« A Penny For Your Bush Photo! | Main | Udall Caves on Net Neutrality »
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Pondering Zarqawi
Is anyone else wondering why the U.S. military didn't attempt to capture Zarqawi instead of dropping two 500 pound bombs on his location? You'd think it would have been worthwhile to surround the house where he was staying and take him alive, given how much valuable information he might be able to provide. Or even to attack the building in a more careful way, to preserve valuable intelligence papers and such that might be inside with him.
Is anyone else appalled at how the U.S. military is crowing in front of large photos Zaraqawi's corpse, with a closeup of his head, and releasing video of the bombs dropping? Aren't we the ones who are horrified about beheadings and other brutal, bloody shows? Why are we acting the same way?
Does anyone else believe that Zarqawi's death won't mean much in terms of quelling what is already a civil war?
Could it be that Zarqawi was given up by his own because someone thought he'd be more valuable as a martyr than as the guy in the video who couldn't operate his weapon?
What's your reaction when you read the critical CNN (see Crooks and Liars for video) and Fox News interviews with Michael Berg whose son Nicholas was beheaded, allegedly by Zarqawi?
Was Zarqawi's power and control exaggerated by BushCo so they could build up another mythic figure, given we haven't caught bin Laden? Was Zarqawi mostly a legend in his own eyes? Consider the information provided by Mary Anne Weaver in her indepth article in the Atlantic Monthly. Also read this April 10, 2006 Washington Post article, which reports on how our military sought to exaggerate Zarqawi's importance using a broadbased propaganda campaign. Excerpt:
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
You can also get more background on Zarqawi compiled by Juan Cole.
June 8, 2006 at 01:31 PM in Iraq War | Permalink
Comments
Something that everyone seems to be missing is the fact that we had al Zarqawi then released him! And we had chances to take al Zarqawi out before the Iraq War even started.
They're just tyrign to save face.
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2006 5:30:41 PM
How is it that two 500 lb bombs smashed the small house to smithereens and set the whole area on fire, but Zarqawi emerged almost unscathed?
Why are there no photos or videos of troops digging through the massive amounts of rubble to find Zarqawi or carrying his body out? You know how the propaganda forces within the government like to show stuff like that. Why haven't we seen any footage?
This whole story smells, along with its timing.
Posted by: Doubter | Jun 9, 2006 10:06:29 AM
When you look at the photos of Zarqwai doesn't he look like he was beaten up not like he survived a bomb blast. He has some pretty severe bruises and they are pretty seriously cleaned up but nothing that looks like an injury that was caused by a flying peice of cinder block or jagged metal or other projectile that would be expected during a bomb detonation. I also found the following article that certainly brings the US version of events into question:
Islam Memo (Translation, June 9, 2006): " Ahmad Mohammed, a farmer of
Hibhib, who was a neighbour to the house in which Zarqawi was martyred,
claimed that the house in which Zarqawi had moved in has been offered
for sale for some time, along with an attached one acre farm that was
planted with date and citrus trees. The house and farm were sold to
somebody called Abu Omar from Baghdad for 70 million Iraqi Dinars just
12 days before the death of Zarqawi. The source informed Islam Memo
correspondent: "At ten minutes to six on Wednesday afternoon, two
rockets hit that house and the farm. The house was completely
demolished and the farm was destroyed, as well as my house which was
50% damaged. Ten minutes after the bombardment, and after the smoke
cleared up, my brother, my cousin and I ran to the scene and found
several dead bodies, a severed leg among the trees, a burned up corpse
of a man and the bodies of two dead women. Then my brother shouted:
"There is a sound from somebody who is still alive." We searched the
area and found Zarqawi whom I recognized from his TV pictures. His eyes
were open and he kept repeating the Shahada (a prayer that is uttered
before death). We pulled him from under the rubble as an ambulance
arrived at the scene. We told the ambulance driver that there is a
wounded man that needed assistance, without mentioning that he was
Zarqawi. As we were trying to lift Zarqawi to put him in the ambulance,
about 20 American soldiers rushed in and grabbed Zarqawi from our hands
and started beating him with their hands and riffle butts for five
minutes. He started to bleed profusely from his mouth and nose. He then
died in their hands and a helicopter took him away. ... Only later did
the Iraqi police and soldiers arrive to the scene."
So, what/where was the bombing run video on a residential area in
which tens of houses were demolished?
Posted by: Terry Riley | Jun 10, 2006 4:48:25 PM
Re: The Islam Memo. Why should we believe this report more than the one on our TV? Because it accords with our knowledge of atrocities perpetrated by our troops in Abu Ghraib and Haditha? What about the troops who have not committed atrocities, but have done their ethical best in an unethical, atrocious war? Or is there some other imprimatur that raises the credibility of Islam Memo above our own media?
We can't assume the credibility of any source, and certainly not a source completely unknown to us, without corroborating evidence and/or reputation. You demand video evidence to support the US version of events, but don't ask for the same evidence for Islam Memo's version.
The same requirements for verification should be made from all sources, regardless of whether we agree with them, unless a recitation of events collapses under the weight of its own interior contradictions or inconsistencies.
As for Zarqawi, if what we have heard about and from him is true, I'm glad we got him. Anyone who tortures others and kills innocents ought to be apprehended or killed, whichever side they're on.
Posted by: John | Jun 11, 2006 9:48:57 AM
I agree about the problems with credibility of Islam memo. However, there are a number of logical inconsistencies in the US story. We need to question the US version of events because they have been found to be liars many times in the past.
You know the military penchant for filming everything. Recall Saddam in the spider hole. Yet we see only a head shot of Zarqawi, we don't see soldiers looking for him in the rubble or him being carried out. We don't see the rest of his body. And how could his body survive two 500 pound bombs AND a fire?
I'm sure most US soldiers are doing their best in an unworkable situation. But as with other guerilla wars where they have no idea of who the "enemy" is, brutalities and executions inevitably become all too common, just as they were in Viet Nam.
Posted by: Old Dem | Jun 11, 2006 10:06:38 AM
