Anna Politkovskaya was not an "ultra liberal crazy" as you put it, she was in fact one of the few journalists who dared questioned the official line from the Kremlin, she asked the questions that no one dare asked and was submitting to various acts of harrassement by the state who viewed her reportage as dangerous.

Politkovskaya made her name reporting from lawless Chechnya, where many journalists and humanitarian workers have been kidnapped or killed. She was arrested and subjected to mock execution by Russian military forces there, and she was poisoned on the way to Beslan, but survived and continued her reporting. She authored several books about Chechen wars and Putin's Russia and received numerous prestigious international awards for her work.

Her numerous articles critical of the war in Chechnya described abuses committed by Russian military forces, by Chechen rebels, and by the Russian-backed Chechen administration led by Akhmad Kadyrov and his son Ramzan Kadyrov. Politkovskaya chronicled human rights abuses and policy failures in Chechnya and elsewhere in Russia's North Caucasus in several books on the subject, including A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya and A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, which painted a picture of brutal war in which thousands of innocent citizens have been tortured, abducted or killed at the hands of Chechen or federal authorities."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya

She wrote:

"We are hurtling back into a Soviet abyss, into an information vacuum that spells death from our own ignorance. All we have left is the internet, where information is still freely available. For the rest, if you want to go on working as a journalist, it's total servility to Putin. Otherwise, it can be death, the bullet, poison, or trial - whatever our special services, Putin's guard dogs, see fit."

And if you highly doubt that the Kremlin or Putin would order the assassination of a rogue reporter then I think you missed the poisoning of FSB dissident Alexander Litvinenko by Polonium-210:

As of 26 January 2007, British officials said police had solved the murder of Litvinenko. They discovered "a 'hot' teapot at London's Millennium Hotel with an off-the-charts reading for polonium-210, the radioactive material used in the killing." In addition, a senior official said investigators had concluded the murder of Litvinenko was "a 'state-sponsored' assassination orchestrated by Russian security services."

Or are British authorities "fantasy level conspirators" as well? I think your personal admiration of Putin's usurpation of power is interfering with your ability to discern the facts.

On August 28th 2007 it was announced that 10 people were arrested in connection to her murder:

"Controversy arose because the prosecutor, Yuri Y. Chaika, suggested that the motive for killing had not been to silence Ms. Politkovskaya, whose efforts to uncover corruption and brutality under President Vladimir V. Putin had brought her international acclaim but scorn from officials here.

Rather, the prosecutor said, the killing was intended to discredit the Kremlin, by raising suspicions that it had been involved, and ultimately to destabilize the Russian state. That now-official theory is markedly different from one broadly accepted by her peers, who have said she was killed in retaliation for her work or to prevent additional articles from being published.

Among those arrested, the prosecutor said, were a police major and three former police officers, who were working with a criminal gang led by a Chechen. Also arrested, he said, was a former officer in the F.S.B., the principal successor to the K.G.B.

Mr. Chaika added that the killing had been ordered from abroad, although he refused to identify the man suspected of being the mastermind or disclose his whereabouts, and provided no evidence to support the claim. The prosecutor would not release the names of any of the suspects.

His description of the motive aligned neatly with Mr. Putin's first public statements about the killing last year and with a pattern of government contentions that foreigners were trying to undermine Russia and the Kremlin, and to tarnish their reputations."

- NYT

It was standard Soviet practice to blame any problems that occur within its borders on foreign influences in the past. The press brief went on to state the murders were designed to destabilize the political situation in Russia and blame the Kremlin for it. This is totally ridiculous considering that the only people to benefit from her death was the Kremlin and specifically Putin himself.

Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-FSB Lt.Col and dissident accused Vladimir Putin of personally ordering the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. He himself was poisoned on November 1st of 2006, via lethal dose of polonium-210. As of 26 January 2007, British officials said police had solved the murder of Litvinenko. They discovered "a 'hot' teapot at London's Millennium Hotel with an off-the-charts reading for polonium-210, the radioactive material used in the killing." In addition, a senior official said investigators had concluded the murder of Litvinenko was "a 'state-sponsored' assassination orchestrated by Russian security services.

