Concerning jinnderella's comment... I think the failure to report al Qaeda's role in the Chechen war is symptomatic of something deep. I see two things at work. One is Western suspicion of Russia and of Putin in particular, based on real and long-running cultural differences and geopolitical rivalries. The other is the Western use of radical Islam as a pawn in its rivalry with Russia.

Consider how the West saw this series of wars: 1980s Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya. For us, it was about Afghan resistance, post-communist fractiousness, Serbian genocide, Chechen independence. For Russia and Serbia, it was largely all about Wahhabi terrorism, assisted by foreign powers. There really needs to be some sort of examination within the West as to how we ended up on the same side as al Qaeda so often. And I would like to see some of the blogosphere's self-made terror pundits reach out and make contact with their Russian counterparts, who must exist. We need to hear their side of the story.

Something about the CIA's support for the mujahideen has long puzzled me. Supposedly it was the biggest covert operation in the agency's history. Yet somehow the whole world knows about it! When and how did it make the transition from covert to common knowledge? Was it just that they stopped lying about it, once the USSR ceased to be? Furthermore, there was definitely overt support for the Afghans as well. So where was the line drawn? Was it as simple as: rhetorical support overt, material support covert?

We now face the opposite problem when it comes to the CIA and bin Laden - people are willing to believe in any sort of connection. The safe consensus, so far as I can make it out, is that it was Pakistan's fault. The CIA liaised with the ISI, and the ISI wouldn't let them see what was going on in the training camps. Pardon me for thinking that this is just another cover story. Bin Laden was there as the on-site representative of Saudi Arabia, the US ally which was matching the funding for the mujahideen dollar for dollar. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the famous dual-use Islamic charities were a CIA invention. I also find it very suspicious that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's brother Zahed, the one relative who almost never gets mentioned in the press, reportedly administered a Kuwaiti charity in Pakistan and Afghanistan, one that was finally declared to be a terror-financing organization just a few months before last year's war in Iraq. So I think there are people in American intelligence who have known about these guys from the beginning, and who may even have worked with them back then.

This is supposed to be a post about the Chechens, so here is another example. Ex-DCI James Woolsey has endorsed the theory that the 1999 bombings in Russia which precipitated the second Chechen war were actually carried out by the Russian secret services. I should hasten to add that this is a theory first advanced by Russians, on the basis of two things: the "Ryazan incident", in which Russian special forces were found placing a bomb in a building, and the presence of hexogen, a Russian military explosive, in the residue of the bombs that went off. I believe the official explanation of the Ryazan incident is that it was a training exercise. Perhaps it was an attempt to test the intelligence skills of local law enforcement (this is where contact with Russian warbloggers would be useful...). As for the hexogen, I am reminded of the argument that the 2001 anthrax letters must have been sent by an insider, because they carried an American military strain. In any case, my point is that if a senior intelligence official (retired) like Woolsey is willing to say that Russia bombed its own people as a pretext for suppressing the Chechens, is it any wonder that the foreign policy elite and the press in general have the attitudes they do?

jeffers:

I believe the Pankisi Gorge plays host to thousands of Chechen refugees and that most of the Chechen bases there are a mixture of small villages and mountain strongholds. The Russians also have a definite intel problem, see Fred Pruitt's remarks for more on this.

Tom Holsinger:

The Russian solution with respect to Chechnya thus far has been pretty much indiscriminate retaliation against those believed to be insurgents or to support the goal of Chechen independence. Keep in mind that there are only about a million Chechens out there to begin with and that tens of thousands of them were killed during the events that led to the current Russian control of their country. As far as the nerve gas solution, Putin appears to support the idea of a pro-Russian government in Chechnya backed by private armies and Chechens loyal to Moscow. As long as that continues to be his ideal outcome for Chechnya, I don't see the introduction of chemical weapons there as much of a feasible outcome.

Also, as the presence of Ingush, Dagestanis, Georgians, and Azeris in the ranks of Basayev's fighters should indicate, the issue is now going far beyond Chechnya to include other Caucasus republics. Basayev and Co are a symptom of a much broader problem.

The new political geography could complicate any Russian response. For one thing, the Pankisi Gorge isn't in Russian territory but in the Republic of Georgia. Georgia is something of a US ally, has a post-post-Soviet government now that its ex-Soviet strongman is out and a populist (Mikhail Saakashvili) is in, and Georgia has hosted our special forces. Russian forces in Georgia seem to be supporting breakaway movements (and out-and-out smugglers) in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia. That crap isn't helping either the anti-AQ war or the security problems on Russia's southern border.

And the smuggling is a problem, even if jihadis aren't themselves infiltrating. Weapons of all sorts are bought, sold and moved in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestria over on the Moldovan border. If an ex-Soviet nuke gets loose that's where it might be offered for sale.

For an ex-KGB man, Putin seems to be running an awfully anarchic empire. But it would help if he had a stronger neighbor adjoining Chechnya and North Ossetia, not a disgruntled neighbor with more holes than a Gruyère cheese, most of them with Putin's fingerprint. In any event, a Russian offensive in the Pankisi Gorge would very quickly cause problems in Tblisi. And in Washington.

(BTW, I wanted to provide hyperlinks to some very interesting articles on ex-Soviet territories -- the Economist has run quite a few of late -- but they're all archived as "premium content" on their website, exclusive to print subscribers. Still, people on this site may want to consider subscribing as this mag seems a lot more comprehensive than US MSM, if a trifle skeptical. Unsolicited plug.)

Thank you very much for this summary of such a labyrinthine situation. I really think is the best one I have read until now.

Let me reciprocate somehow telling you something about the Riyadh al-Saliheen myth; it’s very interesting and it doen’t surprise me that it has come up in Thetchnia. It has become central to much of the folk narrative behind the suicide “martyr” would they say terrorist attacks, but it is older. The expression means indeed “the garden of the virtuous”, but it has a larger meaning.
On the one hand it has been used as a title for haddits (Islamic traditions attributed to prophet Mohammad) collections; the one by Imam Nawawi is a best-seller not only among jihadist sympathizers but generally appreciated by revivalists. In fact, among lots of moral and sometimes esoteric tales, it is said to include the theological justification for the suicide bombers –Islam traditionally forbad suicide- and is apparently used in the mind conditioning previous to the suicide.

The candidate to "martyr" is isolated and told that he or she not only will go automatically to the Garden of the Virtuous but will also be entitled to designate 72 friends or parents that will win acceptance into Paradise thanks to his deed. Iran’s mullahs used also this folklore to motivate their revolutionary guardians during the Iran-Iraq conflict: the shock troops were issued a plastic key to the garden of the virtuous prior to being sent into WWI style attacks against the iraqui lines.

Dan,

Excellent post! Very informative.

I blog about the possibility of a Russian incursion into the Pankisi Gorge as a result of the Breslan massacre. I have a feeling there will be a pretty significant response, because Putin's speech highlighted a lot of weaknesses, which was quite surpising, because as you know, his whole presidency is based on an image of tough, uncompromising, strength when it comes to Chechnya. And he might conclude that the only way to redeem that "credibility" is to be brutal and launch some kind of offensive. Plus, not doing anything other than reforming his security services (while important) is an invitation to more horrendous attacks like this one. So, he might have no choice but to respond.

Dan,

That's where Putin is now. Consider where Putin will be 4-5 years from now.

His current solution would probably work but for the Chechen crazies having privileged sanctuaries out of country. Tell me how Putin's current program can work given the crazies' foreign support and sanctuaries.

Mitch P. and Dan-- Thank you so much! The past four days have just been horrible, with atrocities dominating the media and only clueless generalizations for analysis. I was starting to feel that there was no one at the helm!
But that can't be true, the "Cabal" is always watching, right?

Juan: You got my attention, that was absolutely fascinating. Gratitude for sharing. The Riyadh al-Saliheen myth sounds much more like a "Ghost Dance" cult than fundamentalism-- where is John when you need him?

Dan,

What Russia has done so far in Chechnya. while brutal and rather severe, is in no way Carthaginian. I tend to agree with Tom's post above concerning the probability of a very lethal Russian reaction.

I am just unsure as to the potential level of constraint that Putin will feel from the European community. What does Russia risk by adopting a program of ethnic cleansing in Chechnya? If the question is phrased as "Whose children?" then I'm not even sure that Europe will come up with a believable display of handwringing. Breslan may mark a European turning point.

Bob Harmon:

Georgia used to have Ed Shevardnadze, who turned a blind eye to Chechen activities in Pankisi and only really started paying attention to al-Qaeda activity there after large numbers of them started arriving from Afghanistan. He got with the program for a time, but then he stopped cooperating so the US started clandestinely supporting the Georgian dissident movements in concert with George Soros of all people. Enter the Rose Revolution and Saakashvili, who is US-educated and extremely sympathetic to our concerns in region.

Russian activities in Georgia are extremely complex (for example, Basayev at one point fought with the Russians in support of Abkhazi separatism before he met up with Khattab in Nagorno-Karabakh) and seem to have initially (and currently?) been started as an attempt to rein Georgia back into the Russian sphere of influence, as I believe both Abkhazia and South Ossetia support a union with the Kremlin. The US convinced Putin to drop support for another break-away region, Ajaria, earlier this year and the region came back under the influence of the Georgian central government. Saakashvili has undertaken some sterner efforts in Pankisi, but the region is still a haven for Basayev's Chechens and their al-Qaeda allies. As you mentioned, the region is entirely awash with cheap guns and other weaponry and there don't seem to be many prospects of that improving in the near future.

Because the US clandestinely supported Shevardnadze's ouster and now supports Saakashvili, a Russian invasion of Georgia is likely to cause a lot of trouble in Washington.

LJ:

The idea of a massive Russian invasion of Georgia proper or just Pankisi is still very much on the table, I suspect. They also now have to deal with Basayev's infrastructure in Ingushetia that would have had to have existed in order for the incursion into North Ossetia to have ever occurred. As it now stands, Russian forces have sealed off North Ossetia and are launching an aggressive search for any of the hostage-takers who may have escaped (they already paraded one escapee around on Russian TV). That should be their top priority while they assess the situation, identify who the foreign backers were (I imagine that Abu Omar al-Saif is getting his checks signed by someone other than bin Laden) and make preparations to neutralize them. Keep in mind that the Russians assassinated Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, the former Chechen president and Wahhabi ideologue who convinced Mullah Omar to recognize Chechen "independence," back in 2003 after they'd linked him to the theater seige. If I were a prince in a certain Magic Kingdom, I'd be doubling my security and getting somebody else to start my car and taste my food right about now.

Tom Holsinger:

By eliminating those foreign sanctuaries, IMO. Supporting efforts in Pankisi similar to those that were achieved in Ajaria (or, if Putin's feeling cranky, invading Pankisi outright) and continuing to press other regional powers on cutting off the flow to Basayev and Co. As for Saudi Arabia, there are a number of options here that are basically the same ones that the US has. This is one of those areas where working together with the Russians against a common foe should be helpful.

Rick Ballard:

Sorry, I interpretted "Carthaginian" to mean the demonstrable destruction of the center of the opposing power in such a manner that it leaves no doubt as far as who is in charge. Other than sowing salt in the ruins of Grozny, the Russians have pretty much done that. Ethnic cleansing is one possibility, but like I said I don't think Putin is too likely to exercise that option because right now his main supporters in Chechnya are independent militias and local security forces loyal to Moscow, all of them composed of Chechens.

