The Russian Security Service has “reported the death of Shamil Basayev”:http://mosnews.com/news/2006/07/10/basayevkilled.shtml, Russia’s most wanted man in Chechnya. Responsible for many high-profile terrorist acts including the mass hostage-taking of 1600 in a Budyonnovsk hospital (1995), the “Moscow Theater Crisis”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theatre_siege (2002), and the “Beslan Tragedy”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_hostage_crisis (2004). Basayev is a terrorist’s terrorist.
“According the the chief fo the FSB”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5165456.stm, Basayev was killed in a special operation overnight in Ingushetia. I dunno about the rest of you, but I am going to wait for some corroboration from a third source. Not that I doubt the word of the Russian FSB, but Basayev _has_ “died many times before”:http://www.diacritica.com/sobaka/dossier/basayev.html. I am going to wait a bit before I pass judgement.
About Younghusband
Sir Francis Edward Younghusband (1863-1942) was a British explorer, army officer, military-political officer, and foreign correspondent born in India who led expeditions into Manchuria, Kashgar, and
Tibet. He three times tried and failed to scale Mt. Everest and journeyed from China to India, crossing the Gobi desert and the Mustagh Pass (alt. c.19,000 ft/5,791 m) of the Karakoram mountain range in modern day Pakistan. Convinced of Russian designs on British interests in India, Younghusband proactively engaged in the nineteenth century spying and conflict over Central Asia between the British and the Russians known as the Great Game.
"Younghusband" is a Canadian who has spent a number of years bouncing back and forth between his home country and Japan. Fluent in Japanese and English with experience in numerous other languages from Spanish to Georgian, Younghusband has travelled throughout Asia. He graduated with an MA from the War Studies Department at the
Royal Military College of Canada, where he focussed on the Japanese oil industry and energy security issues. He has recently returned to Canada from Japan, and is working in the technology sector.
I don’t think it is fair to say Basayev was “a terrorist’s terrorist”. He started out as a Chechen nationalist. He, unlike Zarqawi or other Arab terrorists, repeatedly displayed a high degree of personal courage. The Chechens, for all their viciousness, have an in-your-face personal style of confrontation and fighting.
The way he lost his foot is a good example. When the Chechen fighters broke out of Grozny in January 2000, they went straight through a minefield, one guy at a time, clearing a path for the others. He was in command but did not spare himself this task.
We should not underestimate our enemies.
This article about him may be of interest.
There is a very interesting discussion of the first Chechen war in Anatol Lieven’s book Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power.
Lieven got it wrong – he thought the Russians had retreated and that’s that. Anyone who had spoken to Russians would have known that was Chechnya was unfinished business and will remain so, as the writers of this blog might recall from history.
Also, if we are going to talk about the Moscow theatre siege and Beslan we have to tell the truth. Almost all the victims in Moscow and a large proportion of the ones in Beslan were the result of the activity of Russian security forces. That is the sort of country we are dealing with.
Lieven did get that wrong. He did not foresee a “round two”.
But I think Lieven’s depiction of the Chechens, their motives, and their methods, at least at that time, is convincing.
bq. I don’t think it is fair to say Basayev was “a terrorist’s terrorist”Â?. … unlike Zarqawi …
Why not? Basayev has taken thousands of people hostage, bombed foreign and domestic targets and achieved high profile media coverage. And was able to do so for a lot longer than Zarqawi. I think a lot of terrorists would aspire to Basayev’s achievements.
bq. He started out as a Chechen nationalist.
Nobody says you can’t be a nationalist and a terrorist at the same time. Eg. IRA, ETA, LTTE, etc. etc. etc.
bq. … a large proportion of the [victims] in Beslan were the result of the activity of Russian security forces.
One question: Why were the security forces there in the first place?
I think he was an atypical terrorist. He frequently exposed himself to danger, for example, which most terrorist leaders do not do. For example, the hospital kidnapping. How much easier would it have been to just put a bomb in there, the kind of thing, say Hamas would do in Israel if they could get away with it? And notice that he did not slaughter the captives. He could have. That is more the kind of terrorism we typically see these days.
Also, the Russians have behaved so badly in Chechnya that the moral quality of both sides is about comparable. The second invasion of Grozny was marked by a lavish use of military firepower without regard to civilian casualties. The kind of the thing the US military is routinely accused of, but doesn’t do, the Russians actually do.
Oh dear, oh dear Younghusband. Your British alter ego would not have asked that question about why the security services were there in the first place. They were there because hostages had been taken. Absolutely nobody denies that. Does that make it OK for them to shoot everyone in sight? I think not. Imagine a similar situation that involved American or British security forces. Just because they are Russians, they are people, too.
As for the Russians’ behaviour in Chechnya (for the last 200 years as your alter ego knew), I have to agree with Lex.
It is not logical to compare the Russian security forces with American or British forces: the Russians are not nearly as trained, educated, prepared, supplied, paid, or as well lead on the ground as the Americans or Brits, and there is little transparency, exposure, or public criticism of their conduct.
The conduct of the Russians during the school hostage incident was reckless and resulted in many deaths, but that doesn’t let either of these sides claim a moral high ground. Chechnya, like similar separatist/terrorist groups in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Sudan, and many other parts of the globe are going to last for many, many more years.
so the russians may not have handled the crisis well (for reason curzon listed, e.g.). or was there a better option for them?
whatever our answer is, it does not change the fact that basayev is ‘terrorist’s terrorist’.
as a matter of fact, one can argue that holding hostages against a less competent opponent (russian, allegedly) doubles the crime of the terrorist!