"The Kremlin press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.

The Kremlin press pool is like so many institutions in Russia that have the trappings of a Western-style pluralistic society but operate under a different set of understandings, part of what analyst Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center calls "the illusion of democracy." Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin. Elections are held, but candidates out of favor with the Kremlin are often knocked off the ballot. Courts conduct trials, but the state almost never loses. Parliament meets but only to rubber-stamp Kremlin legislation.

Putin offered an example of that at the news conference when defending his decision last fall to abolish elections of regional governors. "The leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president," he said. They will be approved by "regional parliaments, which are directly chosen by secret ballot." Putin compared this to the Electoral College, which selects U.S. presidents. "It is not considered undemocratic, is it?"

In fact, under the new system, Putin will appoint governors. His selections have to be ratified by regional legislatures, but if such a legislature rejects his choice twice, it will be dissolved. As for secret ballots, Russian regional leaders have proved adept at generating the outcomes they wish.

Anna Politkovskaya was just one of the dozens of reporters to meet their end during the reign of Putin, yet the press which is 80% state controlled dare not question the official line from Kremlin. She was murdered on October 7th 2006, which also happened to be Putin's birthday.

"Russia is yet another country where a free press is upheld in the language of the constitution, but the reality is one of state control of expression, concentration of media in the hands of the very few and very rich, and violence against journalists who report on crime and corruption.

Vladimir Putin's tenure has been marked by firm and incremental moves by the state against press freedom and independence. In some cases, the Putin government's strategies are relatively direct, such as strict controls on reporting in Chechnya. Other approaches -- such as the targeting of journalists with politically-motivated libel suits, or hostile takeovers of key media outlets by businessmen with close ties to Putin himself -- are more subtle, yet consistent and effective strategies for ensuring that the state influence permeates the media at all levels.

The strategy has resulted in the takeover of a prominent and outspoken, independent, national television station and the consolidation of newspaper and magazine ownership under a handful of powerful oligarchs. While an independent press does exist in Russia, the overall effect has been to stifle criticism of Putin and his regime on key issues like government corruption and abuses in Chechnya. Media support for the Putin government was particularly evident in the parliamentary elections in spring of 2004, during which Russian press groups complained of state-dominated television's promotion of the pro-Kremlin parties.

The right to free expression is more flagrantly violated at the local level, where journalists who report on corrupt politicians and organized crime are routinely harassed, attacked, and sometimes murdered, with generally only a perfunctory and thoroughly flawed prosecution to follow. A noteworthy case is the murder of the editor-in-chief of an independent newspaper in Togliatti, an industrial city in the Volga River region, in October of 2003. It was the second murder of the editor of the very same publication in less than two years. The following investigation has been denounced as a sham."

- Source http://www.pbs.org/

I watched the main prosecutors briefing on PTP Planet in Russian that morning. The rhetoric, method of presentation, hostile opposition to any questions by the press left no doubt in my mind that it was simply a political ploy to ease criticism of the Putin government with regards to the murders. Suddenly after years of inaction not one, but several murders are explained away neatly, however neither actual motives, names of other suspects nor any concrete evidence backing up the claims were presented.

For more on Russian subversion of democracy I recommend you check out my sift - http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Rise-of-Pro-Putin-Youth

Empire I think your views are immature and unrealistic.

Why do you think standing armies exist right now? It's so that other countries don't trample all over them. You think armed forces can disappear overnight and we'll all suddenly hold hands? Thats such a silly assumption why don't you go tell the Chechen people who are fighting a military occupation that they should go hug the Russian armed forces. So them rising up to fight armed incursion and giving rise to an army in your view is stupid?

Am sorry that in your simplistic mind you believe that the Allied Forces compromised only of Americans. Not the British, Canadian, Polish, French, Australian, Dutch, New Zealand, and many other commonwealth nations. And comparing racism in the US forces to the Nazi "final" solution for the Jews, homosexuals and communists? That's just stupid. Look at the Switzerland, a nation of peace. That maintains a standing army and military duty is a requirement.

The utopian world you speak of? There are too many problems to be solved before we can all collectively hold hands.

Guys, this is not about a war on terror. This war was raging long before there were any such war on terror. In the 1830s the Autonomous Soviet Republic of Chechnya began seeking independence. You have to understand that Russia is Huge compared to a place the size of Chechnya. Ill equate it size to Russia is to Chechnya as Texas is to Rhode Island. I wrote a paper on Russian historical time line, and i found many disturbing things. Chechens actually won independence for a while in which the name of the capital changed to Djohar. I have a power point presentation on a bit of this. I could branch off into this subject, but my teacher insisted i did not.

You must understand the region, Northern Caucus Mountains, there is oil there but that doesnt matter. The truth of the matter is Chechnya wants independence, and Russia does not want to give it. Whether or not there is oil, gold, nothing there Russia does not what to give independence. These guys have been at it for so long they probably do not no the truth of why they are fighting, but they do no that the enemy they face now are the same ones that our United States Military is fighting in Iraq now. I saw a recent documentary, i believe on the sift, that showed majority of the Zealots they are fighting over there are tried and true Chechen warriors.

So we went from a soviet war, to a Russian federation war, to a joint war on terrorism. Either way there is nothing that we the Americans can do, because those poor civilians think that the Round Eyed, big nose English speaking American will come and help them, and yes some of us will. But no national movement can be done because we wage our own stupid war that mirrors the Chechen war, only ours is in Iraq. We could come help them yes, but as soon as we do the Zealots will begin to kill us the same way they are in Iraq.


The only way for any thing to happen is to for the masses to stand!- choggie.

Cheers on your response, your arguement certainly makes sense. However I believe that the US can ill afford another combat operation failure on the scale of Iraq, even a shift to plan B, not because of the implications in political shift but towards the American image over the last 60 years on the world stage. This would just deepen the US position in Iraq to one of long term occupation, already the military has plans for 11 or so permanent bases across the country with the Baghdad green zone being the heaviest developed.

It's interesting that you mentioned Battle of Algiers, yes the fact is the the French forces managed to stop the terrorist activities, however you fail to mention that through out that same time a political shift was taking place that ultimately countered the military successes achieved. This is the same thing that is happening right now at Congress, House and Senate.

The fact is yes, force deployment will end this situation because US forces are the best trained, the best equipped and are actively seeking new ways of countering the insurgency. But this is only the response now, there was no solid plan post capture of Baghdad because the administration in same ways probably hoped for a stand off with a limited Iraqi army not expecting the force collapse that occurred, a replay of Gulf War 1. There was no plan, well there was one but it got thrown out by the politicians.

However this would come at a severe political cost, the entire shift will change, the political process will paralyzed to use the same force responses if another event on 9/11 occurs because you will have those who will recall Iraq and Vietnam in the same breath, we cannot afford such a position with the American people who might not understand the wider implication of keeping a stabilized American presence in the Gulf.

I do not believe in pursuing a war that was put in motion by people who do not understand the local play out of the area. Bush Senior knew the country was too unstable to go into outright, his failure was not keeping up US force support in the same way that the Taliban goverment was toppled by support of the Northern Alliance.

