For all the staged chestbeating and applause for the steady leadership we heard at the RNC (and now Cheney is doing his best boogeyman impersonation, trying to scare the heartland with tales of how the Kerry Presidency will assuredly mean more attacks here at home [how does he know…hmm???]), this administration is sure taking some wobbly stands against terrorism where it counts.
First, regarding Russia, where Putin has been denouncing those who say he must negotiate with the terrorists in the most fiery of terms:
[T]he State Department differed with Putin, saying only a political settlement could end the crisis between Russia and the breakaway region of Chechnya. The department also left open the possibility of U.S. meetings with Chechens who are not linked to terrorists.
Political settlement? Let’s do a little comparison/contrast, shall we.
Hussein had never attacked Americans on US soil. The Chechen terrorists have killed over 500 Russians in the past two weeks on Russian soil. Hussein was already contained. The Chechen terrorists seemingly come and go across Russia as they please. But the Bush White House said Hussein must be invaded and that Russia needs to sit down and talk with the Chechens. Bush says he won’t ask for a permission slip to defend America, but he criticizes Putin for taking an equally unilateral approach to the threat to his nation. Bush granted political asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, thereby harboring a suspected supporter of Chechen terrorism, yet criticized European nations who felt a political settlement to Iraq was the best option.
Sick of the hypocrisy yet? Hang on, it gets worse.
Putin said foreigners should have “no more questions about our policy in Chechnya” after the attackers shot children in the back, and said the Chechen cause was aimed at undermining all of southern Russia and majority-Muslim regions of the country.
Yet State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday, “Our view on the overall situation has not changed.” That is, he said, ultimately “there must be a political settlement” over Chechnya.
Imagine Bush’s reaction to Putin should he tell him that terrorists shooting Americans in the back should be dealt with politically. Then again, don’t be so sure you know what that would be…
In Iraq, where terrorists ARE shooting Americans in the back (now 1000 dead and counting), the Administration is saying negotiations are the way to deal with it in some cases:
Mr. Rumsfeld said that Prime Minister Ayad Allawi recognized that his government could not continue to allow rebel control in crucial areas of the country, but that it would take time for him to determine how to proceed.
“The prime minister and his team fully understand that it is important that there not be areas in that country that are controlled by terrorists,” he said, adding that Dr. Allawi would deal with the problem by “negotiation and discussion” in some cases and by force in others.
Ahh…the more nuanced approach. Best to step aside and let those who understand this sort of thing do the dirty work.
I have to take issue with this.
Bush did not grant asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, nor did a high cabinet official. It was a judge. Now, if it was an immigration judge and not a U.S. district judge–as I believe it was–he is an employee of the Justice Department serving under the President, but he is not a political appointee and there’s an excellent chance Bush did not know about the decision. Personally I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of the President having to okay asylum decisions, though it does sound like the judge screwed up here. (If so, my guess is there are a number of legitimate grounds for deporting the guy, and it’s fine with me if they do it.)
The State Department is right about Chechnya. A political settlement is unlikely, but it is still possible that a peaceful settlement with Chechen nationalists can be reached, which isolates the violent Islamists & allows them to be incapacitated and punished. Until it is impossible, we should not give Putin a blank check.
The differences between the Osetia schoolyard massacre and the war in Iraq you cite are true, but there is another difference: Putin has committed much, much worse atrocities against civilians than we have.
Maybe what you really object to is the chest thumping rhetoric and scare tactics, and I do too, but then you should point out the inconsistency to criticize the rhetoric and scare tactics and the invasion of Iraq–not to accuse Bush of “going wobbly.”
I am curious to know if Glenn Reynolds’ will hyperventilate as much about these State Department remarks as he did about Matthew Yglesias’ far more ambiguous comments (Yglesias said that only a negotiated settlement could end this, but that might also be a very bad idea right now because it would appear to reward terrorism, so there was really no good solution. I agree with Yglesias, actually, but the State Department has to take a definite position and I much prefer this to a green light to Putin. A compromise might be to offer help going after the Islamists and training and equipment for making raids like this, in return for verifiable assurances that civilians will be protected and there will be good faith negotiations with Chechen nationalists who actively oppose the Islamist terrorists.)
On Iraq, my feelings are more mixed. On the one hand, if Allawi is the leader of the country he should have some say over the strategy, and triangulation can work with terrorists, and there is something to be said for going after these strongholds with Iraqi troops instead of Americans. On the other hand, just withdrawing and allowing the situations to fester for another four or five months–and it may actually take much longer than that before Iraqi troops are read–seems like a terrible idea. I suspect we are not willing to provide American troops because of the possibility of American casualties, and the negative media coverage that will generate right before an election, and so we are hiding behind Allawi’s apron strings. And if I’m right about that, that’s cowardly and wrong.
Good points all Marguerite. Sorry if the tongue-in-cheek tone didn’t come across and indicate I appreciate the complexity of the situations (who would take “wobbly” seriously?). The final line was meant to reassert that.
Maybe what you really object to is the chest thumping rhetoric and scare tactics, and I do too
That’s the nuts-and-bolts of it, yes.
With regard to Akhmadov, however, Bush is ultimately responsible for who gets political asylum under his administration. More than that, from what I understand, each case is reviewed on a yearly basis, so they can revoke his status next time it’s up and should declare their intentions of doing so.
With regards to compromising with the Chechens, however, what message does that send to the other Caucasian states?
I suspect we are not willing to provide American troops because of the possibility of American casualties, and the negative media coverage that will generate right before an election, and so we are hiding behind Allawi’s apron strings. And if I’m right about that, that’s cowardly and wrong.
You’re not the only one who suspects that.
My real beef with this is the black-and-white rhetoric Bush offers as proof he’s tough on terrorism. He touts his resolve, his clear vision, his lack of interest in his critics, as if to suggest all it takes is the stubborn will to put the US military into motion to solve all these problems. It’s a lie and he knows it. It takes diplomacy, it takes careful calculations, it takes NUANCE…and he knows it, as evidenced by his stand on Russia and the terrorists in Iraq.
When Kerry tells the truth about these things, however, he portrays that nuance as weakness. I’m sick of it.
who would take “wobbly” seriously?
Winnie the Pooh would, whose spelling, by his own account, was wobbly (a trait I share).
Re: Akhmadov
A quick internet search shows that the Dept of Homeland Security appealed the grant of asylum, and then withdrew its appeal. You can’t fault them for doing so if, as the news reports indicate, the DHS didn’t have any evidence of links to or advocacy of terrorism.
marguerite — I agree with you about Allawi’s right, now that we have ‘transferred sovereignty’, to decide how to proceed. I would criticize the Bush administration not for “tolerating” this — being willing to accept Allawi’s decisions about how to proceed is part of what ‘transferring sovereignty’ means — but for what led up to this. I mean, either the situation in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle more generally was a predictable possibility of any invasion, or it is the result of our failure to do the invasion right, e.g. by not having ensured security at the outset. If the latter, of course, we are responsible for not having prevented it; if the former, for not having planned for it. We decided to invade; we decided how to do it; we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, which in this case include the existence of the problem to which Allawi is trying to find a solution.
Missed that last line. 😉
I should note, I’m especially uncomfortable with this President, and his delightful attorney general, screwing with asylum decisions. (Not to say that they haven’t already–there’s been a lot of pressure on immigration judges according to a few friends of mine. It’s been mainly about denying asylum to women fleeing domestic violence, but there is also a general policy of enforcing asylum and other immigration laws more harshly against Arabs and Muslims.) Now this case may be worth a special exception, but as a general rule I think it’s a very bad idea.
(A DHS appeal is a different story from behind the scenes pressure on judges. And if they find harder evidence of terrorist involvement or advocacy, they should obviously appeal again and bring it to the judge’s attention.)
Immigration decisions are made by the executive, not the judiciary. Persons requesting asylum or asserting other grounds for legal permission to enter the country have essentially no constitutional rights which would be reviewable by an Article III (i.e., independent) judge.
This I know all too well, having argued this very issue at the Ninth Circuit. (Alvarez-Mendez v. Stock, 941 F.2d 956 [for the law junkies at this blog].)
On a related point raised by marguerite, why is the US attacking Fallouja today? NPR carried the story of airstrikes, but no context as to why. Is Allawi purely a figurehead now, or did he authorize the new attacks?
cheers
Francis
IT gets worse.