It did occur to me, like the proverbial diamond-tipped bullet Kurtz describes in Apocalypse Now, how effective this approach to crisis-resolution is if you have the kind of stomach that Putin has.
Remember, when the Chechnyan terrorists took over the theatre a couple of years ago, Putin ended it in the same, take-no-prisoners-way.
Putin accomplishes two things going about it this way. First of all, the terrorists know he makes no concessions, and second, the people mostly and rightly blame the bloodshed on the terrorists. The very scale of the carnage works powerfully against the terrorists gaining legitimacy.
But damn, you have to be a hard man to go about things this way (even though I freely admit that Putin's approach may minimize the total loss of life due to terrorism, by discouraging other acts).
Except that, this time, it seems the authorities hadn't planned to go in, but just reacted to an explosion and roof collapse.
It's an interesting question, one which I'm far too tired to think about now, whether minimizing the total loss of life would be worth the callousness of the strategy--or is it a better society that lets itself be blackmailed by threats to its children?
Ogged, that is a very good point you raise. Which is better to value, the hypothesized numbers of the dead, or the abstract ideal of humanity? I tend to think the latter, as it seems to me much more important in the longer run.
It did occur to me, like the proverbial diamond-tipped bullet Kurtz describes in Apocalypse Now, how effective this approach to crisis-resolution is if you have the kind of stomach that Putin has.
Remember, when the Chechnyan terrorists took over the theatre a couple of years ago, Putin ended it in the same, take-no-prisoners-way.
Putin accomplishes two things going about it this way. First of all, the terrorists know he makes no concessions, and second, the people mostly and rightly blame the bloodshed on the terrorists. The very scale of the carnage works powerfully against the terrorists gaining legitimacy.
But damn, you have to be a hard man to go about things this way (even though I freely admit that Putin's approach may minimize the total loss of life due to terrorism, by discouraging other acts).
Posted by son volt | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 5:29 PM
Except that, this time, it seems the authorities hadn't planned to go in, but just reacted to an explosion and roof collapse.
It's an interesting question, one which I'm far too tired to think about now, whether minimizing the total loss of life would be worth the callousness of the strategy--or is it a better society that lets itself be blackmailed by threats to its children?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 5:34 PM
So Ogged, it was Putin's fault?
The correct answer was in the 1st post here.
Jimmy Carter got a peace prize for appeasement in Korea. Then he 'certified the elections in Venezuela.
Putin deserves a peace prize. W has been pissed on by the left.
Jimmy still has respect and a nice prize.
The JOhnKErry, 'read JOKE', is the caricature of the stupid left 'head in sand whining' when someone takes action and acts like a leader.
I believe they 'the stupid left', (I won't say watermelon again) simply do not want the boat rocked.
:-(
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 5:55 PM
oh well, one little bite won't hurt--
If you really believe that George W. Bush is made of the same stuff as Vladimir Putin, you are the worst judge of character I have ever encountered.
--and now no more food for the troll.
Posted by son volt | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 6:49 PM
Ogged, that is a very good point you raise. Which is better to value, the hypothesized numbers of the dead, or the abstract ideal of humanity? I tend to think the latter, as it seems to me much more important in the longer run.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09- 4-04 5:05 PM