In the mind set of the Arab people they draw parallels between this war and the Russian Chechen occupation that follows the exactly the same steps. There is a continuous force deployment by Russia, still peace and stability eludes them... they also occupy Chechnya because of it's importance to the oil supply.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dispatches-The-Dirty-War-in-Chechnya

Video about Chechen - Russian war

With the impending collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, an independence movement, initially known as the Chechen National Congress was formed. This movement was ultimately opposed by Boris Yeltsin's Russian Federation, which argued:

(1) Chechnya had not been an independent entity within the Soviet Union – as the Baltic, Central Asian, and other Caucasian States had – but was a part of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic and hence did not have a right under the Soviet constitution to secede;

(2) Other ethnic groups inside Russia, such as the Tatars, would join the Chechens and secede from the Russian Federation if they were granted that right; and

(3) Chechnya was at a major chokepoint in the oil-infrastructure of the country and hence would hurt the country's economy and control of oil resources.

In the ensuing decade, the territory has been locked in an ongoing struggle between various factions, usually fighting unconventionally and the forgoing position as held by the several successive Russian governments through the current administration. Various demographic factors including religious factors with charges and actions characteristic of Islamic terrorism have continued to keep the area in a near constant state of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#Russia.27s_recent_role_in_Chechnya

"Serious miss allocation of military resources."-Saving Private Ryan Us military occupation force, i think not our military is trained to kill, let the UN occupy land. Wait!! We went to war with out the UN's consent feeding them false information about Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is why Colin Powell quit his post, if you still believe we need to be there then we should at least give the troops the proper equipment. Still riding in half ass vehicles (Marine First Recon rode in the vehicles with no doors, and plywood for armor, the same shit that the rangers had to deal with in Somalia) Ive heard horror stories about army occupation forces not getting their proper flak vests, most are buying theirs from soldier of fortune magazine advertisements.

On another note, any one here know about that 80% of the forces over there in Iraq are private military operators (Mercenaries) they are mostly called "Shadow." They are hired by our government, and most of them are so well equipped that our uniformed troops sometimes mistake them for the enemy.

The majority of the opposition that our occupying force is fighting are Chechen Muslim Zealots, and they are much better trained than the average middle eastern Zealot. They fought the soviets, and the Union of Russia since the 1800, the capital of Chechnya has changed its name at three times.

In short should have never been there, although Saddam is gone thats great, but get them out. Bring em home, next time just send an assassin because i don't see a difference here.

I hope that the next president has enough testicular fortitude to do stand up to "them" our government doesn't seem to be running its checks and balances very well. I cant see how many Americans would love to send their children, husbands, brothers, sisters, and best friends off to a desert to fight some one else's war. I hope that congress has enough gall to act before we get into a sh*t storm, this is way to late.

Let's admit that both conflicts suffer from a distinct lack of understanding of the situation on the ground. Being South East Asia and Iraq. Bush Snr. knew this back in 1991, and halted at the border of Kuwait. Overthrowing Saddam then would have been easier but would still lead to the Sunni, Shiite and Kurd problems we see today in Iraq.

Actively sending more troops into the region would only make the arab population think that this is a larger scale invasion force. It doesn't help that mentions of going after Syria and Iran were at least alluded to by the administration to the press. This would only make Sunni, Shiite, terrorist resistance join together against the foreign invader that is the US. Iran could step in and again we have a worse situation then before.

Furthermore blanket force increases would not translate to a increased security baseline as you mention, this is a different war then the US army has been training for. It would only become even more entrenched and we'd have the equivalent of what the Russians faces against the Chechen rebels. The larger force presence would just mean the population would feel even more like its American imperialism. The Vietnam war could have been won by the US by further drafts and increases in forces, but it would have cost America alot of credibility internationally as a gung-ho state.

I think the disadvantages of sending more troops are just as bad as the disadvantages of pulling out. There needs to be a radical change in the way the administration deals with it, concessions will have to be made internationally. If it becomes a humanitarian crisis then it's easier to drag the rest of the UN in, with the US. Disruption of oil markets? I don't think so considering the supply has been stable since the war has began, the price movements being only speculative on possible supply shortages.

It's clear that going at it alone would only make the US suffer more.

And Empire, wake up to the real world from your Disney world reality. We can all make normative statements that this good and that is bad but clearly that is not what drives real world events, ++ for Scotishmartialart's comment.