fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Published on September 6, 2004 By kingbee In Current Events

strong. resolute. unwavering. determined.

those were the leadership qualities for which 72% of russia's electorate cast their votes when choosing a president earlier this year.  the candidate whom they believed most fully embodied these characteristics was, once again,  vladimir putin.  while russia is forced to deal with a number of diverse issues, putin's successful campaign for re-election was a mandate for his unwavering determination to crush the chechnyan rebellion.

the chechen people (like their neighbors, the ingush of ingushetia) speak their own caucasian language and are sunni muslims.  in other words, they are culturally distinct from russians and have continually resisted russian domination since being officially conquered by the russian empire in 1858.  following the communist revolution of 1917, a chechen uprising was put down by a bolshevik occupation which eventually led to the soviet union's creation of the chechen-ingush autonomous republic in the 1930s. during ww2,  both chechens and ingush collaborated with the nazi invaders. to punish them, stalin withdrew chechnya's status as a republic, deporting 400,000 to 800,000 chechens and ingush to siberia and central asia; approximately 100,000 died in the process.  following stalin's death, the deportees were permitted to repatriate and the republic was re-established. 

following the ussr's collapse in 1991, ingushetia chose to separate from chechnya to become an autonomous member of the russian federation.  the same year, when chechens declared their independence from russia, boris yeltsin sent russian troops to put down the rebellion. the russians met such fierce resistance, they withdrew.  in 1994, russia unsuccessfully invaded chechnya again ultimately destabilizing the country even further.  since the 1990s, chechnya has remained a battleground with pro-sharia islamists fighting advocates of a pro-democratic chechnya while russia intervenes to prevent complete secession. 

president putin has consistently portrayed separatists as muslim extremists and his role as a defender of russia against terrorism.  in fact, the conflict--which was rooted in russia's determination to hold onto the oil riches of chechnya (and maintain its control over the vital grozny pipeline) versus chechen desire to be free of nearly 200 years of brutal tsarist/soviet mistreatment--has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, turning chechnya into a breeding ground for islamist terrorists and alliances of necessity with al-quaida.  

last weeks attacks on russian commercial airlines and the bloody occupation of a russian school by chechnyan terrorists are the most recent and horrific evidence of a situation that seems sure to get worse before it gets better.

american voters who are willing--and able--to look at russia's dilemma objectively & pragmaticaly may have the luxury of learning a very valuable lesson by example rather than having to experience it themselves.  strong, resolute, unwavering leadership--no matter how intelligent the leader may be (and putin--despite putting up with the childish nickname 'pooty-poo'  given him by george w. bush--is no dummy)--can be a deadly distastrous trap when exercised in service of severely flawed policy.


Comments
on Sep 06, 2004
First off, you are very e.e. cummings and I don't like it. You write fairly well but without the capitalization at the beginning of sentences you cause everything to crush together. Maybe it is a technical problem but it looks deliberate.

I think there are some better examples:
Adolph Hitler. Strong, resolute, unwavering. Fits him to a tee. Bad policy.
Yasser Arafat. Strong, resolute, unwavering. Bad policy.

But you could look at any good leader and see strong, resolute, unwavering. That is what you want in a leader.

It is the bad policy part that is the problem not the leadership. You may believe with every fiber of your being that something is bad policy but you won't reallly know until now becomes back when.

So I don't understand the point you were trying to make unless it is you should choose weak, irresolute, wavering leaders.

Regardless, if it is bad policy then it won't be bad policy forever. At most you are only going to have four more years of GWB. You aren't likely to get eight or even four from Cheney so you will at worst have to face a different Republican administration. If they muck things up so bad that the world is thrown off its axis you should easily be able to get a Democrat in there.
on Sep 06, 2004
The policy may be seriously flawed but that doesn't explain the deadly disastrous trap. A leader can determine which parts of the policy are emphasized. Trying to control people is a contradiction to freedom and should be explained. Emulating Hitler or Arrafat should be explained, they are not examples of desirable leadership. One positive characteristic of a strong leader is the ability to identify, sympathize, and place yourself in the position of those who don't have the luxury of learning from example and are required to learn from experience.
on Sep 06, 2004

I think there are some better examples

i purposely chose putin because a. he is an elected president already serving a 2nd term.  b. he was a surpise candidate for the office. c. so far hes managed to retain russia's confidence despite very obvious setbacks resulting from his prosecution of the conflict in chechnya. 

It is the bad policy part that is the problem not the leadership. You may believe with every fiber of your being that something is bad policy but you won't reallly know until now becomes back when.

im glad youre not my broker.

on Sep 06, 2004

A leader can determine which parts of the policy are emphasized.

im not positive what youre saying. if you mean, a good leader is adaptive, yes thats my point.

on Sep 06, 2004
Thanks for sharing this Kingbee.

Chechnya has been on the International trouble spots for some time now, and as you allude to, the hardest and heaviest hand is not necessarily prooving to be the best method - I truely hope the International community pay Chechnya the attention it deserves, and I also hope the issue is not clouded by religious connotations either, that will only be bad for everyone.

