ABU MUSAB al ZARQAWI IS DEAD IS IT
ABU MUSAB al ZARQAWI IS DEAD—IS IT
THE END OF THE BEGINNING?
by
Ken Eliasberg
June 7, 2006 may turn out to be an historic event in the life of Iraq’s budding democracy. On the very day that the last 3 cabinet positions of Iraq’s newly formed government fell into place, a sworn enemy was removed, thereby considerably strengthening its survival prospects. As you know Zarqawi was the terrorist chief inside Iraq, and in every serious respect, far more dangerous than either bin Laden or al Zawahiri (bin Laden’s number 2 man). Why? Because, unlike these 2 gentlemen whose threats issue over Al Jazeera from some remote cave in the nether regions of Afghanistan or Pakistan, Zarqawi was a hands on monster who has rampaged through Iraq for some time. How significant is his death? In my opinion, very significant. Bush is wise to downplay it, and by all means avoid any sort of repeat of a “mission accomplished” moment (although, despite the nonsense from the left, in making that memorable statement in a flight jacket from the deck of an aircraft carrier, it was never his intent to suggest that the war—either in Iraq or on terror—was over). The left, of course, is trying to minimize, trivialize, and politicize this event; while predictable, this is unfortunate.
Is this a defining event in the war in terror? Hard to say. Who can really speak prospectively to the matter of defining events. Even restrospectively, who can make such judgements. Was the Battle of El Ala mein the defining moment of WWII? Or was it Stalingrad? How about the battle of Midway, where the Japanese suffered a naval defeat from which they never recovered and which left them landlocked in Asia (while we could build up our armed forces free from any concern over a domestic attack)?
That said, whether Zarqawi’s death may be viewed as a “defining moment” or not, there is no question (except in the hearts and minds of the radical left) but that it is an incredibly serious event. We have cut off the head of the terrorist monster in Iraq, and, while it is true, that others will move in to fill his spot, that is easier said than done. You just don’t pull a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Mao out of your hat. These people have been formed and groomed for years, and the respect and allegiance that they command is not born over night. Zarqawi was cut from that cloth, and, at best, it will be some time (if at all) before his terrorist organization will be able to function as if it hadn’t missed a beat.
But setting aside the effect of his death on the terrorists capacity to wage war as effectively as before, how about the effect of his death on Iraqis, Americans, and others who find merit in the notion of spreading democracy’s cause?
There is much to be happy about in Zarqawi’s death. First of all, I am delighted that his end came through death rather than through being taken prisoner. From a strictly cost-benefit viewpoint, we have been spared the economic cost (which would have run into the millions, not to mention the charade it would have turned into) that such a trial would have engendered.
Also, the emotional cost of having to drag our society through such a dis-gusting and futile exhibition. I so regret that someone did not have the good judgement of putting a bullet into Saddam Hussein and spare us the circus that has become his trial. No matter how presposterous the cause, or despicable the defendant, you can always find a Ramsey Clark, or a Lyn Stewart, or an ACLU, or some other disgusting traitor to not only defend them but to trumpet their cause as if it’s all America’s fault. And this does get tedious. True, they are entitled to a defense, but, then again, so is America.
Another factor that delights me in the death of Zarqawi is the manner in which it came about, i.e. through intelligence on the ground. That is, we were able to locate Zarqawi through reliable tips from Iraqis. This is worthy of note for 2 reasons. It demonstrates that they want these foreign monsters out of their country as much we do. It also demonstrates that possibly—just possibly—we are beginning to rebuild an intelligence capacity in this region of the world.
The final bit of good news is, as noted, that Zarqawi’s death may provide the new government with some breathing room within which to strengthen its independent capacity to defend itself against the terrorist monsters.
Back to the question of whether his death is a “defining moment.” While I never wish to minimize events as defining moments, I tend to look for such in a broader context. What do I mean? Certainly, the British victory over Rommel’s vaunted Afrika Corps at El Alamein was the war’s turning point on the western front. Likewise, Stalingrad was the turning point of the war on the Eastern front. Similarly, the battle of Midway was of incalculable importance in the pacific. All these events had one thing in common; it was the first significant victory for the 3 most important allies of WWII, - the British at Al El Alamein, the Russians at Stalingrad, and the Americans at Midway. Each of these allies were in sore need of a victory, if only to lift their morale.
But much more than these events were what made victory possible. It was the people involved. The grit and pluck of the Brits who endured devastating losses at Dunkerque, in Africa, and most of all, in their homeland during the Battle of Britain. It was the heroism of the Russian peasants, who, while battered and beaten, would not allow themselves to suffer defeat. At Stalingrad, a hellhole of a battle, they endured to break the back of the German army on the Eastern front. It was America’s patriotism, optimism, and unbelievable courage and determination that were the real defining moments of that great struggle. Individual victories are merely punctuation marks in a society’s struggle for its survival; they don’t define the society—they merely provide evidence of its character. We are involved in such a struggle now, and I believe that Zarqawi’s death is a significant punctuation mark in that struggle. A defining moment? Perhaps. I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s speech to his people after the El- Alamein victory. Churchill, a brilliant orator, said this in reference to the significance to be accorded the victory.
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
Is Zarqawi’s death the end of the beginning? Possibly—it depends. What does it depend on? On us. As Andrew McCarthy observed in National Review on line: “Today reminds us that we have the power to get the job done. The remaining question is whether we have the will?’ Do we? Before Vietnam, I never would have even asked that question, so certain was I of the response. Today I don’t know. The radical left has so sapped our energy to wage war that I am not certain whether we have the resolve to stay the course. That said, Zarqawi’s death is certainly a step in the right direction.