I'd be very surprised if the combined membership in those groups I listed above ever topped 10,000 (plus their immediate families, if we're looking at the potential for more Riyadus Salikhin members). Those are the people that Russia needs to pull their intel and professionalize their forces in order to eliminate, along with their foreign backers living abroad. I don't think that a Hama-style response is too likely to change that.

As for a European reaction, if European elites focused on Russian treatment of Chechens with half of the ferocity and self-righteous outrage they do Israeli treatment of the Palestinians I very much doubt anti-Zionism would be half as acceptable as it is these days in European intellectual circles. The Europeans already have their eyes half closed on Chechnya and I doubt Russian ethnic cleansing of the region would do much to change that.

I have a vague recollection that the Pankisi Gore had been cleaned out; did I imagine this, or are the bad guys back?

Dan,

Thanks for your replies, you certainly appear to have a good handle on the intricacies involved. Is there any possiblity that Putin and Saakashvili might decide that a joint game of "cowboys and jihadis" was in order? Has Georgia ever mounted any military action at all wrt the Pankisi Gorge?

There are periodic reports that it's being or been cleaned out, but most of these (at least under Shevardnadze) were at best window-dressing to help secure US aid. Saakashvili has started cracking down on known arms depots and weapons caches, but he hasn't done much in the way of substance as far as the Russians are concerned.

I should also mention that Basayev's thugs coexist with the larger Chechen population in Pankisi and that separating the two out is by no means easy.

An increase in Russian-Georgian cooperation is likely something that the US would welcome but the problem is that such cooperation is precluded by the issue of the Russian-sponsored separatist enclaves in Georgia like Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We got a settlement on Ajaria that was okay for all parties, but unless we can duplicate that success I wouldn't see much in the way of improvement in bilateral relations.

This post is nonsense. For example, you say

The problem with Chechnya, more or less, is that the Russians tried to surrender after their failure to bring the rebellious republic back into the fold in the first Chechen war and it didn't work.

but then you say

From August 21-22, upwards of 60 Russian and Chechen-backed troops were slaughtered in and around the Russian-controlled Chechen capital of Grozny.

If the Russians tried to surrender why are there Russian troops in Grozny?

In actual fact, even after the Russians got kicked out of Chechnya in the first war they never relinquished their claims and they prevented international recognition or any aid from going in.

Chechnya was devastated, its government was incapable of controlling the country, and it descended into chaos. It was nobody's fault but the Russians'.

For a more realistic appraisal of who started the second Chechen war and Al Qaeda's minimal involvement, see Slate

Mike:

A couple of points here.

My reference to the Russians attempting to surrender refers to the Russian decision after the first war to grant Chechnya de facto independence with the very real possibility of it becoming de jure further down the line. Russian troops only returned to Chechnya after Khattab invaded Dagestan in 1999.

As far as this:

In actual fact, even after the Russians got kicked out of Chechnya in the first war they never relinquished their claims and they prevented international recognition or any aid from going in.

Chechnya was devastated, its government was incapable of controlling the country, and it descended into chaos. It was nobody's fault but the Russians'."

I believe I said at the very beginning:

"This should in no way be seen as an endorsement of Russian policies in Chechnya, which have been worse than brutal - they're simply ineffective."

On the substantive points raised in the piece you cite from Slate:

"So, what does al-Qaida and international Islamic terrorism have to do with any of this? Probably very little."

I would point out that CNN, Time Magazine, Time yet again, the UK Guardian, and the Washington Post all disagree on this one. More to the point, the Slate article doesn't even bother to refute any of the claims regarding people like Abu Omar al-Saif, it just pretends they don't exist.

"Chechens have plenty of reason to do what they do without outside inspiration. In addition, their tactics are very different from al-Qaida's."

Not really, hostage-taking was described in detail in an issue of al-Battar. I've even seen a videotape from Afghanistan showing training on how to hold a school hostage.

"Osama Bin Laden's group generally aims for maximum casualties;"

Not in Saudi Arabia they don't and the same goes with Pakistan. And don't 300+ civilians count as maximum casualties?

"the Chechens, at least when they have staged hostage-takings, have not seemed to have that goal."

Not if they get what they want. Bin Laden offered to call off attacks in Europe too, if they would get off his back for awhile.

"the Chechens, on the other hand, explicitly exclude Westerners from their list of targets;"

Eh? They sure as hell didn't when they took that Moscow theater hostage and Arbi Barayev was paid by al-Qaeda specifically for the purpose of killing Westerners.

"they target Russians and Russia-sympathizers."

Which, in their warped worldview, is everybody who doesn't support them.

"Finally, the Chechens' demands, when they have made them, have always focused on the war in Chechnya to the exclusion of any religious or international agenda. They have consistently demanded a the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya—an unattainable goal in the current Russian political climate, but one that may look plausible to the Chechens because it worked after Budyonnovsk."

See the Amir Ramzan quote above. Their agenda goes way beyond just Chechnya.

"Russian intelligence has produced little or no evidence that al-Qaida is present in Chechnya."

US, UK, France, and Australia all beg to differ on that score, but what the hell do they know?

"Russian officials claimed that there were Arabs among the hostage-takers, but this information has yet to be confirmed, and even if it is, it may mean only that foreign men have come to fight on the side of Chechens—something that has happened before and something that happens in every conflict, whether or not a major international organization is involved."

Yeah, that's why Khattab was running a freakin' Arab brigade or why Abu Omar al-Saif is Basayev's sugardaddy ...

"On the other hand, it would be surprising if al Qaida had no presence in Chechnya at all. Chechens are Muslims, and they are at war; representatives of virtually every Islamic organization have at one point or another sent missionaries and recruiters to the region."

I very much doubt they've all hosted the same training and exchange programs, however ...

"They have also sent money. Researchers of al-Qaida say that, in addition to its own organization, the terrorist network has a number of loose affiliates, essentially freelancers, who get occasional financial support. Most likely, some Chechen groups or individuals fall into that category."

You can split hairs as much as you like on this stuff, but let me reproduce a quote from Abu Omar al-Saif via MEMRI:

"Similarly, I recommend to the Mujahideen that instead of engaging in clashes and warfare against the Saudi government, it is better to go to Iraq. There, there are weapons aplenty and there they can fight the Americans. It is no secret that great damage will be caused the Americans if the Mujahideen turn to Iraq to fight them.

"As for the clashes in Saudi Arabia, there is no doubt that they gladden the Americans. It gladdens them that the Mujahideen are killed by the Saudi government. I recommend to the youth to act according to their interests and to turn to Iraq instead of dealing with confronting the Saudi government."

Like I said, split as many hairs between Basayev and al-Qaeda as you desire.

Thanks for the information, Dan.

Do you really think that it's possible that Putin would order the FSB (or the Russian agency that conducts foreign ops) to strike at various Saudi princes or Wahhabi clerics? Not that I would oppose such a move, but it seems as if that would create more problems than it would be worth.

Destroying the Pankisi and Ingushetian terrorist infrastructure seems to be the most important issue at hand. And another regarding the Pankisi, since it's part of Georgia itself, I can't imagine Saakashvili will take that laying down. Although, it appears doubtful that the Georgian military would pose any challenge to the Russian army. Or maybe Putin will say if Saakashvili tries to intervene, he'll march his army all the way down to Tbilisi. The close relationship between Washington and Tbilisi throws a wrench into this, of course. I think because of that, Putin will not go anywhere south of the Pankisi unless something else dire happens.

Mitch.P, very good points, all this is rarely mentioned anymore. You see, in Russia itself, there's a widespread opinion (ranging from suspicion to outright paranoia) that behind this explosion of separatism and terrorism stands not just Saudi Arabia as a money donor, but the West itself -- who's out to finish the job begun by the collapse of the USSR and destroy the country by fair means or foul. This conspiracy theory is not totally incomprehensible if one considers a few things, some of which you mention yourself.

First, militant Islamism (terrorism included) is in fact, or at least perceived as, a western creation constructed as a Western proxy in the 80s for use in the war in Afghanistan -- financed by the Saudis (formally; with oil money of course, but this money comes from the West, and besides, SA has been always the West's ally: as has Pakistan, btw, which had its role in the Afghan events too) with the US official and unofficial blessing, CIA help, British SAS tactics training and so on; don't forget Stingers, supplied to the mojaheddin by the US too -- they made a huge difference in the war power-balance by dramatically diminishing the efficacy of the Soviet air power, unchallenged before that. ObL and friends whom we are fighting now were there during all these years, "learning the ropes", so to say.

Second, Western (or at least, Anglo-Saxon) engagement with the Moslem world goes even further back in time, to the beginning of the 20th century at least, and definitely to WWI in the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire, when Arabs were basically bribed by the British to hit the Turks in the ass. The current layout of the Arab Middle East is a post-WWI British (and in a smaller degree, French) creation.

In other words, there's a perceivable long-term pattern of the Western (mainly Anglo-Saxon) use of Islam as a proxy in geopolitical struggle. Of course, Afghanistan, as well as the Caucasus, and Turkestan (Central Asian states) are, geographically, the heart of the old Russo-British imperialist conflict in Asia (a.k.a. The Great Game.)

I remember, relatively recently Zbignew Brzezinski (sp?) was interviewed on the radio, and someone raised this question with him, pointing out that the current "War on Terror" is really an offshoot of the fundamentally West-vs-Soviets Afghan war of the 80s. Someone asked him, was perhaps the WTC bombing and all that came afterwards -- the invasion of Afghanistan, Irak, etc -- too heavy a price to pay for the success there (against the Soviets in the 80s, that is)? No, said Zbig, this little donnybrook in Afghanistan (the recent one, in 2002) and the rest is nothing compared to the success against the Soviets in the 80s.

Russians are very receptive to this kind of things and, remembering their history, are suspicious that the West actually continues "The Eternal War on Russia" by using this Islamic militancy; and that the Chechen (at the moment) terrorism -- along with the developments in Georgia, which borders on Chechnya; and don't forget the new US bases in the formerly Soviet republics in Central Asia, Uzbekistan, and so on; and add in here the fact that the UK offered political asylum to Ahmad Zakaev (and Berezovsky, btw, who's a wanted man in Russia); plus Chechen rebel emissaries, received by the US officials -- is actually sponsored by the West seeking to excise the Caucasus, Georgia, and whatever possible of Central Asia from the Russian "zone of influence", as they call it, or at least penetrate this region significantly. They see their decade-old problem of Chechen terrorism as a manifestation of a much larger geopolitical threat to their country.

LJ:

They assassinated Yandarbiyev in the middle of Qatar, so I wouldn't put it past them. It all depends on just how angry Putin is and how much he's willing to risk escalating the conflict.

Saakashvili doesn't control Pankisi except as a measure of diplomatic myth, a la the idea that Somalia is some kind of a real country with the actual machinery of government. He couldn't stop a Russian push into Georgia, but it would almost certainly mean war between Georgia and Russia. Another problem is that a Russian invasion and likely conquest of Georgia would almost certainly mean importing the problems inherent to the lack of professionalism within the Russian military that we've seen in Chechnya into Georgia.

All the same, I don't think we can rule out a Russian invasion or punitive strikes against Georgia in the near future.

Can we correct Breslan to Beslan so people will stop parrotting it over the blogosphere? Even news outlets are starting to call it Breslan.

Breslan is in Germany.
Beslan is in N. Ossetia.

Where is that decaf Gary was offered?

Duly noted, Joel.

Dan,

As long as people are entertaining military fantasies here, any chance of our special forces and forward air controller guys participating in an OEF style sweep through Pankisi led by the Russians? Air support could come from our bases in Central Asia. Our presence could be a guarantee to Georgia that the Russians would stop before Tbilisi, and leave once the place was cleaned out.

Per mitch p. and Checkin Out, we could pitch it as helping to clean up a mess we helped create.

Well, it's a thought, maybe not a good one, but if your analysis holds (and it looks solid from here) then their fight is basically our fight, too.

Latest reports suggest the death toll will top 500. With ~350 already confirmed, and ~200 still "missing", I rather doubt they just decided to run away from home all at once.

With this being a deliberate attempt to target children, I don't think many realize it yet, but the response to this attack has the potential to put the 9/11 response in the shade.

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that Putin will put Russian soldiers at risk in the PankisiValley.

...and while I'm here, I'd point out that any implicit belief that the school attack ends this series of terrorism against Russia has zero corroborating support.

Where does this fit in with Al Qaeda's grand agenda?

Are their objectives met?

In Russia?

Globally?

Heads up.

jeffers,

You're right on all accounts.

Islamism is like any of the other terror mongering isms we've faced. They act towards the creation of their brand of Utopia. Until that is accomplished, their objectives are not met.

Russia should understand Islamism quite well. They are not far removed from their own "ism".

Yet, I wonder if living under communism has made them blind to the destructive force of another dangerous ism. Or is it simply that becoming Russia again has made people feel that the culpability of the Soviet Union no longer belongs to them?

Color me curious.

Anyone reads Russian here? Here's a Russian article entitled "The West unleashes Shahids on Russia". Anyone? comments?
http://www.rbcdaily.ru/news/policy/index.shtml?2004/09/06/58872

Also:
Putin Tells Nation 'This Is an Attack Against All of Us'

(...) In his address, Putin chose not to specify what terrorist organizations are waging a war against Russia. But in a clearly emotion outburst he revealed that the Kremlin believes some countries could be supporting the terrorist attacks to try to weaken Russia, whose nuclear deterrent they see as a threat.

The efforts to "tear off a big chunk of our country" are being assisted by those who "think that Russia, as one of the greatest nuclear powers of the world, is still a threat, and this threat has to be eliminated."

Putin did not say what countries he was referring to, but he appeared to have Western countries in mind. (...)

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/09/06/002.html
***

Here's an interesting overview of the region:
It's Time to Worry About the North Caucasus
By Thomas de Waal
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/09/06/007.html

Jeffers: I think that they targeted all the schools in the world, in the same way that in Madrid they targeted all the commuter trains packed with people going to work and in New York they targeted all tall emblematic buildings.

Terrorism is not only the concrete deed of kiling some people, it is above all to spread fear and lend credibility to the proposition: "If you don't meet all our demands, we'll do to you what we did in Beslan/Madrid/NYC". It's a form of taming, some sort of barbarian pedagogy.

This guys are in the league with the nazis.

Joel,
forget the "isms" for a sec :-) .

Give me one good reason I should believe "Islamism" is not a Western tool in taking over the world.

I mean, pardon my cynicism and all atrocities aside -- it was made in/by the West, and it's been darn instrumental so far (the War on Terror included: we now control Afghanistan and Iraq, have bases in Central Asia, relocate troops (Germany); watch the Caucasus region dissolve; no problem with Congress funding the war; Kosovo is ours -- and moslem, etc.) Osama used to be our boy : how do I know he still isn't? Maybe we can't catch him, or maybe we "can't catch" him, if you catch my drift. Do we know otherwise?

Cui prodest, you know (whatever W says.)

PS. Unrelated to above, but curious:
Islamist Totalitarianism - Attack on Democracies
The "totalitarianism of the 3rd type"
Alexandre del Valle
http://www.alexandredelvalle.com/publications.php?id_art=121

Osama used to be our boy : how do I know he still isn't?

I shouldn't have to tell you how ridiculous this is.

Everone knows that Bin Laden works for Ariel Sharon now.

Next time, show up on time for the meetings...

Sorry sarge, won't happen again, Sir.

CheckinOut-
You missed the real money quote, but Allah found it

"(W)ho fears our nuclear weapons? Who are they aimed at? It's the West. It's not Osama bin Laden," said Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst.

Other than that, I agree with you and mitchp that there is good reason for the Russians to think we are behind the jihadis (or at least some of them) and that helping them clean out some of the sewer might be good for Russo-American relations. I sure hope that Bush's attempts to keep the jihadis from destroying Islam work, but I make it only 50-50. And if it fails, the US and Russia will have to stand together in the creation of a Shelley-like conclusion to Islamic history:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Something about the CIA's support for the mujahideen has long puzzled me. Supposedly it was the biggest covert operation in the agency's history. Yet somehow the whole world knows about it! When and how did it make the transition from covert to common knowledge?

The Pacification Effort in Afghanistan became obvious when AID funded it. The founder's background is typical of a huge error; NPR, Peace Corps, and a 'indescribable love for the people of Afghanistan.' It was the largest covert opertion in history, but fell apart around Plame, although most had a pretty good idea of how to get funding(the pacification effort became non-professional and poorly run). The Senate has asked the CIA be transferred into three new intelligence organs, but this appears to be simply a Union issue. The CIA cannot recover from its transition and the attacks on politicians.

The School attack was financed. The murderers were just paid thugs. The articles in the paper the next day explained that Bin Laden is broke, but forgot to mention how he financed. These were not his 'professional' paid terrorists, just thugs. Who has the new money?

The US has little affect in this area of the world. The answers will be the EU and their military. Terrorists are'nt risking anything by alienating 'the future US' in this region. Saudi or other middle eastern royal family financing is irrelevent because it is an EU proxy area. It is something to be financed or traded by the 'leaders' in the other region, the middle east, where the US is currently 'on the ground' and open to attacks. If Al Quaeda or the new Als are financing through a new source, we have to ask our entrenched open intelligence organ(s) if they are involved-we cannot afford to be tied to this type of terror; even though the Union at the CIA does not want to re-apply at the New Intelligence. In the end their errors were too great and involved domestic use of overseas strategies on American politics. The only way out of this entrenchment is to abolish CIA and make it clear they really are not wanted at the New Intelligence-Union or not.

