Thursday, June 08, 2006
Al-Zarqawi KILLED! MSM Unhappy!
This is a great moral victory for the USA. We have eliminated one of the most active and high profile Al Qaieda terrorists in operation today. Yet, some in the MSM are already downplaying this victory and attempting to make it seem as if this is no big deal.
Air America makes it a joke
On the Stephanie Miller show this very morning, Miller joked that pictures of a dead Zarqawi might show "smoke from dry ice" as if Zarqawi was killed in the past but his corpse only on display today perhaps to obfuscate from the Haditha investigation. (NewsBusters.org)
Good Morning America -Zarqawi's Death no big deal
In an interview on GMA this morning, Richard Clarke was asked if Iraq is any safer or if the war might end sooner. He told host Diane Sawyer:
"Well, unfortunately the answer is no. This man was a terrible man. He was a symbol of terrorism. He was the face of terrorism, the only real name we knew of an insurgent leader in Iraq. But he commanded only a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency. And so, unfortunately for the loved ones of troops over in Iraq, this is not going to mean a big difference."
Clarke knowingly lied here. He knows full well that Al Qaieda is NOT part of the Iraqi "insurgency" but an outside force. So, tying them to the insurgency as if this is a small dent is not a true reading of the situation.
Clarke knows full well that there are at least three aspects to the terror situation in Iraq. Internal Baathist members trying to regain power, Iranian and other foreign agitators trying to eliminate US influence, and Al Qaieda are those three basic aspects.
This is a sever blow to Al Qaieda in Iraq and Clarke knows it.
And these are just two examples all before 10AM on the morning the news was issued. It is sure we will see many dozens of such examples of the media downplaying this victory as the day goes on and on into the weekend.
But, missing from even much of the straight reporting of this story is any hint that this could possibly be a blow to the morale of terror cells the world over. We have killed one of the most high profile, anti-western Islamists in the world. Not a hint of any speculation that this is a blow to them can be seen in the MSM.
Now, imagine if a US general had been killed in Iraq, instead of this terrorist. How much rampant speculation on how this will affect US morale would be bandied about by our wonderful News Media?
I'd bet it would be one of their central themes.
But, one of the most important aspects of this situation is that Zarqawi was tracked and killed because of information from Iraqi informants.(SeeYahoonews)
"Tips from senior militants led U.S. forces to follow al-Zarqawi's spiritual adviser to the safe house, 30 miles outside Baghdad, for a meeting with the terror leader."
I wonder how many MSM sources will put this fact front and center in the place of importance it deserves to be placed. We ARE getting help from Iraqis, Iraqis ARE interested in destroying Al Qaieda inside Iraq, and we are NOT the enemy to them there!
Is Zarqawi's death a "big deal"?
YES it IS!
We should also not forget that one of those who died with Zarqawi, advisor Sheik Abdul Rahman, was also a high profile figure in the world of Islamist terror. We took out two very important Al Qaieda terrorists this day.
Will the MSM celebrate? I wouldn't expect it.
UPDATE: 2 PM CST
In an even better twist on the story, we are beginning to find out that the way we tracked down Zarqawi is through information found through interrogation of terror suspects picked up by US operatives in Iraq.
"Over the past month, the two key members of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's inner sanctum had been netted by Iraqi and American spies and had gradually begun to talk.
They were caught during an intensified sweep that followed Zarqawi's debut propaganda video on April 26, which for the first time unmasked the Jordanian-born terrorist and gave glimpses of his surroundings."
Shouldn't this put a dent in the claims that we are somehow "failing" to uncover terror cells, or that our interrogations are somehow "useless"?
Again, it is doubtful much will be made of this point by our MSM.
All the major news outlets are abuzz with the news of Zarqawi’s death. Regardless of how one feels about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there is little question that Zarqawi was a danger to our troops and needed to be stopped. However, headline proclamations of having killed “the leader of Al-Qa’eda in Iraq” are disingenuous at best. At minimum, they serve to betray the tragic lack of understanding – at both the local and governmental level – of the kind of threat we are facing on the ground.
From the very inception of the War on Terror, this administration has attempted, both rhetorically and strategically, to present Al-Qa’eda as a unified terrorist organization with a handful of supposed puppet-masters. Unfortunately, this assessment is tragically false. Global terrorist networks are fundamentally different in both structure and strategy than any previous threat to international state security. Unlike traditional warfare where power emerges from a single locus, Al-Qa’eda is a radically individualized movement full of mini-leaders, self-starting cells, and zealous lone gunmen. The killing of any localized “leader” does nothing whatsoever to affect the actual power base any more than the ousting of Hussein did to staunch the threat posed by Iraq.
Despite rhetorical proclamations to the contrary, this administration has remained entrenched from the beginning in a pre-9-11 mindset. This tragic inability to think outside the box is perhaps the single most significant reason why Bush is losing a war of his own creation. The bottom line is that we are not dealing with a foreign government, nor are we tackling a guerilla movement centered around a charismatic individual. Were this to be the case, it would certainly be a reasonable strategy to target the enemy’s power locus (their government or leadership) as the entity responsible for directing the country’s assets against you.
However, what this administration seems to have a difficult time grasping is that terrorism functions as an essentially populist movement where power derives from the bottom, not the top. There is no single government or leadership that will cause the beast to come crashing down but rather hundreds or maybe thousands of tiny, quasi-governments capable of acting with complete autonomy. Within such a network, Zarqawi no more represents the power behind Al-Qa’eda than any other zealous individual motivated to strike against U.S. interests.
I believe it is infinitely more likely is that Zarqawi’s death will further inflame anti-Americanism across the entire region. Within the specific subsection of terrorists motivated by Zarqawi’s leadership, his death will only serve to create a localized power vacuum. In the face of his absence, it is far more probable that several individuals will vie to fill the void through independent operations, each more vicious than the last, in order to prove their merit. Absent Zarqawi’s leadership, whatever form of "command" he had over his followers has now been abruptly splintered and the U.S. will likely face a more diffuse and erratic level of aggression.
Were this administration to finally get serious about fighting this war, rather than playing the role of cowboy in a ‘dead or alive’ posse, they would confront the ideology to which terrorists claim allegiance rather than the individual, armed expression of that ideology. In this way, perhaps the administration could cease inserting itself as a causal factor into the very problem is claims to be solving.
Links to this post: