As I was listening to Washington Post Radio’s analysis of Zarqawi’s death and its impact during the drive to work, one statement made on the radio by an analyst struck me: It’s a good PR victory for the U.S. This got me thinking. What does his demise really mean?
It’s obvious that I do not have the information necessary to make a thorough and proper analysis, since a lot of information is classified. We are allowed to know only what the government tells us due to security and intelligence purposes. All I can do is base my ideas and thoughts on what is available to me, so here goes.
Per BBC’s Profile on him, he was a Jordanian petty thief turned leader of a Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group that merged with al-Qaeda in 2004. In fact his group in Iraq has now been renamed as al-Qaeda. He and his group have been attributed to some of the atrocious acts against the Shia Muslims (he is Sunni). It is also reported that he was starting to loose a lot of support due to the bloody attacks. He was killed in an air strike carried out by U.S. forces. So the question that arises is, NOW WHAT? What happens next?
I believe (and it is only logical) that he has groomed his heir or heirs to take over once he is gone (as this is a quality of a leader, good or bad). His death is definitely a major blow to the confidence level of his followers. This may just trigger them to carry out more attacks in the name of revenge (which I hope does not happen, but what is the likelihood of that?). But if his support and popularity was dropping, why did the attacks still continue? A lot of the violence in Iraq comes from former Baathists (Saddam’s political group), Sunni Nationalists and Shia militias (add to it the foreign fighters) and this becomes a whole different ballgame.
Zarqawi’s death will probably thwart some operations but not all. The next logical and humanitarian step would be on a political level for the Iraqi government. They need to try to bring in all the factions and reach a compromise that would put an end to the death and the violence that is plaguing the Iraqi citizens. The government should be representative of all the Iraqi’s and the warring factions should realize that hurting their own will not solve any issues.
I remember reading somewhere once that if Osama bin Laden was killed, thousands more would emerge. I think this is the case here as well. The proper path to eradicate this problem is education. Education erases ignorance, and will only help harbor tolerance. I hope this is just not a PR victory for the US but actually turns into a humanitarian victory for the suffering Iraqis!
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
58 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I saw on the news that several of Al-Zarqawi’s aides were also killed by the airstrikes. I don’t support the war in Iraq, but I’m glad he’s dead. He was a terrorist who tried to incite holy war between the Shiites and Sunnis, and murdered hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians in the process. He was no better than our occupying coalition forces, and in fact, a lot worse. Anyone who calls him a freedom fighter is a moron. He was a murderer, plain and simple.
A bomb attack happened today in Baghdad anyway after news of Al-Zarqawi’s death was announced. You’re right - there are lots of other groups (and us! Haditha, anyone?) who are continuing the violence.
It’s definitely a boon for the Bush administration - Al-Zarqawi was, what, the second most wanted person after Bin Laden? But more importantly, it’s big for the new Iraqi government. Takes away one of their biggest opponents and gives them a bit more credibility.
By the way, I don’t condone the pictures of the late Al-Zarqawi being plastered all over the media. It’s gross. And also very disrespectful to Islam.
I remember some uproar about released photos showing the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein and how that was not in accordance with Muslim tradition, so I imagine that’d apply here, too. No reason to throw out the customs and rules in their haste to celebrate Al-Zarqawi’s death.
Agreed. If you look at the CNN video, you’ll see how the whole PR event was carefully orchestrated. Ornately framed photo of Al-Zarqawi, US/Iraq flags, etc. I couldnt’ help but think, “Gee, the Bushies really were desperate for positive PR.”
Add to this their renewed calls for a ban on gay marraige, you can see they are desperate for a push in polls for the mid-season elections! Whatever happened to immigration reform?
Adam, how is this disrespectful to Islam? I don’t understand your quote. I don’t see anything relevant to Islam, except that he was an Islamic extremist.
I’m not holding my breath; within a few days, Bush administration probably would say it’s a flux…
Burn al-Zarqawi’s body for all I care. He wasn’t respectful to Bird and others who were beheaded, filmed and shown to the rest of world. Or the workers who were kidnapped, murdered and strung up on the bridge with the bodies all burned. I guess that’s a whole lotta respect, no?