Checkin Out:

A quick scan of the RBC Daily article you cited suggests to me that the main complaint is soft treatment of Chechen terrorists in the Western (particularly British) news media. I'd say it was fair comment. However it has been many years—more than a generation—since the last time that the New York Times, for example, could reasonably be characterized as hewing tightly to the U. S. government line.

The Russians are concerned and rightly so about terrorism and its sources and financing. If we've got a lick of sense we'll try to work out a closer collaboration with the Russians.

Gzt.ru is reporting that some of the terrorists responsible for the seizing of the school had been workmen who had been involved in remodeling of the school and had prepositioned weapons and explosives in the school in the course of their work.

Dan,

Thank you for providing this information in a clear concise way. I am glad that you are back. I have always found that your posts are straight forward and without bias.

This is a lot of information to absorb which for the most part, is new information to me.

Thanks,

SBD

Dave - I scanned the article as well, and came to the same conclusion: that the American Leftist Press is making the Russians think that we are rooting for the jihadis. One point: what does SMI stand for? Absolutely nothing came to mind, although it clearly seemed in context to refer to the press.

Dan,

So how can Russia do anything about the sanctuaries in Iran, Pakistan, Syria-Lebanon and the Arabian peninsula? Nuke them?

Russia could deal with the Chechens short of genocide were it not for their foreign support, notably the money from Arabian peninsula oil income (not all Saudi) and totally secure sanctuaries in Iran, Pakistan (jihadi training camps nominally targeted at Kashmir) and Syria-Lebanon. The Russians can't reach those save with strategic weapons. The Caucasus they can reach. Not elsewhere.

Which means Beslan/Moscow theater scale atrocities will go on and on and on until the Russians resort to genocide. For the third time - the Czars and Communists did the first and second times, and it worked for them.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/031103A.html

"This gives a sense of Greek tragedy, with its dialectic of hubris and nemesis, to what has been unfolding in the Islamic world. If they continue to use terror against the West, their very success will destroy them. If they succeed in terrorizing the West, they will discover that they have in fact only ended by brutalizing it. And if subjected to enough stress, the liberal system will be set aside and the Hobbesian world will return - and with its return, the Islamic world will be crushed. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Oscar:

SMI = Sredstva Massovoi Informatzia = means of mass information = MSM

Well, I got Informatzia right :-)

Tom Holsinger:

So how can Russia do anything about the sanctuaries in Iran, Pakistan, Syria-Lebanon and the Arabian peninsula? Nuke them?

I can't speak for Dan but I have my own ideas on the subject. First, the Russian petroleum industry can be in a position to exert a certain amount of leverage. Second, Russia can stop giving support to rogue regimes like Iran particularly nuclear support. Third, real rebuilding in Chechnya rather than the phony efforts heretofore. Fourth, know their real potential friends (the West) from their actual enemies (the jihadis).

But Russia needs a replacement for the foreign exchange that they're getting from deals with the mullahs and other no-goodniks and the West has to be ready to pick up the slack.

Dan,

Wretchard had a comment on his blog the other day to the effect that ‘if you can’t kill the ones you want, kill the ones you can reach.' is how the weak deal with evil they can't touch.

It happened in Nepal with Muslims there after 12 Nepalese were beheaded in Iraq and it will happen again with Russia when the Chechen branch of al-Qaeda sufficiently motivates the Russian government and people.

I have stated over and over on this blog and elsewhere that mega-death was coming and that it will be both outposts on the way and a stopping point on the end the road we are traveling. The end of this road will see the extinction of Arab Muslim tribal culture. The only question is how many Arabs physically survive the 'cultural adjustment.'

Why do you insist on being 'informed by events,' like Joe Katsman an A.L., when the truth of the matter is sitting right in front of your face?

History is a process that goes from the past to shape today, then the current events of today close out options for the future.

In the case of the Islamist Chechen insurgency, there is no 'there' there for the Russians to strike. The people who created Beslen are not in reach and will forever stay beyond the grasp of the Russian military and security forces...especially given their corruption. Russian corruption made this possible and Russian corruption will make it happen again and again.

Terrorists go for soft targets. America had become a harder target for al-Qaeda so it is striking where the forces of order are weaker. Russia's "Haiti with nukes" corruption leaves it made to order for more and more of this kind of Arab atrocity.

So how many more Beslans do you think it will take to get the Russians to break out the nerve gas spray tanks? Two? Ten? Several Dozen?

Tom Holsinger spoke of it taking five years for Putan to get there. Tom is being very generous. I think the genocide of the Chechens will start happening serveral months prior to the next Russian Federation Presidential election. After all, leveling Grozny the 2nd time worked to reelect Yeltsin.

Dave raises another interesting point: "First, the Russian petroleum industry can be in a position to exert a certain amount of leverage. ..."

Who's in charge of the Russian petrochemical industry these days? At whatever's left of Yukos? Or at Gazprom?

And more to the point, where are the oil and gas pipelines going from ex-Soviet central Asia to the Black Sea ports?

If the Russian and ex-Soviet republics want legitimate revenue they're going to need to secure it.

‘if you can’t kill the ones you want, kill the ones you can reach.' is how the weak deal with evil they can't touch.

I got the Russian joke(The cold war eneded in February this year;seven hour nuclear war) , but the real answer appears that Europe is going EU and M.E. is going US. Russia will probably go EU, but its difficult to deny that we are pulling out of Europe and focusing on the M.E., which may have been the new money here.

Putin also hired a bunch of GRU, who normally handle these types of criminals, which he then fired. I forgot if it was before or after they blew up the Chechnyan President, but it was pretty professional work.

Putin is not brining up the GRU?

