechnya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) (pg 50).

[24] Ibid (pg 52).

[25] Ibid (pg 55).

[26] Ibid (pg 56).

[27] Ibid (pg 61,63,67).

[28] Ibid (pg 73).

[29] Sebastian Smith, Allah's Mountains (New York: I.B. Taris & Co Ltd., 1998) (pg. 3).

[30] Ibid (pg 70).

[31] Ibid (pg 74-75)

[32] Ibid (pg 125)

[33] Ibid (pg 129).

[34] John Dunlop, Russia Confronts Chechnya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) (pg 156).

[35] Ibid (pg. 157-158)

[36] Sebastian Smith, Allah's Mountains (New York: I.B. Taris & Co Ltd., 1998) (pg 137).

[37] Ibid

[38] Ibid (pg 138).

[39] Ibid (pg 141).

[40] 52 Journalists Killed in Russia since 1992/Motive Confirmed, http://www.cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/ (accessed December 13, 2011).

[41] Sebastian Smith, Allah's Mountains (New York: I.B. Taris & Co Ltd., 1998) (pg 146-147, 150, 251).

[42] Ibid (pg. 164).

[43] Ibid (pg 152-153).

[44] Ibid (pg 154-155).

[45] Ibid (pg. 90).

[46] Ibid (pg xxiii)

[47] Ibid

[48] Ibid (pg 1)

[49] Tony Wood, Chechnya: The Case for Independence (New York: Verso, 2007) (pg 82).

[50] Sebastian Smith, Allah's Mountains (New York: I.B. Taris & Co Ltd., 1998)(pg. 260).

[51] Ibid (pg 260).

[52] Tony Wood, Chechnya: The Case for Independence (New York: Verso, 2007) (pg 75).

[53] Ibid (pg 82).

[54] Ibid (pg 84).

[55] Ibid (pg 85-87).

[56] Ibid (pg 90).

[57] Ibid (pg 140-141).

[58] Ibid (pg 137-139).

[59] Ibid (pg 92).

[60] Ibid (pg 98)

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid (pg 97, 99)

[63] Ibid (pg 99-100).

[64] Anna Politkovskaya, A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003) (pg 32-33).

[65] Tony Wood, Chechnya: The Case for Independence (New York: Verso, 2007) (pg 101).

[66] Ibid (pg 102)

[67] Paul D. Wellstone, "To the Honorable George J. Tenet," Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room, May 14, 2001, http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000650588/DOC_0000650588.pdf (accessed December 9, 2001).

[68]Center for Defense Intelligence, CDI Russia Weekly 28 September 2001, September 28, 2001, http://www.cdi.org/russia/173.html#%236 (accessed December 9, 2011).

[69] Ibid

[70] THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN RUSSIA: U.S. POLICY OPTIONS, http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=08d381d8-5056-a032-52d2-1c872efe21b0 (accessed December 13, 2011).

[71] CBWNP, The Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis: Incapacitants and Chemical Warfare, November 4, 2002, http://cns.miis.edu/stories/02110b.htm (accessed December 10, 2011).

[72] BBC, Beslan School Seige, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/russian_s/html/7.stm (accessed December 10, 2011).

[73] BBC, Moscow Metro hit by deadly suicide bombings, March 10, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8592190.stm (accessed December 10, 2011).

[74] Luke and Tom Parfitt Harding, Domodedovo airport hit by deadly bombing, January 26, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/domodedovo-airport-bombing-moscow (accessed December 10, 2011).

[75] Dianne Leigh Sumner, "Succcess of Terrorism in War: The Case of Chechnya," in Chechnya Revisited (Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, 2003) (pg 116).

[76] BBC, Russia 'ends Chechnya operation', April 16, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8001495.stm (accessed December 10, 2011).

Works Cited

52 Journalists Killed in Russia since 1992/Motive Confirmed. http://www.cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/ (accessed December 13, 2011).

BBC. Beslan School Seige. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/russian_s/html/7.stm (accessed December 10, 2011).

—. Moscow Metro hit by deadly suicide bombings. March 10, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8592190.stm (accessed December 10, 2011).

—. Russia 'ends Chechnya operation'. April 16, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8001495.stm (accessed December 10, 2011).

CBWNP. The Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis: Incapacitants and Chemical Warfare. November 4, 2002. http://cns.miis.edu/stories/02110b.htm (accessed December 10, 2011).

Center for Defense Intelligence. CDI Russia Weekly 28 September 2001. September 28, 2001. http://www.cdi.org/russia/173.html#%236 (accessed December 9, 2011).

Definition of "terrorism". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism (accessed December 13, 2011).

Dunlop, John. Russia Confronts Chechnya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Gammer, Moshe. Muslim Resistance to the Tsar. Portland: Frank Cass, 1994.

Harding, Luke and Tom Parfitt. Domodedovo airport hit by deadly bombing. January 26, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/domodedovo-airport-bombing-moscow (accessed December 10, 2011).

Politkovskaya, Anna. A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Slovieva, Daria. Politkovskaya's Death, Other Killings, Raise Questions About Russian Democracy. October 31, 2006. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/302/politkovskayas-death-other-killings-raise-questions-about-russian-democracy (accessed December 7, 2011).

Smith, Sebastian. Allah's Mountains. New York: I.B. Taris & Co Ltd., 1998.

Sumner, Dianne Leigh. "Succcess of Terrorism in War: The Case of Chechnya." In Chechnya Revisited, by Yu. K. Nikolaev. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, 2003.

THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN RUSSIA: U.S. POLICY OPTIONS. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=08d381d8-5056-a032-52d2-1c872efe21b0 (accessed December 13, 2011).

Tkachenko, Maxim. Series of blasts kill 1, injure dozens in Russia's Dagestan. September 22, 2011. http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/world/europe/russia-attacks/index.html?iref=allsearch (accessed December 13, 2011).

Wellstone, Paul D. "To the Honorable George J. Tenet." Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room. May 14, 2001. http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000650588/DOC_0000650588.pdf (accessed December 9, 2001).

Wood, Tony. Chechnya: The Case for Independence. New York: Verso, 2007.