Berg = Bird. Excuse my brain fart.
I’d rather to have him wrapped in pigskin and inject pig’s blood in his dead body. Then burn it to ashes and throw into pigs pen.
I agree. Pigs heaven. He’s among the pork chops.
I agree with you. It can only become a boon if it is utilized properly, if not it can only lead to further chaos!
No matter what can be done, people will NEVER be satisfied on how this is done.
Zarqawi’s death might have been useful a year or two ago, but now, events have spun far out of anyone’s control. Too many groups with agendas have guns and bombs and as a result Iraq is spinning toward sectarian civil war.
Zarqawi’s death is at best a PR coup for the Bush administration in the long run.
Wait until they capture Bin Laden who is in Iran. Once he is caught and everything relating to the war will just be a memory. Sad isn’t it?
Clearly, this is a political motivated scheme by incompetent Bush and his so-called administration is attempting to do. Of course, if you all remember how Bush landed the plane on an aircraft carrier and made a big PR announcement “Mission Accomplished”. Look what happened.
Now he’s doing it all over again, “This is a major victory against terror.” Just wait and see what happens. Terrorism is not going to die and the insurgents may continue to attack Iraq and our US soliders.
CNN reported by the voting poll, approximately 70% of the voters felt that the death of Zarqawi’s will not cease or stop the attacks by the insurgents.
There will always be terrorists. The key is that we have the upper hand. Leave it to people to complain about Bush but not the victory on the killing of Zarqawi by questioning the “timing” of the attack. Sounds like an advocation on letting Zarqawi free to continue his killings and beheadings of innocent people.
Incompetence Clinton did nothing during his 8 years. he was too busy raping innocent women.
funny.. he was soo handsome too.. he probably couldn’t keep his snake in his cage. what make u think bush is great… he was a male cheerleader in college..hes hiding in the closet..bush is probably gay too. HA!
Zarqawi’s death is just a publicity stunt.
I say there is more to anticipate. This is not a victory in a step.
In a nutshell, the mayhem will continue.
In a nutshell, it’s those who spout such nonsense want to see the U.S. loose the war on terrorism with tails between their legs running back home a la Mogadishu per Clinton’s order.
lose = loose
Publicity stunt? I doubt that. Democrats made pre-emptive attack on Bush when Bush was running for election on his second term. Democrats claim that Bush would have had Bin Laden captured few days before election day.
Now Democrats jump and accuse Bush for publicity stunt. They wanted to own spotlight, not Bush!
Democrats shut-up and sit-down, Americans chose Bush in 2nd election!
Americans chose Bush???? Actually, Bush stole the Election from the Americans.
That again? Oh, please.
I disagree with the statement that the Bush administration intentionally ordered Zarqawi’s death or capture as a political stunt. I am simply saying that the Bush administration is using the plaudits earned by the U.S. military in Zarqawi’s death for political purposes.
Big difference.
Also, like many others, we believe that the war in Iraq will continue without Zarqawi. It’s descended into chaos and sectarian warfare. Too many young men have guns and bombs and a willingness to use them against their perceived enemy, whether it be Americans, Kurds, Shi’a or Sunni, or secular or jihadist. This is simply another bump on the war on terror and not the end game, at least in Iraq.
At 9:15am that morning, I walked in my office with a breaksfast meal from MacDonalds, oh vey the fats! I sat on my desk, opening the wrapper of my sandwich and open the internet explorer on my computer. It was set to CNN…… and look a dead man staring at my sandwich! What kind of a society is this to see dead people???? Have they have any honor??? Good or bad have the honor of death. You know, our govt could have some how prevented some terror. Despite what our government was looking for, where was justice? Now that there never going to be a trial against this man, how many more terror do we need to live with? Tell me why they didn’t killed Saddam??? or Muhammad (serial killer)…Look up “terror” in number 4 and see if our country relates to terror.
“Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: ‘ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
synonym see FEAR
- ter·ror·less /-l&s/ adjective
Er…#4 also relates to forcing a population through fear and intimidation to get them to acquience to a demand using such tools as IEDs against innocent civilians on a semi-weekly basis.
You can always read al Jazeera.
see below
thats really interesting what you just said. now is terror only in al jazeera?? are there terror in America? Yes, especially with LCPD in Cally beaten innocent people with sticks and punches…there is terror when a pedophile hurt innocent children..there is terror when our stock market goes downhill (eek!)…maybe you misunderstood my conception of defining terror.. hey me and my friend think you are terror because your asking me to read al jazeera and you like the idea of a dead man face on a dart board, 500 points! there will always be fear in the packages of terror… who said life is nice?
I agree with you. Al Jazeera does not mean Terror. No one news station in the world is unbiased. Each station represents the news from it’s point of view. I mean CNN is not unbiased! So what does Al Jazeera have to do with terror? I am still trying to understand that..
I guess we have to think about the earliest start of civilization…the emerge of homo erectus and the development of sharps tools…after all..we are still animals…born to kill, hello where does our juicy steaks come from? people a dorf! (stupid!) another point is… terror began with slavery to all kinds of people except the bright lights people who thinks they are superior…now, click this. im not trying to be a racist for modern society today, but when did terror began? who created it? and when will terror ever ends?
Guys. Let’s not jump to conclusion here. If you know anything about al Jazeera with them being the CNN’s “equivalent” then you’d know exactly what I was referring to. Guess I was wrong.
Nothing was implied that al Jazeera was about terror but about the reporting differences. Go look. Compare graphic photos they release. CNN is tame by any measure when it comes to photos.
Hooboy.
I have seen the graphic photos in the past when looking for OBL..sometime I think their media has gone way to far to post bloody photos…i think CNN has gone too far to post Al Jaz photos on website…what were they thinking? the media do not care what they post..they live by the standards once set by our consititution, for the people and freedom of expression and speech…
What does his demise really mean? You asked.
It’s one step closer to capturing bin Laden. Simple.
It’s about Zarqawi, not Hussein
Kevin, please. You cannot believe this crap.
Nick Berg’s father said it perfectly: 30,000 dead under Saddam Hussein annually — 60,000 dead under GW Bush annually in Iraq. Which better is it? You decide.
R-
From August 6, 1990, when the UN sanctions were first imposed in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to late August of 1999, an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis have died from sanctions-related programs against Saddam to get him to comply. But Saddam abused the oil for food program meant to help those with food and medicine. Saddam kept the money to himself and built palaces the size of Washington D.C. The United Nations estimated that those 1.2 million who have died were mostly children in need of milk, food and critical medicine. With Clinton in office from 1992 to 1999 (8 years), that would be roughly 150,000 per year.
Nice.
When I say “palaces” that includes the size of the grounds around those monstrous palaces. Not the buildings themselves.
I don’t refute this. But the excuse we used to go to the war with has yet to surface, i.e. WMD’s.
if I had to play the race cards at poker, what about Africa and their genocides? Africa is a huge continent, more people die there than in Iraq… do u think race and economic play a huge role for our government to go to war??? what is it in Iraq, Iran, Afghas., that our govt wants? is our govt really going to give them more control in exchange for oil? we dont need oil…we can walk since americans are certainly fat now. More children died in Africa due to lack of medical and food resource not provided to them.
Well, look at Zimbabwe. And other countries in Africa. Transafrica and NAACP are silent on black dictators killing their own people.
The whole world took forever to even acknowledge the genocide in Sudan and Rwanda, not to mention Bosnia/Serbia. Why Iraq and not the other countries? (I assume this is what Apple is getting at?)
NAACP is not a universal organization, just regional, however if anything our government can do to help is good indeed…think twice before speaking about a country killing own people because its not just africa….BUT you are killing them while u get fat! haven’t u ate enough?
Mostly it either the UN’s undoing or that the despot military dictators who go in and grab the donated medicine and food for their army. Ever hear about the Hutus and Tutsis massacre while nearly 1 million were murdered in 3 months under Clinton’s watch?
The United States have sent more aids, supplies and troop support than any other country in the world. There is such a thing as a country taking advantage of us.
The top 4 oil imports to the U.S. include Canada (#1), Mexico (#2), Venezuela (#3), and then Saudi Arabia (#4). Iraq is somewhere around 8th or 9th but hardly compares to the top 4.
Besides, in the United States we have more than 1 trillion barrels of oil locked up shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The amount of oil we have in those shales dwarfs that of Saudia Arabia alone.
Yes, Iraq has control over their own oil. It’s in their new Iraq constitution on how its done. None involve the United States. We just buy some oil from Iraq.
yes..but did you know that area used to be a German province, then the Belgium took control over the area.. the people were divided by the color of skin by the belgarians. the tutsi were better, hard worker, than the hutus. later the hutus gained political control of the region. Genocide happened after the assignation of Hutu president and the hutus think tutsis rebel did this.. why did the belgarians touch their soils? they shouldn’t have been divided in the first place.
So, who or which country should’ve intervened in the first place to try and stop/minimize the massacre?
Let’s see. Saddam came to power as president in 1979. That’s nearly 25 years (he was captured in Dec 2003). 25 x 30,000 = 750,000 massacred, murdered, and buried under the sands of Iraq.
The 60,000 figure is a gross misapplication using averaged annual figures. Iraqbodycount has a range between 38,000 to 42,000 attributed mostly to the internal killings by their own people seeing IEDs explode killing Iraqis, rather than by the troops. This is over the past 3 years making an annual death rate of 14,000 per year. The U.S. loses over 45,000 people a year through violent car crashes alone.
Not to say I support Iraqbodycount accuracy. Far from it. War makes it impossible to assess the accuracy of deaths attributed to war alone.
What crap?
Ridor, I don’t approve Bush’s ways of dealing with Iraq. Bring home those troops now.
You said it Apple. Freedom of expression and speech. Standards change from year to year and the media continue to push the envelope. Besides, we are at war with terrorists. Let it be a reality check for the terrorists. And also let it be a reality check for ordinary like the pictures of the Beslan massacre.
that’s “ordinary people” …excusez-moi.
Swetha:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Also go here: http://www.google.com/search?h.....tnG=Search
Not only the WMDs did we fear but also Saddam’s continued violations on 17 different UN resolutions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....917-8.html
Guess who refused to allow UNSCOM and other inspectors into Iraq to assess whatever WMDs he may have? Right. Saddam.
I guess we can always go to the route on more sanctions against Iraq….killing million more children. No?
If he had been developing them, where are they? Simple question, but I have not found the answer. I never said he was not evil. I acknowledge the things he has done in the past (they are wrong!). Still my question remains, where are they?
Credible reports say many/some of the WMDs were taken into Syria and/or Russia. It was known that several Russian generals were there just weeks before the Iraq war. Wonder why.
When you make assertions like that, please back these up with sources.
http://biglizards.net/blog/arc.....d_mov.html
Unless you want to go here as the source of the info and go through the registration process: http://www.investors.com/edito.....e=20060224
the above was in response to Noelle #6363
each and every American presidents make mistakes big and small. ideological differences over the principle. With the first bush, clinton, and bush deux, they made somewhat quicker decisions. Truman and Ike faltered on Vichy control over Indochina.. being good friends with the French at the time, but made no hestiation to war with the Japanese until Pearl Harbor. Clinton and NATO hemmed and hawed on the Serbs and Bosnians until pictures not different from WW2 concentration camps emerged in media. Rwanda - no US interests there and nonwhite folks there.
Bush is no different from others. Yes I miss Clinton and despise Bush mainly because of domestic issues - the international does not apply as it’s a minefield.
[…] National News: Swetha tackles al-Zarqawi, while Erin C. takes on those “fundies.” […]