Alternative Methods of Dealing with Muslim Extemists: Russia

Politics International Politics
1

Interesting what gets results in the Middle East eh?

[quote]During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: “What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?”

A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals–notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans.
[color=red]There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.[/color]

These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely Muslim colonial empire accumulated by the czars in Asia passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.

Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Washington’s handling of the Tehran hostage crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already ruled–or misruled–half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution “strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan.” The words “condemn” and “aggression” were not used, and the source of the “intervention” was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.[/quote]

There is more but this gives a good taste of what follows…

opinionjournal.com/editorial/fea … =110010080

2

Do you see Muslims as “the enemy”?

3

Nope. Perhaps, a poor choice for the title. Apologies… Make it Alternatives for dealing with Extremists in the Muslim World. Okay?

4

Nope. Perhaps, a poor choice for the title. Apologies… Make it Alternatives for dealing with Extremists in the Muslim World. Okay?[/quote]
Yeah that’s better in general. I’d hate people in general to believe the US in general thinks of Muslims in general as the enemy in general.

5

Chechnya bombings and hostage-takings in Moscow and Russia.

Afghanistan.

Actions come with consequences even if Soviet/Russians are cold-blooded bad asses. Snake Eyes plans to take them out using Systema Rukopashnii Boi.

The Russians are still a threat to national security of the west. Death to slavic commies.

6

It also doesn’t seem to solve any of their problems in Central Asia

7

Worked a treat at Beslan, too, if I recall.

8

Certainly no one could credibly say that the U.S. is the worst nation for its treatment of extremists, terrorists, criminals or other undesirables.

But, Russia is not seen as an example - moral, economic, social or otherwise. And, Russia doesn’t make much noise about its exemplary human rights levels either. With good reason.

Fred, I think you post these examples as a retort to all of the America bashing. And, you always make a good point in doing so, at least to some extent.

But, the comparison is flawed given the U.S. government’s constant crowing about it being the greatest, free-est, most moral nation, etc.

Do you really see the U.S. as analogous to Russia? Do you want the U.S. to have the same international reputation as Russia?

People hold the U.S. to a different yardstick due in no small part to America’s own public/international relations profile.

I think it is fair to say that most people (Americans and others) are fed up with Bush and his administration. Once a new government is in power, America’s reputation, and the criticisms directed toward its policies will inevitably change.

I can’t stand the current administration, but I don’t for a moment confuse my dislike for them for a general distaste for all Americans.

9

I think that it is fair to say the citizens of most nations dislike Bush intensely. BUT I think it is very interesting that most national GOVERNMENTS are coming around to his way of thinking. It is not the US that compromised and moved to center after the invasion of Iraq but pretty much most of the governments who had opposed its efforts. THAT is the key. Too bad most people including you do not understand the importance of what we are doing or why Saddam and the mullahs are so dangerous.

[quote]But, the comparison is flawed given the U.S. government’s constant crowing about it being the greatest, free-est, most moral nation, etc.

Do you really see the U.S. as analogous to Russia? Do you want the U.S. to have the same international reputation as Russia?

People hold the U.S. to a different yardstick due in no small part to America’s own public/international relations profile. [/quote]

The US scores in terms of human rights, civil rights, political freedom despite all the gnashing of teeth, the all-encompassing fascist Patriot Act, etc. remain even on most liberal sites… perfect or nearly perfect… One is therefore most perplexed to understand how those who claim to see these rights under threat everywhere under Bush spewing their bile in the press both domestic and international would ignore the realities of the American record on these issues. Oh, I see, the rights are not actually being trampled yet but it is a dangerous road to go down (eventually?) and of course the fact that the Republicans control neither house at present and with no prospect of an emergency decree (incredibly predicted by some!) to stave off presidential elections in 2008… why it is so clear to see why the American record is in tatters. I mean look at all the fact to buttress your assertions.