Re: Oscar (09/06 06:04 PM / #28620):
---------------------------------------
>Dave - I scanned the article as well, and came to the
>same conclusion: that the American Leftist Press is
>making the Russians think that we are rooting for the
>jihadis.

Oscar, I re-read Dave's note you're referring to and found nothing about "the American Leftist Press" there. Could you explain what you mean? (Both re Dave's note and in general.)

And of course, thanks to you and Dave for taking a look at that RBC article (as well as The Money Quote :-) )

Trent,

The Russian reprisals may not be as official as you say ("break out the nerve gas spray tanks"?). What may unfold instead is the Gujarat scenario -- remember what happened in 2002 after that train was burned? The official response to the resulting pogrom of Muslims seems to have been nonfeasance and malfeasance (e.g., police standing by, unsympathetic state officials, selective anti-terror prosecutions, the BJP winning the next state elections) rather than direct military action.

Likelier scenario, especially given the anarchic nature of today's Russia.

Well, Trent, I hope the situation does not get as desperate as quickly as you seem to suggest. There's evidence pointing both ways. I saw a a call for moderation in the Russian press pre-September 3. Subsequently there's been what might be called a building rage. But I'm not seeing a nuke 'em now or crank out the nerve gas attitude, either. It may come in time.

As far as we're concerned Chechnya is a sideshow and I don't see genocide of the Chechens as moving events in a direction that we'd like to see them go. Putin may see it as politically necessary.

An online editorial from Gazeta.ru that I quoted on my blog took a "pox on both your houses" position WRT Putin and his opposition accusing both of opportunism (and ineffectuality) in the handling of the Chechnya situation. I think that's pretty accurate.

I would rather see Maskhodov distance himself from Basayev and the other thugs and ally himself with Putin in rooting out the jihadis as the more sensible Chechens are urging him.

Is there some interlocutor who could help to promote real cooperation between the Russians, Georgians, and other people in the Caucasus to get rid of the no-goodniks? Could the U. S. have such a role? There's an awful lot of mistrust going around.

Bob,

"The Gujarat scenario" is going to happen whatever else happens and will likely go down in the next few weeks. The Caucus vengence codes demand it.

What Tom and I are talking about is deliberate genocide of Chechens as Russian government policy because they can get away with it. That will happen after the al-Saud clan falls.

Once the Arabs prove themselves as unreliable oil suppliers such that the only way to get oil from their territory for the world economy is with western and primarily American military force. No one in the E.U. will say "Boo" when the Russians drop the hammer on the Chechens because they will then be the world's number one exporter of oil.

Dan, I have one minor quibble. You wrote:

even though most Chechens (and Caucasus Muslims in general) are Sufis.

Surely not. From MSN Encarta:

The Chechens have been Sunni Muslims (see Sunni Islam) since the 18th century...

and

also:

It seems that a large part of the Chechens were once Christians, but during the 16th to 19th c., they were all converted to Islam by Sunni missionaries from Dagestan and other neighboring areas. Since the 17th c., Islam has been a basis for Chechen nationalism. In the wars against Russia, Chechens found inspiration in fanatical, secretive, and mystical Sufi brotherhoods, which still exist and are perfectly suited to clan-based underground warfare against an occupying power.

From WAIS:

But the Chechens were still primarily pagans at the time the Great Caucasus War began (unlike the Dagestanis who had accepted Islam centuries before). Paganism is still practiced in some remote areas. But the war against the Russians was lead by Imam Shamil, who used Islam as a way to unite the Chechens for the struggle. By the end of the war, most Chechens had converted to Sunni Islam. It is evident today, however, that Islam still does not have deep roots in Chechnya. Many practices from paganism remain, and many of the dictates of Islam are ignored. The clan system (complete with blood feuds) is the dominant motif, and religious prejudice is practically non-existent (the clan system and blood feuds provide plenty of outlets for hatred and mayhem)

From Amir Taheri:

A majority of Chehens, however, belong to the Malekite school of Sunni Islam and have a strong Sufi tradition that dates back to the early stages of Islamisation in the region.

So that appears to be the scoop. Sunni. With an accompanying Sufi tradition and Sufi undertone.

Trent:

"The Gujarat scenario" is going to happen whatever else happens and will likely go down in the next few weeks. The Caucus vengence codes demand it.

The lead quote in my post, "Fathers will bury their children" supports this conjecture.

Dave,

I understand right now there are CIA analysis that the al-Sauds will go down to the Wahhabis some time in the next five years.

When that happens the 6-8 million foreign workers will leave Arabia for reasons of their health, oil production will crash from lack of a skilled work force. Then, when the oil money is cut off, both the civic infrastructure and Arabian population will crash from lack of water and inter-tribal violence.

That is when the window for the Russians to deal the Chechens to death opens wide.

Once megadeath is loosed any place, it will be far easier for it to happen any where else for other reasons. I have been beating both Joe Katsman and A.L. like drums about this for 18 months and just added Dan to the list.

You also missed a point I made earlier. There will be more Beslans. The Russian's "Haiti with nukes" corruption makes that bloody well certain. They are the "Soft Target."

The Chechen's Arab backers will pay for more Beslans because a) they can and b) they enjoy it. It gets their Wahhabi rocks off just like what is happening in Sudan does.

One more thing, the Arabs have lost. And by that I mean everything.

The Arabs had an opportunity to separate themselves in the eyes of the American public from the Wahhabis with Beslan and they failed to do so. Between that, Sudan, and the continuing murder-suicide attacks against Israel, they have mortally offended America's Jacksonians. Large portions of the American public no longer view Arab Muslims as fully human.

This isn't because the Jacksonians are racist. As a group they are not It is because the Arabs and their non-Arab Islamist allies are dehumanizing themselves by their actions.

Those in the West who go around saying that the West needs to "understand and address the underlying causes" when faced with barbarism of this sort are also identifying themselves in the eyes of Jacksonians as enemies of not just America, but of civilization.

Just go to Little Green Footballs or Free Republic.com and read the stream of consciousness reactions to the horrors of Beslan. That reaction plus the photos and the stories of Child rape and snuff videos sent to the Russian Federation government, are being repeated and spread through the internet to literally millions of American homes unfiltered by the media. Point in fact the lack of coverage of Beslan both discredits the MSM and enrages those reading these stories. The American Internet and Talk Radio Samizdatz is staring at Arab Muslim Islamist horror in the face and drawing some highly lethal conclusions.

What is coming from all this in American domestic politics, let alone its foreign affairs, will be far more divisive than those protesting the Vietnam War ever thought of being.

Trent, I agree with quite a bit of what you just wrote but that doesn't influence my belief that it is worth substantial effort consistent with our national interest to prevent just this eventuality from coming to pass. But with each passing day and with each further atrocity it does seem more inevitable.

Dave,

Prevention indicates a level of influence that I don't believe we possess. Had Bush had that kind of influence with Putin, wouldn't there be a Russian brigade in Iraq today? (Not that I wish there were.) I'm not even sure that we can (or, regretfully, should) speak out against whatever action Russia decides to take.

The Arabs have made a decision, if the Saud's, Assad, Mubarak, Musharraf, the Gulf Emirs, and the mullahs in Iran (I know some of those aren't Arabs) can't quite bring themselves to a public outcry concerning Beslan, then perhaps a dignified silence on our part as the Russians "cleanse" Chechneya is in order.

>Is there some interlocutor who could help to
>promote real cooperation between the Russians,
>Georgians, and other people in the Caucasus to >get rid of the no-goodniks? Could the U. S.
>have such a role? There's an awful lot of
>mistrust going around.

Dave,

Region wide order enforced by a sovereign outside power is ABNORMAL for the Caucuses. The endemic tribal violence we see in the Caucuses today is the default mode for the people there and intertribal atrocity is standard operating procedure.

This happened after WW1 in the 1920s until the Red Army conquered the place and killed a large fraction of the Chechens and it was the same in the 19th century prior to the Czarest Army's conquest in the late 1880's-early 1890's and large-scale massacres of Chechens.

A strong Russian Federation government could repeat the exercise...but there isn't one.

Further, the outside intervention of Arab Jihadi oil money buying the deaths of more Russian Christians means the insurgency cannot be put down by local means. That was the communist Bear trap of Vietnam for America.

The result will be that rather than establishing order by overawing if ham handed Russian military force. There will be genocide in Chechenya as an political objective rather than a by-product.

These are facts that Dan Darling knows intellectually but just doesn't feel in his gut. So he can't put them together and see the future Tom Holsinger and I do.

>Trent, I agree with quite a bit of what you
>just wrote but that doesn't influence my belief
>that it is worth substantial effort consistent
>with our national interest to prevent just this
>eventuality from coming to pass. But with each
>passing day and with each further atrocity it
>does seem more inevitable.

Dave,

If we lack the clear eyed policy driven brutality to level Fallujah so as to clear out the Jihadis and pacify the Iraqi Sunni. What makes you think we could do anything effective in the Caucuses?

American are liberators, not conquers.

It took years of war, the freeing American prisoners with the full story of the Bataan Death March and the Kamikaze fighting of the Okinawa campaign to get the American government and people ready to drop the A-bomb on Japan in 1945 and prepare to use genocidal scale B-29 poison gas attacks if the A-bomb failed.

We Americans are not in the proper state of mind for the mass brutality as policy necessary in the Caucuses to prevent genocide there.

Once we are, it will be far, far, too late.

This is why I keep hammering certain people here about their inability to learn save by events.

Trent,

Agree to a limited extent, but what Dan's point was, at the top of this post, was that this is not the usual local banditry nor even the Great Game kind of intrigue in dicey regions like the Caucasus, like Afghanistan, like the Balkans that went on in the 19th Century. The Chechen cause is now a part of a seamless garment of AQ operations.

Maybe the Russian government can't govern that kind of region but the issue now has to do with how they defend themselves against a threat originating outside that region. More to the point, how we interdict that threat. Occupation of the Pankisi Gorge or even a reconquest of the Caucasus won't solve it.

A Gujurat-like pogrom is quite likely, especially given that Putin's Russia appears to resemble Russia under Alexander III with a weak central government, endemic corruption, and Black-Hundreds-like thug groups available for seasonal pogroms.

Oh, and another quote further up:
>>Point in fact the lack of coverage of Beslan both discredits the MSM and enrages those reading these stories.

I wonder. Saturday's San Francisco Chronicle ran, above the fold, this particularly brutal photo of the children's morgue at the school. Similar coverage seemed to run in much of the MSM, at least in local markets, so that little comment was a bit too talk-show simple. People might've gotten some rage, seeing this over their Wheaties, and they may just get the idea that this could have been a US school. Give that time to sink in.

Certainly it prompts gut instincts, Trent, as you say, but security strategy shouldn't run on gut instinct. Thus the contradiction, you realize that the Caucasus is ungovernable but that the Russians might waste limited resources on a genocide when pogrom-and-forced-migration is their old habit. And our military resources aren't limitless either.

Might be nice for Jacksonians to think of economy of force. And not to take digs at Dan for being insufficiently willing to make 1+1 make 3. His purpose in writing the post was to show us the enemy order of battle, which he shows is more and more outside Chechnya, outside the Caucasus. Our purpose should be to figure out what to do with this intelligence.

SBD:

You're quite welcome.

Dave Schuler:

As I wrote over on Roger Simon's blog, it is entirely possible for one to be both a Maliki Sunni as well as a Sufi. Most Sufis consider themselves to be good Sunnis and only the Wahhabis tend to regard an overlap the two as being against the teachings of Islam. Wahhabis are very much, as I believe Joe and other have noted, extremely anti-Sufi.

I'll try to reply to the rest later on tonight.