Vladimir Putin has described the Russian journalist Anna
Politkovskaya, killed recently in a 1990’s style mafia hit, as
an “extremely insignificant” writer, according to  the Washington
Post.  The term “immensely inconvenient” would be much closer
to Putin’s genuine attitude toward reporters such as Politkovskaya,
who dare to reveal the ugly realities of the war in Chechnya.

Mr. Putin and his KGB cronies have not been linked to this crime,
but this disturbing incident demonstrates that there is another war
being fought, one against human rights workers and critics of the
conflict in Chechnya.  Death threats are issued, false ties to
terrorist groups are spewed by state-run TV, and peaceful vigils
honoring those who died for speaking out are cut short by violent
means.

There are two distinct forces battling for control of Chechnya’s
future.  One looks to the east and advocates radical Islam, the
other to the west, with the desire to create a society based on
democracy and the rule of secular law.  Putin views both with
equal disdain.  Through his eyes, all Chechens are seen as terrorists.
They are simply lumped together and tarred with the same brush
that justifies a continued military intervention.

Mr. Putin’s attempt to crush all opposition in Chechnya is actually
helping to further the cause of radical Islam.  The Caucus region is
plagued by corruption and crime, along with extremely high levels
of unemployment and poverty.  The ranks of recruits for the Jihad
against Russia is growing by the day.  The combustible mix of
poverty and violent oppression will continue to burn bright as
long as Putin continues down his current path.  The war in Chechnya
is providing a constant spark, and the lack of Russian support for
economic and political reform in the region will continue to provide
the fuel.

Mr. Putin continues to fight a war on two fronts with the fervor of
Stalin in a 1930s  style purge.  He has shown a disturbing tendency
to dismantle the institutions necessary for the development of a
democratic society.  Russia is basically a one party state, and its
citizens are not afforded the services of a free press.  He has vowed
that 2008 will spell the end of his presidential term, but that is two
years and many manipulations away.

The risks posed by the war in Chechnya extend far beyond the
weakening of his iron grip on power.  His desire to crush both eastern
and western sentiment in Chechnya has only strengthened the Islamic
extremists in the region, and has destroyed the only hope for a
peaceful solution to the conflict.   As Russia fights a futile war for the
selfish desires of its new czar, the seeds for a much larger collision with
radical Islam are provided fertile ground in which to grow.

Greg Strid

The president said today that we are not going to take sides in the
sectarian battles raging in Iraq, and we are not to act as cannon
fodder in the battle between Shiites and Sunnis, Kurds and Sunnis,
and the rival Shiite groups battling each other as they strive for
increased political influence on the streets of Iraq.

Meanwhile, the embattled Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki
said his government would not comply with US-imposed timelines
regarding the disbanding of militias and the equal distribution of
Iraqi oil wealth.

This declaration of independence from American priorities was
uttered only a day after US Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad made
the opposite claim.

Maybe the deadly raid in Sadr City, a Shiite slum that is loyal to
the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, had something to do with
it. The goal was to arrest the leader of one of al-Sadr’s death squads,
the result was five fatalities and twenty casualties.

Mr. Sadr has decided to emulate Hezbollah and Hamas, combining
politics, social services and a powerful militia in order to further his
ambitions. Sadr’s militia, the Madhi Army, has fought several battles
with US troops, and is the parent to many death squads that roam the
countryside. He is also at the helm of a large Shiite political party
that is an important member of the Prime Minister’s ruling coalition.

An aid to Sadr claims that the casualties were not members of an
alleged death squad. The US is being accused of trying to incite a
clash with the Mahdi army and killing innocent civilians. These
charges are coming not only from armed thugs, but a major force
within the democratically elected Iraqi government.

No matter what the US decides to do, the problem of al-Sadre will
not fade away. Any government that will replace the one led by
al-Maliki will be dominated by Shiites, and that means al-Sadre
will play a significant role.

Iraq will not see a reduction in sectarian violence until militias and
the death squads under their influence are reined in and ultimately
dismantled. The violence carried out by militias, which are usually
aligned with political parties, has replaced the insurgency as the
greatest source of instability in Iraq.

It is evident that in such an unstable environment, political parties
feel the need for an armed presence on the streets, much more than
seats in an isolated and increasingly ineffective parliament.

As the Americans contemplate how to tackle the plague of illegal
militias, they seem to forget that they are manned by those who
have no other opportunities for employment. An ugly example of
this phenomenon occurred in the dying days of the Weimar
Republic, with unemployed communists and fascists battling it
out on the streets of Berlin, while their puppeteers pretended to
advance their causes in the halls of the Reichstag.

Development in Iraq has stalled, and it should be no surprise that
chaos has increased as a result. If the problem of illegal militias
is to be dealt with properly, significantly more resources must be
devoted to economic development, and less thought given to the
fantasy of reversing Iraq’s slide into the abyss through military
actions.

This will be an extremely difficult feat to accomplish given the
fact that the current state of civil strife is evolving rapidly into
civil war. But it is not an impossible task, and it is the only way
to stabilize Iraq. The truly sad part is that it will probably surpass
the capabilities of America’s poll-driven political class.

Greg Strid

I have a few of these shirts available. They’re great for
Halloween and for celebrating the Dow’s continuing ascent.
Send me an e-mail if you are interested: splendidmarbles@gmail.com

The road to a debate on free speech organized by Intelligence Squared, hosted
by the Asia Society started with a random encounter with Christopher Hitchens,
who is an author, commentator, and columnist for Vanity Fair. It was Tuesday
night, and I had just spent three hours digesting photoshop instructions, and I
decided that I had earned a few pints for my efforts.

As I sat at the bar with a friend of mine, I started to ponder the meaning of layer
masks as I thought out loud in incomplete sentences. In mid pontification, I was
interrupted by the sight of Mr. Hitchens passing us at the bar on his way out for
a smoke. My friend went out for a casual smoke and an introduction. It is good
to drink in pairs.

I was introduced after the smoke had drifted away. We spoke briefly, and Mr.
Hitchens promised that he would join us for an after dinner drink.

He kept his word. At the tail end of a post meal smoke, which I participated in,
he said, “so, do you have something to show me?” I stared at him for a second
as I inhaled some much needed confidence, “yes, I do have something to show
you”, was the reply- my response was in English; a triumph!

I pulled out my drawing of a Jihadist receiving a mail-order suicide-bomb belt
that was too small. This inconvenience caused him to curse God, like we all do,
for life’s many frustrations.

I think he liked it, no falling to his knees, but he did not walk away either. We
did talk about the famous, syndicated cartoonists, and about censorship and the
growing fear of criticizing Islamic extremism. On his way out, he told me about
a debate entitled “Freedom of Expression must include the right to offend” that
he was participating in. Mr. Hitchens is on the side supporting the right to
offend. To those of you who are familiar with his work, this should be of no
surprise.

I made my way to the Asia Society the following night. I had a few drinks as I
attempted to mingle with New York’s well clad liberal elite. There was a vote
before, and after the debate. If you voted “yes”, you were a champion of the
right to offend-I wanted to write YES on my spacious, bald skull. The tally
before the debate was overwhelmingly for the right to offend.

I will now attempt to cut to the chase. The vote at the end of the debate was
even more lopsided than the one prior to it. The reasons for this go beyond the
make up of the audience. Those arguing against stressed that violence and
oppression often stem from offensive expressions of free speech. Examples
such as the intimidation of Chinese immigrants by Neo-Nazis in San Francisco,
hate speech against African Americans and sexual discrimination in the workplace,
were used to support their case. One of the panelists also mentioned intellectuals
such as John Stuart Mill, who feared the effects evil propaganda would have on
the ignorant masses.

I would like to examine their position on hate speech first. This is a loathsome
form of expression, but abolishing it will not dry up the swamp from which
it grows. Stifling this form of speech only channels it elsewhere, and it does not
address the causes that create intolerance in the first place. The hideous language
of the bigoted set is not on the front page, but it adorns many web sites and
provides a vocabulary for many narrow minds. I feel that they should feel free
to open their mouths, in doing so they will provide a window into their pathetic
souls.

Sexual discrimination, and other attacks on individuals, can be addressed in the
courts. The American legal system punishes those who violate the rights and
limit the economic opportunities of others through their actions, verbal or
otherwise. Policies are established and enforced in order to protect individuals
from institutional discrimination, which protect everyone’s right to participate in
society. If a man prohibits the advancement of a female coworker, or harasses her
in the workplace, the issue should be taken up in the courts. This, I feel, is quite
different from a sexist buffoon spouting his ill-formed views on a sidewalk, or the
sight of hooded, mentally challenged goons on the steps of city hall.

Another part of the argument against the right to offend rests on the belief that
the common man is not capable of acting responsibly when confronted with evil
propaganda. Should we leave it up to an elite group of intellectuals to filter out
the harmful rays of nasty thoughts? I have to ask: who will sit on this ivory
council of wise elders? After the many failed Utopian experiments that stained
the 20th century, I think it is laughable that this is even mentioned.

As for the argument in favor of the right to offend when expressing one’s views,
it centers on the need to hold institutions accountable for their actions. and
allowing for the expression of opinion without interference from intellectual
overlords. I must admit that I am paraphrasing and adding my own opinions
to this side of the argument.

The ability to criticize institutions is essential to maintaining the health of
a democratic government, and that of the organizations operating under its
jurisdiction. Holding institutions responsible, whether they be church, state
or business, for their conduct acts as a check on abusive tendencies that would
inevitably surface in the absence of scrutiny.

Many say that censorship of selected forms of speech puts us on a slippery slope
toward limitations on all forms of expression. I will take this a step further by
saying that it is not a slope, but a cliff. In a society that is already crippled by
political correctness, the imposition of further restrictions in this realm will do
much more harm than good.

The suppression of speech does not end bigotry, all it does is hide its existence
behind a wall of silence. As far as institutions charged with protecting the public
good are concerned, the effects are much more destructive. Without a free press,
there is no incentive to act responsibly.

Those with unchecked power will seek to serve themselves at the expense of
everyone else. The urge to express ourselves is as natural as the tendency to act
in our own interests. If the right to freedom of speech is restricted, the pursuit
of self interest will be allowed to dismantle the democratic institutions that are
designed to serve us all.

Greg Strid