So the double irony is that we have those who are concerned about rights and international law defending Saddam (essentially) and those nations who flouted the sanctions regime (in direct defiance of international law) including most egregiously France, Russia and China and it is these three nations that are thus held up as heroes for defending the international order and international law? Does anyone follow this? We also have the Taliban removed along with Saddam, but this generations howls of protests from those who professionally exhibit outrage about women’s, gay, children’s, minority rights (but never religious unless Muslim eh?) in the West? The same group condemns any efforts to stabilize these nations and bring democracy but we are to take a more active stance in Darfur? Rwanda? Haiti? Areas where chance of successful nation-building are even lower and coupled with the total non-existence of strategic objectives and this is thus to be the more enlightened policy?

Best of all, however, we now have the same cast of international bright lights out in full force to defend Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Now, if you want to see a nation where the rights are truly being eroded, that would be Venezuela, but Chavez is a hero. Why? for standing up to Bush and the “imperialist” USA. Is this not the most incredible example of buffoonery that you have ever seen? Sad, though, the tragic costs for the people involved will be real, but never mind, the sandal-wearing brigade will find a new cause and even better a new coffee flavor at Starbuck’s to continue to fuel their feverish efforts! Viva Che! Viva Castro! Viva Communism! Viva Chavez! They care about the people!

10

I think that it is fair to say the citizens of most nations dislike Bush intensely. BUT I think it is very interesting that most national GOVERNMENTS are coming around to his way of thinking. It is not the US that compromised and moved to center after the invasion of Iraq but pretty much most of the governments who had opposed its efforts. THAT is the key. Too bad most people including you do not understand the importance of what we are doing or why Saddam and the mullahs are so dangerous.

[quote]But, the comparison is flawed given the U.S. government’s constant crowing about it being the greatest, free-est, most moral nation, etc.

Do you really see the U.S. as analogous to Russia? Do you want the U.S. to have the same international reputation as Russia?

People hold the U.S. to a different yardstick due in no small part to America’s own public/international relations profile. [/quote]

The US scores in terms of human rights, civil rights, political freedom despite all the gnashing of teeth, the all-encompassing fascist Patriot Act, etc. remain even on most liberal sites… perfect or nearly perfect… One is therefore most perplexed to understand how those who claim to see these rights under threat everywhere under Bush spewing their bile in the press both domestic and international would ignore the realities of the American record on these issues. Oh, I see, the rights are not actually being trampled yet but it is a dangerous road to go down (eventually?) and of course the fact that the Republicans control neither house at present and with no prospect of an emergency decree (incredibly predicted by some!) to stave off presidential elections in 2008… why it is so clear to see why the American record is in tatters. I mean look at all the fact to buttress your assertions.

So the double irony is that we have those who are concerned about rights and international law defending Saddam (essentially) and those nations who flouted the sanctions regime (in direct defiance of international law) including most egregiously France, Russia and China and it is these three nations that are thus held up as heroes for defending the international order and international law? Does anyone follow this? We also have the Taliban removed along with Saddam, but this generations howls of protests from those who professionally exhibit outrage about women’s, gay, children’s, minority rights (but never religious unless Muslim eh?) in the West? The same group condemns any efforts to stabilize these nations and bring democracy but we are to take a more active stance in Darfur? Rwanda? Haiti? Areas where chance of successful nation-building are even lower and coupled with the total non-existence of strategic objectives and this is thus to be the more enlightened policy?

Best of all, however, we now have the same cast of international bright lights out in full force to defend Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Now, if you want to see a nation where the rights are truly being eroded, that would be Venezuela, but Chavez is a hero. Why? for standing up to Bush and the “imperialist” USA. Is this not the most incredible example of buffoonery that you have ever seen? Sad, though, the tragic costs for the people involved will be real, but never mind, the sandal-wearing brigade will find a new cause and even better a new coffee flavor at Starbuck’s to continue to fuel their feverish efforts! Viva Che! Viva Castro! Viva Communism! Viva Chavez! They care about the people![/quote]

Fred, at the end of the day, I do not believe that anyone truly believes that Chaves is a hero. They only like Che because they don’t know what he was really about.

However, it’s the very “gnashing of teeth” and public airing or dirty laundry in the US that ensure we have a better record than the rest out there (which I firmly believe).

However, we do have our Roy Cohns.

11

Yeah, sure. And that movement to the centre as you call it of course can only be attributed to the omnipotent Bush administration AND the fabulantastic way how it “dealt” with terrorism in Iraq because the world just does revolve around your navel Fred.

