Killing Zarqawi doesn’t matter

For the record, let me say that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will do very little to quell the insurgency in Iraq. The main problem I see with America’s conflict with terrorist groups is that we cast the story in terms of major figure heads. It’s just like how the NBA advertises its teams, Jordan and the Bulls, LeBron and the Cavaliers, etc. This is not a matter of Zarqawi and the Iraqi terrorists.

It is simply the terrorists and any attempt to categorize them into convenient movie-like themes is very destabilizing. Moreover, this type of campaign not only inflates the mystique of terrorists, but when some of them are caught or killed, it gives Americans a false sense of security.

As an aside, what is the difference between the kamikaze attacks on the US by the Japanese during World War II and those in Iraq that engage in suicide attacks? Clearly, both sides felt deeply enough to kill themselves for their cause but a good war-hero will tap into the core beliefs that drive these actions and take steps to steer this energy towards more productive ends. Because like I have said for years now, how can you kill people who are ready to die? That is not a war.

Terrorists are much more decentralized than traditional Western forces. As a result, the killing of an Arab-terrorist figure-head will do less harm than would a similar killing by an American leader. Now think back to the reasons we went to Iraq and tell me how Zarqawi relates back. If you believe popular spin, Zarqawi was the linchpin figure connecting Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda. However, “the Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda.” So what does it matter if Zarqawi is dead if the violence will escalate and his death had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or 9/11. I am afraid we have witnessing Munich II.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.



One response to “Killing Zarqawi doesn’t matter”

  1. Brandon Q. says :

    Thanks to an anonymous tip, I stand corrected when I pointed earlier that kamikaze pilots were primarily responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. I have since edited the post to reflect the fact the Japanese did not use suicide bombers until the final stages of the war.

    I appreciate and welcome corrections and this error on my part inspired me to put another twist on the post. Why is it that when suicide attacks are committed in the name of nation-states, they are generally condoned whereas when those not committed in the name of nation-states are condemned? Shouldn’t what is acceptable for one be acceptable for all?

    In other words, the news recently reported that Israeli missiles accidentally killed 7 civilians who were relaxing on the beach. The Israeli government announced regret over the loss of civilian life and pledged to launch an investigation into the matter. But what if a terrorist group accidentally killed civilians but expressed regret and morose and pledged to find out which of their members carried out the atrocity?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: