Zarqawi Is Gone—And the War Continues
When Saddam Hussein's sons were killed, the war went on. When Saddam Hussein was captured, the war went on. When our military chased the 'terrorists' out of Fallujah, the war went on. When Iraq finally had elections, the war went on. The death of Zarqawi might have ended some of the more insane killing, but the war will go on.
In 2002, long before the war started, Bush had three opportunities to take out Zarqawi when he was tied down to his small base in northeastern Iraq on the Iranian border in a no-man's land near the Kurdish-controlled area. The Kurdish would have been have happy to help us. It's still unclear why Bush passed up the opportunities.
Four years later, Zarqawi is gone but Think Progress reminds us of a couple of reasons that not much is likely to change. And here's a paragraph from the New York Times that gives the view of average Iraqis (hat tip to The Huffington Post):
One of the things I've never liked about the way Bush presents the war in Iraq is his ignorance of the ridiculous contradictions that are inherent in the way the war is run. Let me focus one just one of these contradictions:
1. We are bringing democracy to the Middle East.
2. If we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them here at home.
By not dealing with Zarqawi early on, by not having enough troops in the beginning, by allowing so much looting, by not having enough troops to round up weapons, by not having enough troops to control the borders and so on, we turned Iraq into a magnet for a small number of terrorists who nominally aligned themselves with the insurgency, many of whom themselves were on the equivalent of wanted posters. No one should forget that Bush kept a list in his drawer in the Oval Office that contained a list of the bad guys; there have been many days when Bush has been more concerned about crossing names off the list than 'bringing Democracy to the Middle East.' To a certain extent, the reason Iraq is such a fiasco is that Bush could never resolve the many contradictions of his own policies. The Iraqis themselves are confused and just want the killing to stop.
In 2002, long before the war started, Bush had three opportunities to take out Zarqawi when he was tied down to his small base in northeastern Iraq on the Iranian border in a no-man's land near the Kurdish-controlled area. The Kurdish would have been have happy to help us. It's still unclear why Bush passed up the opportunities.
Four years later, Zarqawi is gone but Think Progress reminds us of a couple of reasons that not much is likely to change. And here's a paragraph from the New York Times that gives the view of average Iraqis (hat tip to The Huffington Post):
As news of Mr. Zarqawi's death settled into homes across the country, Iraqis at lunch tables and in hot-afternoon living rooms found themselves wondering what, if anything, would be different. A relentless stream of killings and kidnappings has choked off the routines of life to a trickle, and the death of Mr. Zarqawi, while welcome, did not seem likely to stop the violence.
One of the things I've never liked about the way Bush presents the war in Iraq is his ignorance of the ridiculous contradictions that are inherent in the way the war is run. Let me focus one just one of these contradictions:
1. We are bringing democracy to the Middle East.
2. If we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them here at home.
By not dealing with Zarqawi early on, by not having enough troops in the beginning, by allowing so much looting, by not having enough troops to round up weapons, by not having enough troops to control the borders and so on, we turned Iraq into a magnet for a small number of terrorists who nominally aligned themselves with the insurgency, many of whom themselves were on the equivalent of wanted posters. No one should forget that Bush kept a list in his drawer in the Oval Office that contained a list of the bad guys; there have been many days when Bush has been more concerned about crossing names off the list than 'bringing Democracy to the Middle East.' To a certain extent, the reason Iraq is such a fiasco is that Bush could never resolve the many contradictions of his own policies. The Iraqis themselves are confused and just want the killing to stop.
posted by Craig at 8:46 PM
5 Comments:
I rejoice in the death of a demon. But George Bush must accept part of the blame for allowing the demon a domain for his terror. Bush talks of Iraq as a front in the "War on Terror". Who made it that? Who inspired the jihadists to flood into Iraq to join the young Jordanian terrorist?
Terrell, thanks for the comment.
I'm sure average Iraqis don't appreciate that Bush turned Iraq into a magnet for Zarqawi type terrorists. Most Iraqis would have preferred peace and stability, as well as a government, democratic or not, that could keep the electricity on.
Zarqawi was called a jihadist but I was struck several times by what seemed to be a strong nihilistic streak in his behavior. In the end, chaos and killing became his religion.
Zarqawi was a psychopathic killer who latched onto a cause.
For a rough equivalent, imagine if there had been some kind of sick, violent misogynistic movement afoot in the U.S. back in the 1980s, and then imagine if Ted Bundy had become the head of it.
Craig, sorry for the duplicate comment. Blogger seemed to stall. Then Firefox showed a "try again" dialog.
Please feel free to delete the dupe.
S.W., Blogger has been bogged down for a couple of days. I've noticed lots of posting errors on other sites too.
Ted Bundy is an interesting analogy. Extremist movements have a tendency to attract criminals, psychopaths and fools, among others. There was lots of that in the 1930s.
Post a Comment
<< Home