Anything new you want to tell us though?

12

I’ve been hearing this story for almost twenty years, never with any more details than in the above- you’d think some intrepid investigator could track it down and see if it’s more than an urban legend, Beirut style. It’s entirely possible, of course, though I don’t see what the Russkies could have done that was worse than what the locals were already doing to each other.

As pointed out above, it didn’t seem to intimidate the Afghans very much, did it?

IIRC, most Middle Eastern (and other Third-World ) bully-boys didn’t seem to have many qualms about rounding up and disposing of the local tools of Moscow whenever they became inconvenient or the USSR appeared to be getting a bit too pushy.

13

I think that it is fair to say the citizens of most nations dislike Bush intensely. BUT I think it is very interesting that most national GOVERNMENTS are coming around to his way of thinking. It is not the US that compromised and moved to center after the invasion of Iraq but pretty much most of the governments who had opposed its efforts. THAT is the key. Too bad most people including you do not understand the importance of what we are doing or why Saddam and the mullahs are so dangerous. [/quote]

This is an odd bit of reasoning. The war in Iraq has created conditions quite unlike those present in 2002. So, yes, now many governments are “coming around” to realize that diplomacy, counting on UN resolutions, etc. is not enough to contain it. So, to simplify, the Bush administration stirred up a hornets nest by launching a war in Iraq. Now other nations see the need for a harder line stance on the insurgency and its spillover and this somehow makes Bush right?

Oh, and I’d wager Saddam isn’t much of a threat these days. Call me crazy…

[quote=“fred smith”]

The US scores in terms of human rights, civil rights, political freedom despite all the gnashing of teeth, the all-encompassing fascist Patriot Act, etc. remain even on most liberal sites… perfect or nearly perfect… One is therefore most perplexed to understand how those who claim to see these rights under threat everywhere under Bush spewing their bile in the press both domestic and international would ignore the realities of the American record on these issues. [/quote]

Which is why I began my post with: “No one could credibly say that the US is the worst…”

Straw man. What rot! Set up your own premise, attribute an argument to me that I did not make and then refute it. Oh, but “some” people predicted that hey?

I think the record is skipping. in any case, this is nothing I said and has nothing to do with my post.

Ha ha ha. The Taliban were removed were they? Oh right, I forgot, because Afghans got to vote, every thing is peachy there now. Never mind the Taliban still controlling parts of Afghanistan or the murderous warlords who took their place. Women are stil being stoned. Remember when they were the cause celebre? How the US was going to liberate the women? Are they this war’s Kurds? Convenient pretexts easily forgotten when the news cycle gets stale?

Is this the sound of one neocon clapping? This was obtensibly directed at me, but again, has nothing to do what I wrote.

Fred, you began by complaining that Russia handles terrorists differently but is not censured like the US is for it’s torture, rejection of the Geneva Conventions, etc. I responded that the U.S. presents itself as the world police, moral authority and last word on everything just and good. So, the reaction to the US acting thuggish is different than the one given to Russia, where thuggery is expected and the norm.

14

Welcome to the wacky world of the left.

My vote for understatement of the month.

Yeah, those previous 17 resolutions were, um, so uncharacteristically clear?

That may make sense to someone with no recollection of history, but would not the invasion of Iran and the invasion of Kuwait as well as the constant threats count as a hornets nest? Or why not give us a definition of just what a hornet’s nest is and how that was not there before Bush strode onto the scene.

No most others realize that we cannot fail in Iraq, that Iran is a problem and that Islamofascism cannot be treated through appeasement aka “negotiations.”

Bingo.

You ARE crazy.

and some of my best friends are Black, Jewish and gay… We all know how and why these prefaces are used. They are soft soap before the whack.

