The mirage of Zarqawi

Way too much of the coverage of the assassination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has taken the form of what might best be called military envy or some kind — stories focusing on the technical aspects of the assault that seem to revel in its violent details and not on what Zarqawi’s death means.

Luckily, we can turn to commentary from folks like Eric Alterman, who writes that the administration probably could have had him four years ago but that would have interfered with the justification for Bush’s war.

Citing several published sources, Alterman offers this final bit of analysis:

Bush didn’t go after Zarqawi because he was useful in developing an argument for war—even though that argument was based on lies. Tens of thousands have died, trillions of dollars have been wasted and who knows how many terrorists have been created as a result of his all-but-criminal negligence. Read all about it here.

Stan Goff on The Huntington Post puts in words something I’d always thought — that the administration blows these supposed terrorist leaders into terrorist legends with the idea that they can then use them to craft the story line they want to tell, that

the war is about terrorism, after all, and we are the good guys; the lives lost will not be in vain, and we will really “turn the corner” this time… the Iraqis and the world will see that we are a benign and beneficial nation.

But this time, he writes, with things going so badly on all fronts in the war and at home, as well, the bump in the polls is likely to be short, the benefit to the president’s poll numbers ephemeral.

(T)he attention-deficit disorder of the media and a society inebriated on the instant gratification of the consumer bacchanalia will watch this triumphalism fade, in days, not weeks, and the grating realities of our culture’s meaningless drudgery and vacuous need to be entertained, the steadily mounting casualties, rising gas prices, the Haditha massacres… all of it, will return. When it does, the draught will be that much more bitter. The war will continue. The blood will spill. Even fewer people will retain the capacity to fall, yet again, for the old Turning-the-Corner parlor trick.

In the end, he writes,

“They won’t have Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalayleh to kick around any more,” to coin a phrase. No they won’t; and it will be their loss. Zarqawi will be sorely missed in Washington.

The South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie. View all posts by hankkalet