Originally published in June 2006
Is the killing of Zarqaui important? There are a few views to consider about this. The way we might best look at it is to consider what people thought before he was killed and look at his track record as he was still alive. One thing that is fairly apparent is that common opinion about him before his death was that he was both an incredibly lethal man and an obvious example of how pointless the war on terror is.
CNN for example ran a special several months ago concerning the leadership of global terror. The focus was of course centered around the Alqueada network and the three most visible leaders, Bin Laden, Zawaheri, and Zarqaui. Produced in the aftermath of the bombings of a wedding party in Jordan, the main editorial focus was easily understood. In part the editorial represented that leadership of Alquaeda was a fiction created by western governments. The next point was that almost every Muslim repudiated any of the acts made by Alquaeda. And the final point was that concentrating on the “leadership” of Alquaeda was pointless given that there are no leaders and the likelihood of successfully capturing or eliminating such a leader requires incredible resources.
You could read many other examples from New York Times reports, or even simply looking at Associated Press digest reports. As represented to the American public, since 9-11, Alquaeda is essentially unstoppable. This has not been the only view, but it has been the overwhelming viewpoint of media outlets. The interesting thing is that although the media has framed the problem of global terrorism in insolvable terms, it has at the same time breathlessly reported each act taken by Alquaeda leadership as example against the effectiveness of the United States policy. In Zarqaui’s case he was called the main source of foreign born insurgents in Iraq and the chief agitator of sectarian conflict.
The United States’ effort was shown by the media as an example of how impossible its task in Iraq was and also how intractable the need to solve the insurgent attacks was. In terms of fairness, it was anything but fair to the American forces in Iraq who were tasked with eliminating insurgents and produce results that eliminate or capture the various leaders of the insurgency. Chastised by the media, regardless of results, American forces found themselves again in a situation it had faced before when dealing with the American media.
In terms of mobility, the majority of American media reporting in Iraq has been done from the rooftops of hotels in Baghdad. Judging from the reports, a person would have to conclude that all of Iraq was one big roadside IED. What has been getting coverage is whatever bombing has occurred in Baghdad that day. A common thread running throughout these reports is how impossible it is to eradicate the violence or somehow prevent the insurgent groups from attacking in Baghdad. While the majority of Iraq is now peaceful, the events in the Sunni Triangle, and Baghdad specifically, have been the media’s bread and butter. The American media in particular has become so lazy or so afraid to venture out of their media compounds that they will air insurgent supplied video tape of IED attacks. As referred to today in statements by the American general in Iraq, the insurgents have had command of the media’s attention. In spite of this media focus, the American and Iraqi governments have been quietly dismantling and destroying the insurgent groups over the last year.
So when watching today’s coverage about the successful attack on Zarqaui, and the associated successful strikes on seven other sites, I was wondering how the event would be reported. On MSNBC’s Abrahms Report, their lead Baghdad reporter was shown standing with authority on his hotel roof. And he made the startling report that the independent reports of Iraqis celebrating was entirely false. Furthermore he stated that video tape showing celebrating Iraqi’s was staged. On CNN, the coverage of the news conference this morning was even delayed. It was probably competitive forces with Fox News, BBC, and MSNBC carrying it that eventually caused them to broadcast the feed. On CNN the pundits put forth all seemed to state that Zarqaui’s death was not important and would have no effect on the violence. As CNN continued into this evening, it has now stated that Zarqauis group has become progressively more Iraqi in nature over the last year after the foreign insurgent leadership has been captured or killed. Which begs the question, if Zarqaui’s group leadership has been decimated over the last year, how can the media portrayal of pointlessness when targeting leadership be true?
The final nail in my estimation of the media’s coverage of this event has been the wall to wall coverage of Mr. Berg and his comments on how sorry he was that Zarqaui is dead. Let us hope the the Green Party’s first congressional representative is not Mr. Berg. Mr. Murtha’s comments are disappointing as well. Referring to Iraq as a sidetrack we shouldn’t be travelling down, or the issue that global terrorist groups represent only a small part of the insurgency in Iraq. In summation, the primary news sources of most Americans has represented Zarqaui’s death as a spectacularly violent non-event, having downplayed the importance of Zarqaui to such an extent that you have to wonder why he was worth so much coverage when he was alive?
Zarqaui was in Iraq before the invasion. Tolerated by Saddam, he practiced the very type of terrorism which is the current focus of world wide governmental efforts. As a chief lieutenant in the Saddam Feddayeen brigades, he was an active participant in actions against the coalition forces as they invaded. Once Saddam’s government fell, Zarqaui quickly became one of the main protagonists leading the foreign insurgents in Iraq. Directly responsible for numerous attacks, he also did his best to foment sectarian violence. Directly responsible for killings of high profile western hostages, he funded, organized, and ordered coordinated attacks of spectacular size. The destruction for example of the Golden Mosque and the bombings in Jordan of a wedding killed scores.
That he caused directly the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and coalition forces should offer some idea of just how responsible he was for the state of affairs in Iraq. With a death toll of an average of 1000 people a month over the last year due almost exclusively to foreign insurgents, clearly Zarqawi, the acknowledged and factual leader of the insurgency, must have been having some direct impact. The issue of his importance therefore cannot be dismissed. As the Iraqi ambassador to the United States said, his death “ is important on all fronts... and shows that Iraq will eventually remove these thugs from Iraq.” Clearly he was doing something to command such a statement after his death.
I think a fair statement about Zarqawi is that he was one of the leading factors of the current state of affairs in Iraq. While he cannot be the sole source of violence in Iraq, his removal and that of his subordinates today, brings to an end a large source of the attacks against Iraqis over the last two years. His death will not shut down all the violence. There are still foreign insurgents. There are also Batthist Party holdouts who will still use violence. But at the very least his death can be judged as a success on two points.
First, his death is clear evidence that the American policy of attacking the leadership of Alquaeda and other global groups does yield results. The ability of such groups to avoid attack is simply a matter of luck. Eventually all factors align and allow the American government and its agents to either apprehend or kill such leaders. The second success is that the Iraqi government can offer a tangible example of success. Zarqawi was possibly more hated by Iraqis than any other known insurgent. By killing him, the Iraqi government has shown that the sources of Iraqi violence will be brought to judgement. Either by a trial as is the case with Saddam, or a 500 lb bomb as was the case for Zarqawi.
The American media will probably continue its diminution of Zarqaui and his role in the Iraqi insurgency. But at the very least, his elimination has effectively destroyed one of global terrorism's main icons. The fact that his death was as sudden and pathetic as it was will underline just how pointless membership in a terror group is. A terrorist might achieve a temporary infamy, but in the end his ability to act is limited. The fact that American forces have the ability to unilaterally eradicate a terrorist cell without warning will speak against the idea that terrorism is a legitimate political tool.
Will Zarqawi’s death been championed as a martyrdom? i have no doubt it will. For example there are already reports on the BBC and CNN that Palestinian members of Hammas and the PLO are celebrating the life of Zarqawi in street demonstrations and condemning the acts of Israel and America. But the very fact that the Islamic world has to cheer an obvious defeat should offer up a tangible evidence that for the most part, the radical Islamic world has nothing but dead or captured “martyrs to celebrate. That Osama bin Laden is lost somewhere in shepherd caves in Afghanistan with mullah Omar and they are two of a handful of leaders of Alquaeda not already dead or captured drives home the point that the American strategy of methodically destroying Alqueade is being accomplished. That replacement cells and leaders appear is a given. But the nature of these replacements is such that each iteration is less capable and less effective. Lacking centralized control and the benefits that come from such organization, the effectiveness of terror groups becomes demonstrably less effective.
At some point the Muslim world will have to acknowledge the fact that all terrorism produces is martyrs for an ineffective cause. As radical leaders are eliminated, the rank and file membership, or potential membership of terror groups will have to begin to question their now non-existent leadership. The followers of Alquaeda in general and Zarqawi's followers specifically are having to make that judgement now. Do they want to die for a cause that cannot prevent the continual elimination of both its secular and religious leaders? When faced with the very same question, other peoples throughout time have almost universally decided that such a cause is not supportable. The only exception to that rule would be the Christians during the Roman persecution. I have little doubt that the Muslims do not have the capacity for a similar persecution. Zarqawi has already been replaced. But his replacement has less to draw on.
Leia Mais…
Posts
