Date: Thurs 04 Aug 05
Subject: Reply to Finch (JRL 9216)
From: Robert Bruce Ware rware@siue.edu
As always, I am grateful to Mr. Finch for his exploration of weaknesses in the conventional wisdom about Chechnya (JRL 9216). The fallacy at the base of Mr. Finch's position becomes transparent in his final sentence. Shamil Basyaev was not presenting a "diverse point of view" in Beslan, or Dubrovka, or Dagestan, or Budenvosk¬to hold his atrocities to a short list. He didn't write a letter to the editor. I explicitly endorsed Nightline's right to feature controversial viewpoints, and I explained why terrorists-- any terrorists--are the exception. Terrorists play to the media, and terrorists are powerless without it. Take the media away from terrorists, and we do much to eliminate their threat world wide. My argument is that once an individual has sunk to terrorism his viewpoint no longer deserves consideration precisely because he has, himself, abandoned and contravened rational discourse. When he becomes a terrorist his viewpoint is not "diverse"; it is grotesquely and absolutely depraved.
If ABC had wanted simply to consider "diverse viewpoints" then they could have found any number of people (Mr. Finch, for example, or better yet, any number of regional specialists, or any number of respectable Chechens) to appear on Nightline, people who would have done a far better job than Basayev in explaining the complexities of the region. The fact that ABC did not do so, and the fact that they chose to yield their microphone to the depravities of an avowed terrorist, is an indication that they were not interested in shedding light but heat, and thereby attracting attention to themselves, as always, for marketing purposes. That episode of Nightline was no better than a carnival sideshow that displays a hideous and horrifying freak for the purpose of making a few dollars. In fact, it was much worse because this particular freak was hideous precisely because he was drenched in the blood of thousands of innocent victims.
Atrocities like Beslan, 9/11, and the London underground bombings are absolute evils. No justification is possible. When the world one day recognizes that fact, then we will all be able to move beyond terrorism. So long as individuals such as Mr. Koppel, Mr. Finch, and Basayev suggest that such evils are not absolute, and that they are potentially justifiable, we will all suffer the scourge of terrorism.
Mr. Finch commits the same fallacy in arguing that economic deprivation in Chechnya from 1997 to 1999 is a justification for the torture, mutilation, and enslavement of thousands of hostages¬ including Chechens, Dagestanis, Ingushis, and Russians. During those same years unemployment was as high in Dagestan as in Chechnya, yet the Dagestanis did not feel that this might justify them in dragging thousands of Chechens into Dagestan and torturing them. Nor did the Dagestanis take economic hardship as a justification for an invasion of Chechnya in 1999.
Mr. Finch, Mr. Koppel, and Basayev each subscribe to the fallacy that Basayev speaks for the people of Chechnya. Most Chechens despise Basayev, because they realize that Basayev's grandiosity and narcissism have brought great suffering upon them, and will continue to bring suffering upon them so long as Basayev is able to attract international support, such as that for which he appealed on Nightline.
Mr. Finch observes that Basayev was affiliated with the Russian military when he was fighting in Abkhazia in the early 1990s. Timothy McVeigh served in the American military in the early 1990s. So if Mr. Finch wishes to proceed with his claim that "the Russian security forces have aided and abetted in . the creation of a monster like Shamil Basayev", then he will also have to claim that the American military aided in the creation of a monster like McVeigh. For myself, I am no more interested in an attempt to hold the American military responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing than I am in an attempt to hold the Russian military responsible for Beslan. This, of course, is not to mention that the U.S. was working with Bin Laden in Afghanistan years before Russia was working with Basayev in Abkhazia, or that Basayev trained at Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan in April 1994, prior to the Russian invasion of Chechnya.
Of course, Mr. Finch knows that I didn't focus on Saudi Arabia. Instead I alluded to the failure of "American policy in the Middle East over the last fifty years." I believe that what the United States did in Iran from 1953 to 1979 is as bad, or worse, than what Russia did in Chechnya. Don't forget, that in 1953 we overthrew the democratically-elected, pro-American, Iranian government of Mohhamad Mossedegh. Ramzan Kadyrov pales by comparison with the Savak secret police that we Americans trained and installed in Iran. From Iran in 1953, one can easily draw a line through American support for (the pro-Soviet) Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war (1980-88), and Saddams's invasion of Kuwait (for the relief of 20 bn in war debts), and US bases in Saudi Arabia after "Desert Storm", to Bin Laden's twisted rationale for 9/11. This doesn't mean that Ted Koppel should therefore interview Bin Laden in order to solicit his "diverse" viewpoint on American policy. It means that the U.S. should eliminate Bin Laden, as it also takes a hard look at American policy failures in the Middle East. There are plenty of responsible Middle Eastern spokespersons, not terrorists, to help us do that. Similarly, Russia should eliminate Basayev, as it takes a hard look at Russian policy failures in the North Caucasus. Mr. Finch can read the latest of several opeds I've written on the failure of American policy in the Middle East at http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050720-025233-3472r
Beyond this Mr. Finch's commentary rehearses the claims that he made repeatedly in these pages years ago, and there simply isn't time or space to go through it all again. Mr. Finch may wish to read my arguments on this topic published in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies (16, 4, Dec. 2003), and readily available at http://www.siue.edu/~rware/Chech_Review_A4.pdf . An expansion of these arguments has just come out in a volume on Chechnya edited by Richard Sakwa (London: Anthem 2005).
Finally, Mr. Finch began his comments by poisoning the well with his ludicrous claim that I "continue to propagate the Putin message". Mr. Finch knows that this is false. In 1998, more than a year before Mr. Putin became Prime Minister of Russia, I was writing that Al Qaeda was present in Chechnya, and that the Russian government had a moral responsibility to protect its citizens from the horrific human rights abuses that were occurring in the region. So if Mr. Finch wishes to accuse Mr. Putin of propagating my message, then he is free to do so. If that were only the case, then there might be hope that Mr. Putin may also propagate my messages about democracy and human rights in the North Caucasus. But Mr. Finch knows full well that I have never propagated any message but my own.