Well, then really what are your “concerns” about. IF the US DESPITE all the wailing and gnashing of teeth still has perfect or near-perfect scores in all of these areas, why are we really talking about the US and its policies at all? The esoteric, mind-numbing focus on small variables here and there… Which constitutes not even torture but really abuse (and then the definition and discussion are endless) because it involves the US, all while ignoring the gross and frequent violations of the other parties involved makes a mockery of the pretense of having any objective morality at all. So yes, you are right that the US should maintain a higher moral standard. It does. But isn’t much of this discussion about the minor imperfections of the US stance while failing to incorporate the very difficult circumstances we find ourselves in while fighting total barbarians a bit precious, especially when it comes from those who live in nations that are unwilling or incapable of partaking in the fight at all, despite benefiting greatly from the US actions and protection?

From power, yes.

Nope, but would you deny that it is better. Ironically, people worried about the rights of Afghans before the US got involved and even criticized the US for not getting involved. Once we did, then the litany of complaints is about how we are not doing enough. How we have abused people in Afghanistan. How we are not committed enough to the fight there or creating favorable conditions on the ground, etc. But where is everyone else? This is a war that EVERYONE supported including the UN. Where are all the other nations? Where are their soldiers? Where is their money? Where is their funding? Oh yes, in all we have probably about 7,000 total troops from Europe and Canada. That helps but is this really the full extent of the ability that these nations have to contribute and if it is, what does that say about these nations and their “positions” on the issues involved?

So what are YOU going to do about it? I see a lot of people thumping on about how the US is acting in a manner that is less than perfect but when it comes time to actually contribute something either in terms of soldiers or funding, well then, the US must do more! It is the world leader! and yet it must act perfectly even though the Taliban are absolutely ruthless because the bien piensant cannot accept anything but perfect from a nation like the US, right?

And that is the fault of the US because… they were not being stoned before we came? because we have not contributed enough to Afghanistan? That we need to contribute more? And if this kind of barbarism is wrong in Afghanistan and must be fought, why shouldn’t it be fought in Iraq? Iran? Palestine? Gaza?

We did remove the Taliban from POWER, but where is everyone else on this. All of the nations of the world claimed to support the removal of the Taliban and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan. The US is there in fairly large numbers. What about the rest of the world?

Was I complaining? No. I merely pointed out what the Russians did when they faced terrorist attacks on their citizens. I think I pretty much highlighted a few areas and then left the comments to others. Want to go back and reread this?

Yes, and that sentence sums up everything about why I find you a non-credible discussant. WE are not acting anywhere like the Russians and our scores are perfect or nearly perfect in all of these areas and yet I am listening to the likes of you lecturing about morality while you do nothing refuse to get involved and backseat drive on all the fighting and funding and reconstruction. That is a bit rich isn’t it? You must be from Canada.

15

Responding to Lewis’s article, he first says

Amazingly, the vast Hispanic colonial empire accumulated by the US at about the same time also passed unnoticed by the countries of Latin America.

So if the US had bombed Tehran the Russians would have been too afraid to invade Afghanistan?

[quote] After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution “strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan.” The words “condemn” and “aggression” were not used, and the source of the “intervention” was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.

One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.[/quote]

Yes, and why was that? Because Algeria, Syria, Libya, South Yemen and the PLO were afraid of waking up with horses’ heads in their beds? Or was it because they were all already left-wing secular anti-Islamist allies of the USSR?

At the time, Afghanistan was already being ruled by a Soviet puppet- the Soviets went in for the same reasons the US went into Vietnam: the local government they supported was losing control of the situation in the face of internal resistance.

Which Muslims were those again? As I pointed out, countries like Algeria and Syria weren’t submitting"to Soviet authority; they were (informally) allied to the Soviet Union because they were governed by radical anti-Western parties who sought support to oppose Western Imperialism.

Jaysus, this guy’s a professional historian? The Taliban wasn’t formed until the mid-1990s as a response to the depredations of the warlord era.

No, the response to 9/11 was exactly what bin Laden expected- the whole point was to draw the US into an attack on Afghanistan, pulling it into the same quagmire as the USSR, rallying Muslim support against the invaders while slowly bleeding them to death. Hence his ordering the assassination of Ahmad Masoud September 9, 2001 to cripple the local resistance. Unfortunately for Osama he very badly miscalculated-the US’s strategy of using their hi-tech combined with the forces of the Northern Alliance led to the collapse of his plan- until George Bush gave him a do-over in Iraq.

A remarkably silly article from a scholar of such high repute.