The bombings in Baghdad versus the bombings in Moscow
The recent suicide bombings in Moscow have let to an utterly predictable chorus of Western “experts” confidently asserting that Putin and Mevedev have failed and that Russia is on the brink of chaos, if not outright dissolution and collapse. As should be clear, I think this is all extremely overdone. I generally agree with fellow True/Slant contributor Julia Ioffe’s analysis that the bombings (reprehensible and disgusting as they are) won’t really change anything. I’d also agree with Julia’s point that the recent subway bombings are actually far less serious than any number of recent terrorist attacks on Russia, especially Beslan and Nord Ost, and that the Russian emergency services responded to the most recent bombings with an almost shocking level of openness, diligence, professionalism, and calm.
But what is far more interesting to me is the general lethargy with which the Western media has greeted the latest serious terrorist attack in Baghdad, a coordinated series of powerful car bombings that targeted a number of hardened and well-defended diplomatic targets, as well as the latest in an unending series of sectarian killings. The executions south of Baghdad actually seem far more worrisome, since the perpetrators were wearing, depending on which report you read, either Iraqi* or American military uniforms, and acted with virtual impunity.
I suppose by this point in time it’s not really news that the Western media operates with double standards so glaring and so embarrassing that they are basically openly acknowledged, but I must confess that I am nonetheless baffled by the sheer quantity of cognitive dissonance at work. In Russia a crudely executed operation, conduced in one of the world’s hardest to defend infrastructure assets, in which one of the bombers didn’t even get to the proper location (the goal was clearly to have simultaneous explosions at the metro stations closest to the headquarters of the FSB and MVD) is a “serious challenge to the regime” and a harbinger of much larger problems, if not evidence of the systematic failure of the state’s security organs. Meanwhile, in democratic Iraq, actual government ministries and foreign embassies are routinely pulverized by massive truck bombings, but there is, of course, “progress.” In Baghdad alone at least 700 people have been killed in terrorist attacks over the past year, but that hasn’t stopped Western “experts” from regularly spouting pronouncements, remarkable for their sanguinity, about the country’s glorious future as shining beacon of freedom. In virtually any other country on earth the level of political violence that Iraq has experiences since the surge “worked” would be considered completely unacceptable
On any objective basis what was the more worrying and series of events, the bombing of two subway stations with little or no security presence (having used the Moscow metro extensively, I can speak personally to the paucity of militsioneri prowling its columned halls) or a truly coordinated, and much deadlier, attack on foreign embassies that are constantly guarded by large numbers of security contractors and regular army troops? I don’t think it’s even close. Yet is anyone in the mainstream American press arguing that the recent bombings in Baghdad comprehensively “de-legitimize” Nouri Al-Maliki? Or that the Iraqi regime should be replaced by one better suited to delivering “security?” Of course not. In fact if you did write such an article you would be hounded remorselessly for your retrograde and anti-democratic political views, with some of the more inventive and shameless hacks throwing in the charge of anti-Arab racism for good measure.
As a matter of basic logic, if a series of random terrorist attacks against civilians in country A are mere “bumps on the road,” a (smaller and less successful) series of random terrorist attacks against civilians in country B can not be evidence that its entire edifice of state power is badly compromised. I suppose it’s a fool’s errand, but I only ask for a bit of consistency.
*It is worth noting that apparently Iraqi military uniforms can be easily purchased right off the shelf. Such is life in a burgeoning democracy!
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Who are these “experts” you cite who are saying this is a sign the Putin regime has failed? Pretty much everything I’ve seen has been along the “it’s-not-a-huge-deal” line. I think you might be arguing against a Boogie Man. By the way, have you ever lived in Russia?
Off the top of my head, you have professional Russia analysts such as Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, David Satter, Alex Alexiev, James Sherr (whom I greatly respect if rarely agree with) making these sorts of arguments. That is literally just the people I can think of in 15 seconds. Then, a step lower on the ladder, you have media personalities like Ralph Peters or, Clifford Levy, or Owen Mathews. Additionally, you have the vast majority of Russian liberals, including high profile ones like Anrei Illarionov arguing that these attacks comprehensively delegitimize Putin. God only knows what Garry Kasparov is going to write in his next Wall Street Journal article, and I think we’ll see more ridiculousness in the coming days and weeks as some of the more hackneyed and predictably anti-Putin writers (including the two contestants in my ongoing “who is the world’s worst Russia analyst?” contest ) have yet to weigh in.
In response to another comment. See in context »I might have been slightly exaggerating the extent to which the “Putin has failed!” line of reasoning is universal, but it is very, very, far from being a fringe phenomenon. When a close colleague of the President’s Russia adviser endorses a position, it matters!
Обращая к последному вопросу я, к сожелению, никогда в России жил. Я бывал там но не жил.
Moscow bombings is simply the latest reason for the usual suspects to do what they always do – harp about Putin. Similarly, Baghdad bombings were used by a different bunch of usual suspects to harp about Bush. Now that Bush is no longer in office you don’t hear as much about Baghdad anymore (these guys never really cared about actual Iraqis, their objective was to bring down Mr. Bush.) Likewise, if Putin disappears tomorrow and say Kasparov becomes Russian President, any new about Chechen terror will be quickly relegated to the back pages.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mark, also all those wannabees on RFE/RL used the Moscow bombing to further their agenda…
Brian Whitman, Gregory Feifer, etc.
D I S P I C A B L E
In response to another comment. See in context »Also, the Memorial Foundation went to new lows… again, they justified anti-Russian terrorism so as not to displease their donors.
I remember Putin said something a few years ago along these lines:
There are so many Russian NGOs out there criticizing the Russian government and Soviet history… why aren’t there any Russian NGOs criticizing Chechen terrorism and Eastern European fascism.
In response to another comment. See in context »It should be like : “ОбращаяСЬ к последнему вопросу я, к сожАлению, никогда в России НЕ жил. Я бывал там, но не жил.” ))))
Btw, with all of your new friends on Inosmi, I think you’ll be pretty well-met in Russia )))
[...] Oригинaл публикaции: The bombings in Baghdad versus the bombings in Moscow [...]