UPDATE TWO: Professor Reynolds has updated and clarified the post discussed below. Please keep Reynolds's update in mind as you read the following, which was drafted before the update. (My personal view of Reynolds's update is, "well done.") Yglesias has also updated; please read it as well. [Ad hominem attack by yours truly on a unrelated blogger deleted; my apologies for the lapse, but let it be known that certain (really, very few) members of the right-wing blogosphere are not doing themselves much credit.]
A short note on "what to do about Chechnya" (see the outstanding coverage by Stan of Logic & Sanity, noted below): Glenn Reynolds misrepresents the substance and intent of Matt Yglesias's post on the situation in Chechnya. Reynolds has the better side of this debate (and I hope to post a bit more on the subject over the weekend), but he can't win it by misrepresenting his opponent's position. To the extent that Yglesias was at all unclear (though I understood him, his initial post was not a model of clarity), the second comment in the thread resolves the ambiguity.
Typically I'd let this kind of thing pass, but Reynolds is a law professor and really should know better. Indeed, given the heat thrown off by this election, it's up to the people do who know better to try to cast light on the differences between the parties, rather than merely shoving another log onto the bonfire of the partisans. Our enemies in the current war, after all, are not our political opponents -- and there is benefit in open, free, and honest debate.
If it's an honest error, an update to that effect seems appropriate.
UPDATE: From this post, Yglesias seems to suggest that he doesn't believe that he's in a debate. If that's his belief, then he's wrong -- and, since I don't want to be told to do the anatomically impossible (as Yglesias has instructed Reynolds), I'll explain why. The notion that the "underlying problem" can be solved by Russian concessions is based on a fundamentally incorrect premise. The "underlying problem" is that of terrorism directed at civilians, and it can only be solved by making terrorism an unacceptable method of political action. No "concessions" on this point are possible.
The dispute between Russian and Chechnan separatists, of course, will only be resolved by concessions on both sides. A fine distinction? Not at all. The eager (even happy) killing of civilians should not be conflated with raising grievances with the state, civil disobedience, or armed rebellion. The method does indeed matter. And, yes, Yglesias's point that it's difficult to know what position the U.S. should adopt regarding Russia's dispute with Chechnya is well-taken.