I’m not sure who Patrick Cockburn of Britains Independent newspaper is, but was interested in some of his observations on the Zarqawi saga. - Who's next? The US got its man. Now it must target the real threat in Iraq
I have just pulled some of the issues raised by the article, with idea of looking for some corroborating information. The headings are mine.
No great infrastructure
Iraq's most wanted man was living with almost no guards and only five companions, two of whom were women and one an eight-year-old girl.
The ease with which Iraqi police and US special forces were able to reach the house after the bombing without encountering hostile fire showed that Zarqawi was never the powerful guerrilla chieftain and leader of the Iraqi resistance that Washington has claimed for more than three years.
Troops fail goodwill test
The only resistance encountered by American commandos was from local Sunni villagers in the village of Ghalabiya, near Hibhib, who thought the strangers were members of a Shia death squad.
Villagers who were standing guard fired into the air on seeing the commandos, who in turn threw a grenade that killed five of the guards.
American regular army troops later came to Ghalabiya to apologise and promise compensation to the families of the dead men.
Factors in creating the myth
The biggest surprise surrounding his death last week was that it took so long to happen. And the manner in which he died confirms the belief that his military and political importance was always deliberately exaggerated by the US.
He was a wholly obscure figure until he was denounced by then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, before the US Security Council on 5 February 2003.
Powell identified Zarqawi as the link between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein, though no evidence for this was ever produced.
Iraqi police documents, discovered later, showed that Saddam Hussein's security forces, far from collaborating with Zarqawi, were trying to arrest him.
More goodwill lapses
The killing of Zarqawi is a boost for the newly formed government of Nuri al-Maliki, but Iraqis did not fail to notice that when announcing it, he stood at the podium between Gen George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador.
"It showed the limits of Maliki's independence from the Americans," noted one Iraqi commentator. "It would have been better if they had let him make the announcement standing alone."
4 comments:
Yes, exactly - "if they had let him make the announcement standing alone." Even that statement is an acknowledgement of who is in control.
It would have been even BETTER if they could have spun it to make the Iraqi Army resposible, but I guess until they get an Air Force.....
Really good anaysis here Cartledge. I actually snarked someone today who was hearding his death as a milestone. What was the quote? Oh somehting like, "now that al-Zarqawi is dead, this craziness in Iraq will end soon."
Just goes to show how the administration has deamonized al-Zarqawi into something much bigger than he is.
Who will be the new Zarqawi?
Thanks PT. Mindful of the increasing, snipey anons visiting, I'm trying for a more empirical approach. I can’t really demand that they base their rants on some kind of fact if I don’t.
With questions swirling that the U.S. Army actually killed him by stomping on him on a stretcher, I wonder if the whole thing isn't going to come back and bite them in the ass anyway?
Post a Comment