I disagree with all three of your points (although I see you may be making them for the sake of argument).
If the Russian forces were tried in a common law court, they would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, i.e. acting with criminal negligence, recklessness, or willful blindness.
They were dealing with children hostages. First, the decision to use force was taken far lightly than it should have; and second, many children hostages were killed by friendly fire. If the security forces absolutely had to use force, they could have greatly reduced casualties by firing only at chest and head level. That attack, combined with their conduct, was reckless.
In being “soft” on the Russian forces, that is only to the extent that I understand that the sensitivity to such reckless conduct by security personnel is only a modern invention of the First World that has been brought on by (i) the labor movement, (ii) the demand for and the evolution of competent bureaucracies and agencies, (iii) transparent rules of engagement, (iv) proper training, (v) a fat and easily excitable middle class that freaks out at the slightest misconduct by military or police forces, and additionally, (vi) litigation against anyone who engages in reckless action. The domestic reaction in Russia was of course one of outrage, but “there was no accountability like we would see in the developed world.”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis#Identities_of_those_responsible
I’m not really sure what that means, and Lex and YH can battle that point out, but that’s not the point of my previous comment.
One cannot make such an argument. The choice to take (i) children hostage (ii) in a school of all places does make the terrorist crime more henious than regular hostage taking. But the buffoonery or malignant heart of your opponent does not change the severity of how views a crime.
It looks like God may have revoked his “terrorist” license, or do Islamists not believe in “acts of God.”
you were not addressing my points.
1) was there a better option? given their quality of staff.
3) it is not about children or school.
a) if you anticipate the hostage is just a threat and you will most likely not exercise the threat (or killing)
b) if you anticipate to kill the hostage and are ready to do it any time, or anticipate that they would most likely be killed in the confrontation (gievn what you have already see in the moscow theatre)
a) is less guilty than b)
—
perhaps i did not express it clearly, but you completely missed my points.
Anyone who takes innocent victims hostage in a school or a theatre with the intention of killing as many as possible is about as low as you can get. This is scum of the first order, whether you call them a terrorist or not. Did the Russian security forces use too much force? Certainly. They sound at least somewhat incompetent, but that in no way excuses Basayyev. He and the other terrorists committing these acts deserved to have their heads blown off. I don’t care how ‘brave’ the piece of crap is, if he’s been killed, it is definitely a good thing.
“Almost all the victims in Moscow and a large proportion of the ones in Beslan were the result of the activity of Russian security forces.”
Surely failure to save a life, especially after trying (although incompetently) is not the moral equivalent of actively trying to take one?
The Russian special forces did not plant the bombs in Beslan; they did not blow up the apartment buildings in Moscow; they did not hijack any planes to run them into one another. Their “crime” was to fail to prevent or alleviate these tragedies without casualties.
To say that Putin is somehow ultimately responsible for the deaths of these people is like saying that Bush (and/or predecessors) is responsible for all of the deaths on 9/11, or that if I should one day witness a crime and fail to avert it, I am responsible for the consequences.
This is ridiculous.
Unless, of course, you mean that this was a plot by the Russians to disgrace Islam or something. Well, I’ve heard that before, but… I think that’s even more ridiculous.
“many children hostages were killed by friendly fire”
But not nearly as many as were killed by explosions, and moreover, it is impossible to say whether or not more might not have died with another intervention entirely. Reckless, perhaps- but I think that many people here are underestimating the incompetence of the forces, as well as the love Russians have for children.
SB: you’re points were addressed:
You seem to think I believe the Russian recklessness was inevitable. It was not. They should have been careful. Their recklessness was not inevitable or permissable, just, unfortunately, not surprising.
Regarding point 3, see Snow’s comment.
Elizabeth:
No shit. You’ll notice I never said that.
No it wasn’t. Assuming you read my comment, I’ll rephrase what I wrote: racing into a school with child hostages everywhere, shooting almost at random, not even taking basic precautions with the apparent idea that it didn’t matter how many children they killed as long as they terminated the hostage-takers with the most extreme prejudice possible, makes the conduct of the Russian forces unacceptable. I’ll say it again: recklessness. See also the link above to the domestic reaction.
To make the concept really simple, see “this cartoon.”:http://www.cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/old_uploads/tomo.gif
Your point being? So basically, if the terrorists on 9/11 killed 3,000 people, and in a mad dash to try and save them, the NYPD killed an additional 2,000 people, you’d be giving them a free pass because more people were killed by terrorists?
This is equally nonsense. “At least the police were trying to do something in trying to save the 9/11 victims” would be accepted by no one. Once again, see “this cartoon.”:http://www.cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/old_uploads/tomo.gif
what is your point curzon? :)
‘i commited a crime and you are also guilty of a small crime while preventing me to commit mine?’
let’s go back on topic
1. bassayev is unforgivable
2. russia did a bad job and is responsible for the high hostage casualty. but give you the position of putin, i bet you are not able to do better. (but if i give you mossad, maybe you could)
3. how would you compare Munich 1972 with Beslan?
Hmmmm….
“Russia’s Failure to Identify Chechen Warlord Fuels New Speculations About Basayev’s Death”:http://mosnews.com/news/2006/07/19/fingerprintes.shtml