There will be another Beslan

[CHIMO]

It descended into blood, panic, violence and tragedy. None of the children, parents and teachers killed and wounded in Beslan deserved this barbarism. The children who set off for the first day of school on Wednesday, wearing their new clothes and holding their balloons, could not have been a more innocent target, the anguish of their teachers and parents more undeserved.
Beslan is an extreme example of what is rightly seen as a depraved military tactic. But the equally unpalatable truth is that hostage taking is also a rational tactic in the desperate context of asymmetrical warfare. Despite the likelihood of a bloody end to most hostage situations, they are likely to grow more, rather than less, frequent.

Today's hostage-taking, though, from Iraq to Ossetia, is more savage, born of the spread of asymmetrical warfare that pits small, weak and irregular forces against powerful military machines. No insurgent lives long if he fights such overwhelming force directly. His tactical success has always been in surprise and in picking his target. If insurgent bullets cannot penetrate military armour, it makes little sense to shoot in that direction. Soft targets - the unprotected, the innocent, the uninvolved - become targets because they are available. If the hostage-takers in Beslan knew they were likely to die, they also knew they would die with the world's attention upon them. Had they died in a regular firefight with Russian forces, we would neither have known nor cared.


As the drama of Beslan was entering its final hours, George Bush was bidding for re-election on the promise of security to the American people, a security premised on the willingness to use overwhelming military force. It was the same promise that Putin gave to the Russians and Ariel Sharon to the people of Israel. All three have used violence freely in pursuit of electoral reward: Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple of the Mount that triggered the second intifada, Putin's reckless adventurism in re-launching the Chechen war in 1999, and the Bush invasion of Iraq. None has produced the peace or security that was their justification; all have generated more violence and widened the circle of killing far beyond the formal engagement of armed men on both sides. Now the most likely victims are the poor and the helpless, as collateral damage, bombing casualties or hostages.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1297179,00.html

[bemildred]

1. The point is that "overwhelming military force",

supposing one had it, is great for crushing opposing
military forces, but it cannot provide security in peacetime.

[CHIMO]

2. Chechnya

Moscow's hold on Chechnya has been tenuous at best, since the czar's forces first conquered the Caucasus region in the 19th century. Even under Russian rule, the region has always managed to maintain some degree of autonomy.

The oil-rich region was made part of the Soviet Mountain People's Republic in 1921, was declared the Chechen Autonomous Region the following year and, along with the Ingush region to the west, was named the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1936.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chechnya/

Agree.
But I wouldn't call it a peace at present in Chechnya.
The population of the country is less than one tenth of NY city. Just think of the numbers.
Of course, it doesn't provide security in war time.

[bemildred]

3. "peacetime" is a bad choice.

You are right about the history of the Caucasus too.