RIP, Joe Random Chechen Non-Murderous Freedom Fighter

I admit that my previous post RIP, Aslan Maskhadov was so lacking of an explanation as to be easily misread. I admit that was based on an thinly ascertained opinion that might turn out to be wrong after further examination. And thus I thank my gentle reader averros for correcting me, though I'm not sure how much to trust his information. I am still looking for independent confirmation of his statements, but pending such confirmation, I stand corrected. I wrote the previous post hurriedly, because it was a hot reaction to some news. I knew I wouldn't be able to blog for some time, and I wanted to share my concern about an underdiscussed yet very relevant episode of our times, war in Chechnya. Now that I have more time, I would like to make it clearer what I did and didn't want to say on this topic, and what my opinion is now.

Firstly, I didn't want to endorse Aslan Maskhadov personally. Indeed I just didn't know enough of him for an endorsement. However, what I thought I knew of him at the time didn't disqualify him for an endorsement either. And what I think I know of him still doesn't. My gentle reader compared him to Arafat, which is also the case of at least another commenter on the event. Well, Arafat was a wicked creature of the KGB: it was the KGB who taught him to organize terrorist killing of innocent people while playing the role of victim before the media. The death of Arafat was certainly a good riddance, indeed. If Maskhadov really were like Arafat, then so would his death be a good riddance. But it is well established that Maskhadov has never been such thing as a KGB puppet, and though I can't say for sure how good or evil a guy he was, it seems clear to he has never been an Arafat.

Maskhadov looks to me like a peaceful guy who did his best to appease other parties, both Chechen and Russian, but had to face terrorists on both sides, who advanced unreasonable claims with overwhelming force; he never had a way out, but he tried to preserve his integrity and to defend the life and liberty of those who had entrusted him with their defense. Of course, I will readily deny Maskhadov if provided evidence that he willfully supported the killing of innocent people, through ethnic cleansing, invasion of neighbouring countries, or terrorism by the ilk of wahhabite terrorist Shamil Basayev. But I will require evidence that is more than mere KGB deceptive propaganda. Also, I will readily condemn Maskhadov on the ground of criminal incompetence or criminal inaction, if provided evidence that even without positive support to murderers, he failed to avoid or stop the war by taking action against those murderers. However, in ignorance of any such evidence, I will grant him the benefit of the doubt and thus I refrain from giving a negative verdict until I get further reliable information.

Secondly, I readily admit my sources are biased. They are biased in a variety of ways; but they are all conspicuously free from the liberal (i.e. crypto-communist) bias of most mainstream media. As for variety in my sources, consider the difference between say the antiwar anarcho-capitalist Mises.org, the arm-toting minarchist TCS, or the occidental defender LGF. There is certainly a pro-Maskhadov bias in many of my sources, including Stephen Schwartz or Chrenkoff for instance. But I have good reasons to believe this bias is founded. If it were found to be misfounded, for which I've seen no evidence, the error would be more likely due to the distate of confirmed bastards like Putin than to any liberal (i.e. crypto-communist) bias toward the alleged victims that Chechens may or may not have been. Of course, the enemy of an enemy is not forcibly either a friend or a good guy, and might sometimes prove worse than the original enemy; so the plausible correlation between enmity with evil people and being good isn't a reliable causation to establish that one is indeed good because he is the enemy of Putin. I reserve my judgement on this topic until I have more clearer reliable information, but I admit I have no strong enough evidence at the time to endorse much about Maskhadov.

However, lacking contrary evidence in other news sources that I may trust, I will readily yield to the bias in my current sources. That is exactly what information sources are for. That doesn't mean that I or any of my sources consider Maskhadov as the Perfect Saviour for the Chechen people; he obviously failed to be anything remotely like that. However, that means that we consider he was all in all the only relatively good guy among the leaders involved in the conflict, and that the western countries should have supported him, as compared to Putin, his servants and his allies, or to Basayev and other outright Chechen terrorists. Though he may have been a bit of a statist -- few are those who aren't -- we believe he was the least so of the Chechen leaders. And as far as I know, he didn't partake in any of the ethnic cleansing or civilian-targetting terrorism that was conducted by Chechen murderers in Chechnya or neighbouring regions. But he's accused of crimes by someone who has plausible-looking information, and I can't say yet whether or not this accusation is more than a rehash of the usual deceptive KGB slender. Thus, pending independent confirmation, I can't endorse Maskhadov, but I will refrain from condemning him either.

Thirdly, and most importantly, my salute to Maskhadov was actually a salute to freedom fighters among Chechens, for which Maskhadov stood as a symbol. I might be misled about the symbol, who, after further evidence, might turn out to be a crook or worse. Then I'll plead guilty of having used a wrong symbol without necessary precaution. But then, I'll still salute Joe Random Chechen Freedom Fighter, the anonymous kind who doesn't indulge in killing innocent civilians. I readily agree that there were and are murderous terrorists among the Chechen fighters, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of those who still fight today are such terrorists. I will still salute Joe Random Chechen Non-Murderer Freedom Fighter. I would be surprised to learn that they weren't the vast majority when the russian troops invaded the country, but even if I am wrong there, I'll still salute Joe Rare Chechen Non-Murderer Freedom Fighter, the genuine resistant who fights for the life and liberty of those he cherishes without attacking innocent people. I will salute these Freedom Fighters until provided evidence that there were no significant such fighters among those who rose in arms against the russian invasion.

To this date, the war in Chechnya is largely won by the Russian forces. The downfall of Maskhadov is but a final sign of this victory; beyond the individual fate of Maskhadov, it signifies the demise of all Chechen resistance. Hence the opportunity for a salute to Joe Random Chechen Freedom Fighter -- or Joe Rare Chechen Non-Murderous Freedom Fighter. This doesn't imply an endorsement of the specific deeds of Maskhadov. I do not blame the specific russian soldiers who killed Maskhadov for his resisting arrest, and I certainly do not ascribe them any specific murderous intent. Neither do I blame Maskhadov for the specific choice of resisting arrest. In as much as there is or isn't a murder, it lies not in the decision of either russian soldier or Maskhadov at this time, but in the criminal decisions of those politicians guilty for leading Chechnya to war. The guilty parties may possibly include Maskhadov himself; but that has to be established. The guilt of Putin, on the other hand, is clear.

This brings me to the crux of the matter, that of the legitimacy or lack thereof of a Chechen uprising. Were there good reasons for Chechen people to fight the russian invasion? Was the russian invasion justified? What is the root of the Evil in this war? What is or isn't legitimate or illegitimate, good or bad, for each involved party to do in such situation? What should one do when such a murderous madness prevails?

I have a lot more to say on this topic, but unhappily, this will have to be in another post. Hopefully after I find out more about the ins and outs of the story -- though I'm ready to be wrong and to be corrected once again.

NOTE AND UPDATE: This article has always been about why my message didn't suppose personal endorsement of Maskhadov, though my point was admittedly quite unclear from my previous post. I have since received contradictory statements about Maskhadov himself, and pending independent confirmation, I will refrain from giving a verdict either way about Maskhadov. I have changed the tone of the article several time, alternatively leaning one way or the other. I now explain clearly why I lean however slightly with my current sources, since that's what the whole point of sources, though I'm very open to other sources, if they prove reliable. However, and that's also a point, I will grant Maskhadov the benefit of the doubt, whereas no such doubt exists regarding the culpability of the KGB bastards.