Russia

Like Will Schirano, I want to congratulate the debaters on a high-quality performance. I have a number of comments on the substance of the debate:

The Topic. I should begin by saying that this topic is heavily slanted toward the affirmative. In my mind, there is simply no way to reasonably argue that Shamil Basayev’s death wasn’t a major victory for both Russia and also the global war on terror. Although Russia has pursued its campaign against the Chechen insurgents brutally, the insurgents have been every bit as brutal. Moreover, as my colleague Dan Darling has detailed at length, there are a large number of connections between the Chechen mujahideen and al-Qaeda. Basayev managed to tower over his comrades-in-arms in his disregard for human life and willingness to inflict massive casualties on innocent people. Moreover, men like Basayev — who possess charisma, battlefield prowess and enough luck to survive long enough to make a name for themselves — are able to draw money and recruits to their cause. In any debate where the teams are evenly matched, the affirmative should prevail.

The “hydra” argument. I think the “hydra” argument advanced during the first cross-examination is pretty weak. It’s easy to assert that two more Basayevs can arise after he’s killed (or, as was said in the wake of Zarqawi’s death, “a hundred Zarqawis”). It is more difficult to figure out where those new Basayevs or Zarqawis will come from. As stated above, Basayev had the right mix of charisma and battlefield prowess as well as the ability (and enough luck) to survive for years. It’s not clear that a new leader of the Chechen mujahideen will possess these attributes — and thus the mujahideen may begin to have trouble raising money and drawing new recruits. In a somewhat different context but on a similar point, you may want to read my thoughts about what Zarqawi’s killing meant to al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The next leader of the mujahideen might not engage in the same kind of atrocities. This was an interesting argument offered by the negative but never really developed. If a new Chechen leader emerges after Basayev who for strategic reasons decides to forego acts of terror like the Beslan school massacre, what would the implications be? Would that result in international pressure against Russia to tone down or even stop its Chechen campaign?

The argument that Basayev should have been dealt with “democratically.” The final negative speaker advanced this argument in cross-examination. Although I thought the speaker’s presentation was excellent, this argument is confusing and almost certainly wrong. What does it mean to deal with Basayev “democratically”? Is only a courtroom trial democratic? Did the U.S. deal with Zarqawi undemocratically by killing him rather than arresting him and hauling him out to the Eastern District of Virginia? How do you fight a war against insurgents effectively if you believe that you’ll compromise your own principles by killing them?

Conclusion. These comments should make clear that I don’t think the negative can win under this resolution if it faces a halfway competent affirmative team. But there are nonetheless many interesting and important debates to be had concerning Russia’s fight against the Chechens. Will Schirano has already made reference to the Russians’ conditions for victory. And although I don’t think that Russia was out of line in its killing of Basayev, let there be no doubt that the ferocious brutality Russia displayed in carrying out this military campaign has been highly problematic — both for moral reasons and also pragmatic ones. There is serious room for debate about what Russia’s conduct in the Caucasus tells us about how to fight insurgent warfare.

Again, my congratulations to the debaters. I look forward to engaging with the Benjamin Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative participants on this blog.