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.

Our Generations Inheritance

This originally appeared at America's Future Foundation's Conventional Folly Blog on 6 Dec 2011

I was born on Oct 14, 1989. A month later, the Berlin Wall came down. 1991 saw the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That was 22 years ago, and now members of my generation- the children of the Cold War- are coming of age, finishing school, getting married, having children, beginning careers, and voting. As we step into the spotlight, we begin to replace the eldest ahead of us- the children of World War II.

This transition of power will not be easy, seamless, or painless. It will be hard for everyone. It will be hard because no two generations value the same things, nor do we view problems in the same light.

There is a growing murmur amongst my generation: a realization that we are reaping what our fathers and our fathers’s fathers have sown. It is 66 years of the same politics. 66 years of “us vs. them”. 66 years of traversing the globe to establish puppets, whose final “useful” function is to absorb our surplus missiles while we find a new puppet to manipulate.

Many Americans wonder why the world hates us, and the answer is blatantly obvious. We kept fighting the Cold War after the Cold War ended: Iraq part I, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq part 2, Libya, and Uganda. And even as I write this, the drums of war are beginning to beat toward Syria and Iran.

As a generation, we are beginning to realize the unforeseen fallacy of our fathers ways. We are waking up. We must take the helm and steer our ship in a new direction. We can no longer afford to be careless; we can no longer ride the same current.

Movements like Occupy Wall Street do serve a purpose and demonstrate one clear fact: that people are angry at the status quo. They do not know how to fix it, but they show that the support structure exists for those who are willing to lead.

So Cold War Kids, will you be content keeping up with the Kardashians, or will you take the helm and steer our ship to new waters?