Zarqawi Dead
A few points on the apparent death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:
- One, obviously, the world is a better place with him dead than alive.
- Two, this is unlikely to make a serious difference -- remember when everyone embarrassed themselves celebrating Saddam Hussein's capture and our consequent imminent victory back in December 2003?
- Three, as Jason Zengerle suggests the whole Zarqawi phenomenon is largely fake; the product of a bizarre collaboration between a Bush administration eager to identify an enemy in Iraq and a terrorist eager to overstate his own importance.
- Four, as with all positive developments from Iraq, the smart play is to use the good vibes emanating from this as cover to seriously reorient our policy; the dumb play is to see it as a reason to stay the course.
Advertisement
Cross-posted:
Steve Benen reminds us that Bush could have taken out Zarqawi four years ago. Why didn't he? To keep alive the disinformation that Saddam was sheltering al-Qaeda in Iraq?
June 8, 2006 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A simple good riddance would have sufficed.
June 8, 2006 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I find yours a pretty balanced assessment, and your point 4 indeed should be emphasized. It bothers me a bit to see the immediate reaction, in several blogs, to be an opportunity to bash Bush.
Bush gives so many opportunities to be bashed that it's wise not to dismiss any tactical situation as simple propaganda for his points -- isn't that what he tends to do and loses credibility for it?
Historically, the killing of a charismatic leader can cause temporary disruption, and either a macho surge or a regretful waning of attacks. In general, the more organized the group of the killed leader, the less the effect. Japanese naval operations in WWII did not stop when Admiral Yamamoto was shot down. There was reshuffling in the Northern ALliance, but the pursuit of the Taliban did not stop, when Massoud was killed.
So, I would say treat this cautiously as an opportunity, and use it as an opportunity to encourage policy reassessment -- not with an Administration unlikely to be thoughtful, but in Congress and in public opinion.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 8, 2006 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad you agree on point one. You aren't one of those "good for Bush equals bad for humanity" kind of commentators.
What serious reorientation of our policy do you propose? Stand up an Iraqi government? Did that. Create an Iraqi constitution? Did that. Create an Iraqi security force? Working. Maybe if we could change the Iraqis into compliant Germans or Japanese we could get something done in a timely manner.
June 8, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if the Iraqi government weren't powerless and incompetent, the Iraqi constitution were fair, and if the Iraqi security force weren't ethnically-based militias eager to turn against their countrymen and us, you'd have a point.
It's sad--at first, we used the Iraqis as a retroactive excuse to invade. Now, they'll probably end up being used as an excuse for why we lost the war. Though they do have some culpability, let us not forget that the administration is responsible for this current disaster, as they forced the "plan" into action in the first place.
June 8, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Historically, the killing of a charismatic leader can cause temporary disruption, and either a macho surge or a regretful waning of attacks. In general, the more organized the group of the killed leader, the less the effect.
But is Zarqawi rally the charismatic leader of the insurgency? He may have led Al Qaeda in Iraq, but I am far from convinced that Al Qaeda was the major force involved in fighting the coalition. If we are to compare this war to World War II, this is far more like taking out Benito Mussolini than taking out Hitler.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
June 10, 2006 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not suggesting that Zarqawi was "the" leader of the insurgency. There is no single leader. Time will tell, in fact, whether killing him was positive or negative for the insurgency -- some analysts suggest he had become counterproductive, while others do find him important.
Analogies to other wars in other cultures, of course, never will be perfect. To take your example of Mussolini, there's credible testimony, from multiple sources in Hitler's final bunker, that Hitler was obsessed with the display of the bodies of Mussolini and Petacci. Supposedly, he began much more elaborate plans for suicide and disposition of his body once he had heard.
I'm not suggesting other insurgent leaders will have Hitler's reaction. I agree that al-Qaeda is not the major force in Iraq. Still, I'm also not saying Zarqawi's death will have no effect. If, at some leader, it influences a few militia leaders into exploring coalition, it's a benefit.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 10, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink