In light of today's attack in Russia's North Caucuses that left four people killed and six severely injured, Russian and American experts and general public alike are wondering: do the tough rhetoric and willingness to "destroy terrorists" really work?
Alexander Nazaryan in his NY Daily News article answers the question:
Putin's Empty Threats, Obama's Quiet Confidence: Moscow Attacks Show the Limits of Toughness -- By Alexander Nazaryan
Two things happened after a terrorist attack: We bury the dead and, among the living, designate someone to blame. Otherwise, the attack remains a monstrous question. With fault comes closure.
So it is in Moscow, where some 35 were killed at an attack on Domodedovo Airport. "What occurred shows that there were violations in providing security," said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the wake of the attack, which has the hallmarks of Islamic militants from Russia's breakaway republic of Chechnya. "We must hold responsible those who have ties to the company that makes decisions, the management of the airport."
As for the 40 who died in a similar attack on Moscow's subways last year, or the 28 before them on a train between St. Petersburg and Moscow? There were underlings to blame for these, too.
Always managing to escape blame is Vladimir Putin, who was elected Russia's president in 2000 and promptly launched a war against Chechen insurgents, thousands of whom have been killed, tortured and thrown into prison. They have responded with brutality of their own, launching increasingly audacious terror attacks inside Russia.
And yet Putin - now the prime minister, but without question the Kremlin's boss - remains unscathed, probably because no leader in the Western world shows such a visceral disgust with terrorism. He talks of "rubbing out the terrorists in the s---house" and once, annoyed at a reporter, said: "If you are prepared to become a most radical Islamist and are prepared to circumcise yourself, I invite you to come to Moscow. I will recommend having the operation done in such a way that nothing will grow for you there anymore."
Others want to stop terrorists; Putin wants to destroy them. With his outsize machismo, he sounds nothing so much as a 2012 candidate - for the presidency of the United States.
The right can dream, can't it? Its favorite knock on President Obama is that he is weak on terror, despite the fact that Obama has so far kept Americans safe from a large-scale terror attack, while Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, on the other hand, missed and disregarded opportunities to stop Al Qaeda.
But every time Obama succeeds in foiling an attack, his standing with the national security hawks plummets. After "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to blow up a jetliner in 2009, the graceless Dick Cheney ventured that Obama was "trying to pretend we are not at war."
Even when he successfully foils an attack, Obama is portrayed - all too well - by the right as playing desperate defense against terrorism instead of remaining on some kind of imaginary offensive that is the stuff of action movies.
The original article appeared in the NYDailyNews.com on January 26, 2011.
Leave a comment