What effect it will have remains to be seen, but Abu Musab al-Zarqawi richly deserved his fate. As well as being responsible for many gruesome acts of terrorism and murder, he was one of the leaders in stirring up civil war in Iraq. Of course, it would have been better if he’d been dealt with in early 2003, when the Pentagon had him in its sights.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
As has been pointed out by some, there is much overemphasis placed on one person as a leader, in this case, Zarqawi; head of ‘al-Qaeda in Iraq’, leader of the insurgency etc.
It must be some kind of psychological need, to be able to identity a single ‘bad guy’ as the root of much evil.
Will this be the cause for yet another proclaimation of ‘turning points’ in Iraq.? I haven’t heard anyone say this yet, but maybe they finally decided that this particular phrase has died of over-use.
Anyway, It’s likely that the ‘Zarqawi effect’ was much over-rated. He apparantly fell out with the main Sunni insurgent groups some months ago and there has been fighting between them since.
Might explain the sudden accurate intelligence that led to his demise.
Zarqawi is certainly no loss.
I note however that children numbered among the collaterally damaged. I also doubt whether going down the Israeli route of assassination in preference to capture and trial is a strategy that will have net long term benefits for humanity or civilisation.
It is also extremely doubtful whether Zarqawi’s removal will mitigate the occupation-fueled civil war in Iraq one jot. His grotesque brand of internet snuff porn was significant mainly as a turn-off for prospective insurgency recruits.
I predict the main long term effect will be to exercise the minds of the Pentagon spinmeisters to find a new figurehead to demonise.
In the dim light that the more incorrigible Bush apologists imagine to be coming from the end of the Iraq tunnel, the death of Zarqawi may look a bit like a figleaf to cover a withdrawal timed to the US electoral cycle.
Otherwise a big yawn.
I guess it is probably too much to hope that this will shut-up the moral relativists on the left:
ROBERT FISK: No, that’s absolutely correct and they want to create themselves and we help them create themselves. We help them do that. We help them do that. Every time we hold a press conference of the occupation powers, for example, in Iraq and say, “Mr Al-Zarqawi is to blame” , we help to do this. This is what we are doing and this is a big problem because we are helping to are all thosecreate the creatures of “evil”.
Well, he’s “uncreated” now. Unfortunately, so too is everyone he beheaded. I wonder if Mr Fisk ever attempted to explain his “imaginary Zarqawi” theory to their families.
Poor Zarqawi, he was just a victim of us evil westeners.
The latest on cnn.com says he was “betrayed from inside the al Quaeda in Iraq group he lead”. and Bush says it will help to “turn the tide” in the fight against insurgency.
As someone born in New York City and with relatives in the police and fire departments there, 9/11 certainly made me want to see al Quaeda blood run freely. And for the record, I am all for ridding the world of evil people. Having said that, learniing since 9/11 about the conditions that exist in a number of countries to create a seemingly endless supply of suicide bombers makes me think that killing the leaders will not in itself solve the problems. Seems to me that so long as there are people in desperate situations, there will always be extremist groups of one type or another to seduce them.
Dogz,
Without the COW in Iraq, there would have been no Zarqawi leading ‘al-Qaeda in Iraq’.
Fisk was correctly referring to the habit of threat-inflation and the especially nasty habit of personification of complex issues. Much better to talk about the evil-Zarqawi at press-breifings, than about the failure of reconstruction, lack of security and absent WMD.
Zarqawi probably didn’t kill the innocent at Haditha, or drop bombs on that wedding party in northern Iraq, or shoot the 20 yr old pregant women at a checkpoint just a few days ago. All those things were managed quite nicely without him. He probably didn’t shoot JFK either.
And now that he is no more, such things will continue to happen. But a replacement to play the role of ‘terrorist leader’, will be handy.
There’s a detailed 2004 backgrounder on al-Zarqawi here:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/16/1097784103533.html
An interesting excerpt:
“Yousef Rababa, the teacher who did time with Zarqawi in Swaqa Prison, argues that bin Laden is less of an extremist than Zarqawi:
. . . ‘Bin Laden sees Americans and Jews as the enemy, along with the foreigners who are in the Arab homelands. But in prison, Zarqawi told me that anyone we think is not a believer is the enemy – and that can be Arabs, too, especially Shiites.'”
Good riddance to him, I agree. But how an Xer street thug came to be seen (and function) as a leader does raise questions that go well beyond Mid-East politics. We live in an age of Ruler Thugs, a condition for which very few antidotes are being offered. Oddly, and controversially, “mainstream� terrorism (which I would define as that perpetrated by educated Xers) would seem to be anti-Thug.
I think this is true up to a point. For instance a lot of people seem to think that if only George.W.Bush was no longer the current US president then the USA would be a different creature. Well no doubt it would be different but not by a whole lot.
“Zarqawi probably didn’t kill the innocent at Haditha, or drop bombs on that wedding party in northern Iraq, or shoot the 20 yr old pregant women at a checkpoint just a few days ago. All those things were managed quite nicely without him. He probably didn’t shoot JFK either.”
Like I said, I guess it is probably too much to hope that this will shut-up the moral relativists on the left.
Dogz,
You fail to see the point. If crying “moral relativists” makes you feel better, I’m happy for you.
Terje correctly identifies the counter-situation. Blowing up Paul Bremer of Gerge W. would do as much to solve the problems in Iraq as does killing Zarqawi. This is way more complex and chaotic than a single person.
Trying to tie many significant issues into a single point – Zarqawi, or Bush or whoever, is more about rhetorical convenience than clear thinking and accurate analysis.
“Trying to tie many significant issues into a single point – Zarqawi, or Bush or whoever, is more about rhetorical convenience than clear thinking and accurate analysis.”
And equating Zarqawi with Bush or whoever is moral-relativism of the worst kind so beloved by the left. I am no Bush-lover, but he does not set out to murder innocent civilians. I hate to break it to you: intent matters.
Paul, can we at least agree that generational categories like Boomer and X-er are only relevant in countries whose demographic experience resembles that of Australia and the US. As far as much of the developing world is concerned, the baby boom took place in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
“I am no Bush-lover”
You’ll have to try a lot harder if you’re going to convince anyone of this one…
“but he does not set out to murder innocent civilians. I hate to break it to you: intent matters.”
The moral distinction you wish to draw between actions that have entirely predictable results – killing innocents – is surely fatuous. If I loose off 100 rounds from a machine gun in Queen St mall at lunchtime in order to prevent a bagsnatcher fleeing, I’m as criminally responsible as Martin Bryant when, inevitably, innocents are killed and maimed. Dropping bombs and razing whole neighbourhoods is repugnant whether it’s carried out by a suicide bomber or a jet pilot. Do you think it’s ok to apprehend criminals with 500 kg bombs dropped from aircraft on urban neighbourhoods? If not, then I suggest you examine your own moral relativism.
Hal9000, is your real name David Hicks? Why don’t you head over to Iraq and fight on the side of your beloved terrorists?
There is a fundamental moral distinction between trying to minimize civilian casualties and trying to maximize them. Although in your case I would happily make an exception.
The problem with targeting leaders of al Quaeda is the assumption that it follows the heirachical command structure of the US Army where taking out key leaders can cause distruptions.
The only problem is that all the evidence from the few people that know anything about the organisation is that it is nothing like this at all. It is in fact a loose collection of cells that feeds off local suffering an oppression. Taking out terrorist leaders like this is putting us in the position of judge, jury, and executioner. Zarqawi was tried, convicted, and executed by an F16 rather than a jury of his peers which is sort of standard in the Western World. The trouble is that we are honouring the thousands of people that have died from terrorists over the years by becoming like them and abandoning the rule of law that we hold so dear. Why was Martin Bryant not just killed at the scene by the police? He was obviously guilty. The answer is that in Australia we have rule of law. We suspend this to our peril and the ultimate loser in the war on terror may be us.
I support bringing terrorists to justice. Justice to me however is not firing a missile from 10 000 feet. Justice is done in courtroom (sometimes) not at the end of gun.
Collateral damage is a US military euphemism made popular during the Viet Nam war and which has now become an accepted part of military language. The definition hangs on intent; if the US intends to kill you, then you are a target. If you happen to live in the neighbourhood of a target and get blown up as well. you’re collateral damage. I suppose the US would say it is really the targets fault that the collaterals are damaged since the target chose to hide in a populated area rather than a conveniently deserted hilltop.
Good riddance to evil.
Unfortunately the US made him a much larger figure and leader than he actually was.
“And equating Zarqawi with Bush or whoever is moral-relativism of the worst kind so beloved by the left. I am no Bush-lover, but he does not set out to murder innocent civilians. I hate to break it to you: intent matters”
Dogz, I think “moral equivelance” has superseded “moral-relativism” as the favoured general term of meaningless abuse.
And thanks to Hal9000 for dealing with that old and threadbare excuse of ‘intent’.
There is some difference between acts that deliberately target innocent civilians and those that knowingly, if unitentionally, will kill civilians. But actions that repeatedly kill civilians knowingly, but ‘unintentionally’, make that difference purely academic.
What Fisk was referring to was the effort to make Zarqawi the issue. He wasn’t. Zarqawi didn’t create the situation in Iraq, he took advantage of it. Obscene enough, no one would disagree. But what of those who are responsible for creating the overall situation when they were warned that this was likely to be the precise outcome?
“Moral relativism” Dogz? No, it’s far worse.
This guy has been killed so often I’m reluctant to believe he’s dead now. Typical US approach though, an air strike. Tried, convicted and sentenced in one fell swoop. Typical american justice. This guy’s death will obviously stop him killing anyone else but the insurgency won’t be otherwise reduced.
Take note of the interview with Nick Berg’s father Michael on the subject. See Crooks and Liars. This is how grown ups talk!!
“I suppose the US would say it is really the targets fault…”
There is a difficulty in accepting too uncritically the word of the killer as an accurate description of what they are trying to do.
If Osama din Laden had said that he took down the WTC because it was an important communications hub, would we be compelled to believe him?
Then there is the thorny question of relative levels of credibility. OBL has been remarkably frank during his public career. Can the same be said of Bush?
Just because you like the goals of a public figure doesn’t compel you to accept that she is firmly committed to not deliberately lying.
And that brings us again to the moral quicksand entailed in the concept of the “noble lie”.
Only excellent liars should indulge in the “noble lie”. Getting caught lying is a bad look.
I agree with you and was trying to say that the euphemism hides a darker intent. I have no doubt the “acceptable collateral damage” from taking out a target in Iraq is much higher than the acceptable collateral damage from taking out a target in the US. Therefore it is OK to bomb a target in Iraq but not in Idaho.
chris shannon – the ‘intent’ argument got a real kick along from Israel, in an attempt to justify why its 3:1 ratio of innocent Palestinians killed in allegedly carefully targeted raids to innocent Israelis killed by indiscriminate Palestinian bombers is perfectly ok.
Dogz, meanwhile, has surely reached a new low with his implicit death threat in retalliation for my expressing an idea or two. Along with moral relativism, Dogz might care to examine her attachment to democratic values, although her capacity for self-reflection is dubious.
John
your Frank Packer impersonation has slightly missed the mark. When Stalin died, the Packer-ordered headline in the Daily Telegraph was “Stalin Dead Hooray”.
Your ‘is’, is surplus to requirements.
On the substantive point of the post and the disussion, whether Zarqawi’s death brings iraq closer to peace is not the main point. He was a bad man who deserved his fate.
