Today Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by an American air strike. To understand what this means we need to have a small history lesson followed by a small current events lesson.
First the history lesson:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian terrorist. He was able to gain power in Iraq because of the power vacuum left after American forces disbanded the Iraqi army. This is an important point. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had little to do with Iraq before American forces had arrived.
When al-Zarqawi first arrived in Iraq there was an uncertain moment when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden were seen as rivals. How closely Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was aligned with Bin Laden is under much debate, but it seems that at some point the two were able to share an ideological alliance but never a day to day strategic alliance. This is how these terrorist cells work, autonomous and independent. In this way the movement can continue without any one group or man.
Al-Zarqawi called himself the leader of “Al-quade in Iraq”, its important to know that the Al-quada that attacked us on 9/11 is NOT the same group that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the head of.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was one of the main proponents of sectarian violence in Iraq. He is also thought to have personally beheaded at least two Americans. He was the mastermind behind many of the kidnappings, bombings, and other attacks after the American forces invaded.
And now some current events:
In American news we tend to lump all the groups in Iraq together. We use words like insurgent, terrorists, militia fighters, and jihadists interchangeably. Most often the Bush administration lumps them all together as simply “terrorists” when in fact the people of Iraq see them as different groups. Some of the fighting is over sectarian violence, some from foreign fighters wanting to kill Americans, some due to tribal conflict, some from Saddam loyalists.
Iraq is a patchwork of different tribes, sects, and after the invasion has been overrun with foreign groups that have moved in to fill the power vacuum. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was just one of many people that swept in after the invasion.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death has not stopped the violence, today two bombs went off, killing at least 13 and reeking havoc. Failing to understand which of the many groups were responsible will lead to a failure to understand why those bombs were placed. Was a jihadist group targeting those they thought were not religious enough, was an insurgent trying to cause chaos to keep the Iraq government from forming, was it a sectarian attack on the other sect, or perhaps it was inter-tribal fighting over past slights.
So what does this all mean:
In a way its a great tactical and moral victory for the American troops. We have killed one of the main actors of the insurgency. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will no longer be able to plan and plot and kill people. But because he was just one of many groups causing violence in Iraq it means that the violence in Iraq will not decline at all. Someone else will stand up to fill his place and the killings will continue.
President Bush is as I write this, is claiming that the death of al-Zarqawi will somehow further the fight in the “war against terrorism”, once again confusing the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. Al-Zarqawi’s death is not a victory in the “global war on terror”, it is in fact a victory in the fight to rid Iraq of the many groups trying to gain control there. While its a welcome victory in Iraq, it in no way should be confused with the fight against terrorists.
Al-Zarqawi had nothing to do with 9/11. Usama Bin-laden, the man responsible for 9/11, is still free. Had America never started the war in Iraq men like al-Zarqawi would have never had the chance to grab such power. If the Bush administration would have stayed focused on the hunt for Bin-laden and stayed in Afghanistan he may have been able to announce the death of Bin-laden today.
Instead the Taliban is once again gaining power in Afghanistan, and Iraq is more fractured and filled with violence than before we invaded. Bush himself in the speech he just gave today seemed to understand that al-Zarqawi’s death is not going to change much in Iraq. He offered several platitudes, but very limited information on weather this would bring the troops home, or if this important victory will lead to us needing less troops. I believe that he failed to mention this because al-Zarqawi’s death will mean little in controlling the level of violence in Iraq.
The world is rid of an evil man, but this complex issue needs to be looked at from many perspectives. The president would love to boil this down to a simple sound bite “we got him”, “victory in the war on terror”, “we have delivered justice”, but its not that simple. The problem in Iraq is such a mindblowlingly complex one that even top military planners are unsure how to get out of it. Let us hope that the death of al-Zarqawi will have some positive effect on this problem.
In the short term this event will give the Bush administration a small boost in the polls, and give fodder for the right wing talking heads to spout about. Bush himself was very low-key about the event today, perhaps he has been burned one too many times by declaring “mission accomplished” every time something positive has happened. He will continue to erroneously conflate the war in Iraq with the “war on terror.” And lets hope that the American people will continue to see the fault in that logic.