BAM!!!
on Sep 07, 2004
Thanks for the insight Kingbee
on Sep 07, 2004
So I don't understand the point you were trying to make unless it is you should choose weak, irresolute, wavering leaders.


I think he just means we don't necessarily need "strong, resolute, unwavering" leaders, we just need smart ones.
on Sep 07, 2004
Im glad youre not my broker.

Do you think your broker can predict the future? I prefer my broker to consider, just consider, the possibility that he is wrong. In fact I would prefer him to consider that before he did anything.

a good leader is adaptive

How do you mean...like Hitler or Churchill? Or do you mean more like Chamberlain?

I don't see how you can say that GWB hasn't adapted? The big complaint about him early on is that he wanted nothing to do with the Middle East. His big concern going into 2000 was working on reforming Social Security. He certainly punched off into a different direction. Maybe it is that he didn't adapt in a way that you like.

Anyway, my point is that you didn't make your point. Bad policy is the problem not the characteristics that make a good leader. If you want to make an argument that GWB or Putin or whoever are engaged in bad policy go ahead.

I think he just means we don't necessarily need "strong, resolute, unwavering" leaders, we just need smart ones.

Hmm. I disagree with this. He said that Putin is no dummy.

on Sep 07, 2004

the hardest and heaviest hand is not necessarily prooving to be the best method - I truely hope the International community pay Chechnya the attention it deserves, and I also hope the issue is not clouded by religious connotations either, that will only be bad for everyone

considering the fact that the tsars, stalin and now yeltsin/putin have brought the full weight of russia's considerable and cruel power to bear on the chechens for nearly 150 years running without success, 'not necessarily proving to be the best method' is wonderous understatement muggaz.  religious--or more accurately, christian vs muslim--issues permeate the current conflict to such an extent, i doubt there's any chance those clouds can be reasonably expected to clear. unfortunately, that's the way the russians chose to rationalize their determination to hold on to chechnya.

on Sep 07, 2004

Thanks for the insight

thanks for dropping by and taking time to read it.

on Sep 07, 2004

we don't necessarily need "strong, resolute, unwavering" leaders, we just need smart ones

that's sorta where i started from.  resolute without smart is just stubborn.  resolute with smart is an marked improvement but history is littered with the remains of failures due to smart & resolute leaders who missed cues or (even worse?) refused to acknowledge anything that didnt coincide with the thesis.

on Sep 07, 2004

I prefer my broker to consider, just consider, the possibility that he is wrong. In fact I would prefer him to consider that before he did anything


me too.  what prompted my broker comment was your observation that bad policy can only be determined in hindsight.  would you considering investing in (or expect any reasonable return from doing so) a successful conclusion of russia's attempt to beat the chechens into submission?


 

on Sep 07, 2004
Well, I probably wouldn't invest in the successful conclusion of anything in Russia at the moment. That haven't had a lot of success with successful conclusion.

I would say that I think that bad policy, much like bad investments, can only be truely understood in hindsight. There are certain policies and investments that look like sure losers from the beginning (say Nazism and AlmostEverything.com) but there are lot of people who think they were winners at the time. What's more there are a lot that look like winners to almost everybody until they aren't (say Soviet Communism and Enron).

Everyone can tell you that Soviet Communism and Enron were doomed to fail now...but not that many were saying it then. Of course a lot of people who weren't saying it then are saying now that they said it then (whew).

I don't think the analogy holds up beyond that however.

It may be that the Russians have bad policy in Chechnya, I wouldn't claim to know.
It may be that the Americans have bad policy in Iraq (or Afghanistan). I don't think so and I think you probably do (I think that is the point of your article but you kind of buried it). Neither one of us knows for sure and won't for many years if we ever really can know.

Regardless, your main point seems to be that GWB and Putin should not be respected for their strong, resolute, unwavering, determined leadership and I think that is immaterial to the real discussion. This discussion is if is bad policy or not.

More directly, I think your thesis is bad and not held up by your own argument.

Also, I still think the non-capitalizing thing is bad form but that is just my opinion as a reader.
on Sep 07, 2004

This discussion is if is bad policy or not.


thanks for defining my discussion for me.     my opinion is that russia's policy regarding chechnya is fatally flawed.  it becomes putin's policy because it was the issue that brought putin to the presidency.  his implementation of that policy is as much responsible--if not more so--for the  radicalization of chechnya's muslims as any proselytizing wahabbi arab.  here's a bit more backround that provides a look backward from the vantage of 2000 Link


as far as america's policy in afghanistan and iraq, a lot of mistakes have been made...and it appears as if there are more ahead.  invading iraq before we completed the mission in afghanistan was foolish (we havent heard the last of the taliban).  iraq will ultimately become the islamic republic of iraq...probably with sistani as head of state...courtesy of the willing coalition.

on Sep 07, 2004
thanks for defining my discussion for me

You're welcome.

I am going to back out of this conversation because it is increasing clear I didn't understand what your point was. Sorry for the confusion.