The sanctimonious drivel here is beyond belief.
“Do you think it’s ok to apprehend criminals with 500 kg bombs dropped from aircraft on urban neighbourhoods? If not, then I suggest you examine your own moral relativism”.
“I support bringing terrorists to justice. Justice to me however is not firing a missile from 10 000 feet. Justice is done in courtroom (sometimes) not at the end of gun”.
And on.
Just one of you clowns suggest a way of getting this bastard into court.
A policeman? A warrant? A nasty letter over his overdue library books?
The man was a maniacal killer whose guilt was beyond doubt.
PS. You really do draw a long bow by comparing a “bagsnatcher
in Queen St” to a savage who saws off heads while filming it.
There is only one end for rapid dogs.They get put down.
Spiros, your version sounds more Telegraphese. Surprising as it may seem to some, I wasn’t there to read it, so my version is both second-hand and from memory. Can you point to a link on this ?
JQ – excellent title and comment.
John, nothing authoritative. Try googling “Stalin dead hooray” and see what comes up.
JQ – “What effect it will have remains to be seen, but Abu Musab al-Zarqawi richly deserved his fate. As well as being responsible for many gruesome acts of terrorism and murder, he was one of the leaders in stirring up civil war in Iraq.”
Further to my post – Says Who???? How do you know this to be true??
“Says Who???? How do you know this to be true??”
Says Zarqawi. Here’s just one example, and there are many more statements he’s released calling for attacks on Shiites and so on. Of course, he could be claiming “credit” for the crimes of others, and there may be cases where his name has been used as cover, but he had ample opportunities (including personal appearances on video) to disclaim these crimes if he chose.
maybe you guys leave your best brain cells for constructive research and thinking on genuinely useful topics like climate change etc,
cos you really have missed the material evidence on zarqawi
zarqawi as described by chris floyd on counterpunch.com
Zarqawi, the notorious shape-shifter who, according to grainy video evidence, was able to regenerate lost limbs, speak in completely different accents, alter the contours of his bone structure and also suffered an unfortunate binge-and-purge weight problem which caused him to change sizes with almost every appearance, was head of an organization that quite fortuitously dubbed itself “Al Qaeda in Iraq” just around the time that the Bush Administration began changing its pretext for the conquest from “eliminating Iraq’s [non-existent] weapons of mass destruction” to “fighting terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
his death is a tool, readying us for the next stage whatever that is
Anyone getting their info from counterpunch probably has a nice
range of alfoil berets.
Everything points to Zarqawi being a second order leader ; someone with the capacity somewhere between a sargeant and a lieutenant. To take his death as a serious blow to the Iraqi insurgency is clutching at straws. It is a propaganda victory for the U.S. but they better check thorougly who they’re giving they’re 25 mill to. Quote from
Dr Michael McKinley, a Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Strategy at the Australian National University. ( from the World Today on Radio National)
“His groups were thought to number no more than several hundred at the most. The claim is that the number of people engaged in some form of fighting against the occupation forces is several thousand. So he was a relatively small player in terms of percentage of strength inside that.”
“You’ve got a symbolic victory, they’ve been able to get rid of somebody that was basically public enemy number one inside Iraq. That is all to their credit, so far as they are concerned, with regard to trying to pacify Iraq.
But whether it’s going to change the overall attitude of Iraqis towards the occupation of people in the Middle East more generally towards what is happening in Iraq, I seriously doubt it.”
McKinley gives Zarqawi as being in charge of 10% of the insurgency. I think this is also an overestimate. The more relevant figure , apart from the number of fighters ,would be the base of support .
leaving aside the pathetic second hand put downs,
where do you get your information david?
JQ – “Says Zarqawi. Here’s just one example, and there are many more statements he’s released calling for attacks on Shiites and so on”
So therfore if I say that I robbed the local bank I am guilty? What happened to the chain of evidence, reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence?
For example consider the following scenerio:
ASIO has determined that I am the center of al queda in Australia and am in fact responsible for the bali bombings etc. It passes the info onto the RAAF that tracks my movements with a Global Hawk. It finds that I arrive home from work at 5:00pm so the next day an F111 takes off from Amberley, refuels and flies to Perth, puts the pipper of the Pave Tak on my house at 5:30pm and drops a 1000kg bomb killing me, my family and 4 neighbouring families.
Does this sound like responsible ‘justice’? This occurs in Iraq almost every day. Why is this acceptable in Iraq and not in Australia?
JQ wrote,
“Of course, he could be claiming “creditâ€? for the crimes of others, and there may be cases where his name has been used as cover, but he had ample opportunities (including personal appearances on video) to disclaim these crimes if he chose.”
His significance is very debatable. There is no doubt that he part of the sectarian violence. And it’s been highly convenient to have a figure-head that be blamed and targetted. It provides a much simpler and more readily understood explanation of the going’s on in Iraq.
I’m not sure if the Zarqawi fixation is a symptom or a cause of the ‘football analysis’ that goes on. Highlighting an individual as a target is comfortingly familiar – take out the quarterback and it’s game over.
There is absolutely no logical reason for Zarqawi to “disclaim” anything attributed to him, unless he was aiming to be regarded as a nice guy. Zarqawi was, if we know anything, keen to be seen as a Sunni slayer of the Shia infidels.
i notice as well david that you refrained from commenting on the washington posts quotes regarding the ongoing psy op by the pentagon centred around zarqawi,
no thoughts or disparigments to offer on that?
“There is only one end for rapid dogs.They get put down.”
Or you can take them to the track on a Tuesday night.
“being responsible for many gruesome acts of terrorism and murder”
“one of the leaders in stirring up civil war in Iraq”
“He apparantly fell out with the main Sunni insurgent groups some months ago”
“how an Xer street thug came to be seen (and function) as a leader does raise questions”
“Zarqawi didn’t create the situation in Iraq, he took advantage of it”
“He was a bad man who deserved his fate”
“The man was a maniacal killer whose guilt was beyond doubt”
“many more statements he’s released calling for attacks”
“Everything points to Zarqawi being a second order leader ”
“His groups were thought to number no more than several hundred at the most”
not a single one of these authorative statements is close to being verifiable,
each of them has come in some way or another from the utterly untrustworthy pentagon,
i am constantly impressed by the research and depth of discussion and thinking here on JQ’s blog,
but i feel like this thread is a catalogue of sloppy assumptions and mindless repitition
smiths, could it be that the released information on the Zarqawi PSYOP program is itself a PSYOP program?
But seriously, I accept the general point, which is why I talked about the “psychological need” for a Zarqawi.
Here’s an interesting perspective on Zarq in Iraq.
Billmon‘s take is also good.
Hooray for Quiggin! Finally, he manages to say something everyone can agree on! Mark this down as a momentous day.
“It must be some kind of psychological need, to be able to identity a single ‘bad guy’ as the root of much evil.�
Yes, MichaelH. It is the need of the entrepreneurial, individualist worldview. This is a worldview that says human nature is fundamentally immutably bad, life is personal competition, and the world is controllable with skill. Bad human nature means government is to be distrusted, liberty exalted and cooperation suspected of being a form of coercion – which is extreme anathema (in principle).
For effective competition equality of opportunity is mandatory (in principle) and in competitive world one must convince others of one’s (potential) success so the aim of living is to maximise recognition of one’s prowess. This tends to lead to innovation, creativity, generosity, flamboyance, gladhanding, living beyond one’s means. Risk is opportunity and rules are a nuisance.
In international relations this worldview is coherent with “realism�. In lawless situations it leads to an “honour culture� of extreme reaction to insult.
It is the world of the self-aggrandising (not self-effacing or brave) hero who must demonstrate his (sexist pronoun deliberate) superiority. Where other worldviews simply crush or ignore the enemy the individualist must actually show his superiority to the opponent. The opponent – evil bureaucrats and criminals – achieve thereby exalted importance.
A couple of hundred years of a high strength diet of this worldview will require you to exalt Zakawi or Bin Laden or whoever.
Ender is wrong in inferring that it stems from the US military hierarchy. That hierarchy is designed NOT to be disrupted when people are killed.
I don’t think that was quite Ender’s point, rather it was that there’s a false assumption that there’s a hierarchy in Al Qaeda at all.
As far as there being a “psychological need” for someone like Zarqawi, I would instead posit that it’s actually a pathological need that exists in an authoritarian government. Much like the need for Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984.
(I realise that you were saying much the same thing, Mike. May as well just state it plainly).
No SJ, not pathological – or at least, not intrinsically. No more than rival worldviews. The problem lies in its dominance, ie inadequate mitigation from other worldviews.
And not authoritarian. The authoritarian merely has to have his or her way and may blame and punish the criminal but they do not need to exalt him. Everything about the individualist worldview strives AGAINST authoritarian government. Everything. Do you think Dogz is authoritarian?
No, he’s a duck:
Dogz,
I know where you are coming from. However intent is not the only thing that matters. The death of millions from starvation in China and the USSR as the communists tried to build utopian societies (ie nice intent) is not excusable or forgivable merely because they meant well.
Just to be clear I am not suggesting that the stupidity of the Bush administration is on the same scale as the stupidity of those communist leaders. Merely that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we should not be too quick to let leaders off the hook merely because they mean well.
Regards,
Terje.
If it was not possible to detain Martin Bryant without killing him them I am pretty sure the police would have killed him. In fact it is a pity nobody on the day had with them the means to bring wipe him out before he went on to kill so many innocent people.
Part of the problem with declaring the war finished in Iraq when they did is that it tends to mean the process of targeting and killing leaders like Zarqawi then gets measured by a judicial type of logic rather than battlefield logic. War is not about the normal “rules of law” and it is merely window dressing to pretend that it is. The trial of Saddam is window dressing because there is no real presumption of innocence, there can’t be because the stakes are too high.
If we were fighting a war that our very survial depended on, as opposed to a war far away, there is no way that we would constrain ourselves with the same burden of proof that we expect for criminals in times of peace. And in any case I know that if violent criminals invaded my home I would not limit myself to necessary force in any case. I would aim to use lethal force and when they were dead I would drop something heavy on them just to be sure. I would not be holding back to let a jury decide.
Quack quack quack.
Terje – “If it was not possible to detain Martin Bryant without killing him them I am pretty sure the police would have killed him.
However that is different from capturing him as they did, and then deciding that he was guilty and then executing him.
“In fact it is a pity nobody on the day had with them the means to bring wipe him out before he went on to kill so many innocent people.”
So are you advocating armed posses that go around looking for criminals BEFORE they commit a crime and then kill them? I am sure that idea will fly.
“And in any case I know that if violent criminals invaded my home I would not limit myself to necessary force in any case. I would aim to use lethal force and when they were dead I would drop something heavy on them just to be sure. I would not be holding back to let a jury decide.”
Sure and so would I. However this is not the case here and there are rules to war. The US pretends to ignore them when they are in breach however scream blue murder when other countries breach them on US military personnel.
If you want to apply the rules of war to terrorists then they have to be afforded all the rights and protections of the Geneva Convention. ie all the prisoners in Gitmo are being held against the rules and should be released and the people that imprison them can be tried in the international court as war criminals. We hold others to high standards as the Serbian leaders found out.
If they are not legitimate military then they are criminals are subject to criminal law therefore the assasination is unlawful and the perpertrators should be charged.
You cannnot have it both ways. If it is legitimate to bomb suspects then why is it not done here in Australia or in the US. Seeing as it is such an efficient method then why not apply it here?