Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Silver Bullet by Kurt Nimmo
May 26, 2005
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, or maybe he is alive. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is wounded, but maybe he isn’t. “It remains unclear whether he is seriously wounded, whether he is in Iraq or elsewhere, and whether he has been replaced at least temporarily as leader of his group,” reports the BBC. Nobody knows much of anything about the mercurial Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and yet he is “blamed for many of the most deadly attacks and is the only widely-recognized leader in the insurgency,” even though he may be dead, seriously wounded, or not in Iraq. Considering the dearth of information on al-Zarqawi, how can the BBC and the corporate media claim he is the “only widely-recognized leader in the insurgency”?
The BBC continues: “Clearly, US commanders and the new Iraqi authorities believe that removing him from the scene would have a significant psychological and practical impact on the insurgency, at least temporarily,” and never mind that, as stated above, he may not even be on the scene, or alive for that matter. Claiming al-Zarqawi is dead, in a spider hole somewhere licking his wounds, or on vacation in the Bahamas will not have a “psychological and practical impact on the insurgency,” as claimed by the Pentagon. But fact of the matter is the Pentagon and its Iraqi version of the ARVN possess a dim view of what the “insurgency” actually is and the hobgoblin al-Zarqawi is a desperate attempt to put a face on the resistance. Or so it would seem.
“To capture or kill such a figurehead would also be a considerable symbolic and morale boost to US forces and the Iraqi administration,” the BBC claims. “But no-one believes it would be a silver bullet that would finish off the resistance.”
In fact, nothing short of the U.S. leaving Iraq will “finish off the resistance” (or stop it from resisting) and the Iraqi ARVN, once abandoned by the Pentagon, will wither like Nguyen Van Thieu’s army did in Vietnam after the U.S. skedaddled. Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Duleimi will likely order his soldiers to fight on after the U.S. exits the stage and, like General Cao Van Vien, ARVN chief of staff, he will flee the country. Saadoun al-Duleimi’s Phuoc Long (probably the most decisive battle of the Vietnam conflict) is right around the corner.
“In Iraq, the insurgency remains a complicated tapestry. As it has gone on, it has got more sophisticated.”
Is it possible the corporate media (in Britain as well as the United States) is so blindsided and stupid? Of course the Iraqi resistance is “a complicated tapestry,” mostly because it stretches across the breadth of Iraqi society and is not, as Bush and Crew and the slavish corporate media would have us believe, simply a collection of former “Saddamists” (yet another meaningless term created by the corporate media), dead-enders, malcontents, criminals, and foreign terrorists. The Iraqi resistance is not “run” by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or any other single individual (even one who actually exists, since al-Zarqawi is dead). Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a contrivance, a monster face slapped on an anonymous resistance that cannot be defeated because it is indigenous and committed, not a sinister underground cabal of beheaders and suicide bombers as much at war with Shia Islam as the United States military, and not led by a half-witted and sadistic Jordanian Palestinian, a foreigner. “Rather than extremist foreign fighters battling to the death, the marines are mostly finding local men from Falluja who are fighting to defend their city from what they view as an illegitimate occupier,” Scott Ritter wrote earlier this year. “The motivations of these fighters may well be anti-American, but they are Iraqi, not foreign, in origin.”
Nonetheless, with reality staring story editors at the BBC dead in face, they write: “But trends like the increase in suicide bombings in Baghdad may be evidence of growing collaboration between the foreign elements and local Iraqi insurgents.” And, as well, it may be a military intelligence operation on the part of the Pentagon, increasing acts of savage violence engineered to make the undefeatable Iraqi resistance look bad and alienate possible supporters, a long-held objective of counter-insurgency for decades (for instance, insurgent “pseudo teams,” as organized by the British Special Branch in Malaya worked to discredit the insurgency). As Chris Shumway points out, many Iraqis believe “the mythic Al-Zarqawi is part of a foreign strategy to divide Iraq’s religious sects and political factions and justify a prolonged occupation… According to analysts and military documents obtained by the Associated Press, the most organized and active resistance cells consist mainly of native Iraqis: Sunni Muslims, Ba’ath party loyalists—many with experience in Saddamâ€™s military and intelligence services—and tribal men who are fighting for a bigger role for their group in Iraq. Although they may be influenced by fundamentalist Islam, they are not, many analysts insist, fighting for a Taliban-like Islamic state as Al-Zarqawi’s fighters purportedly are.”
Bush and Crew believe (or want us to believe) “the level of insurgent violence” is a “sign of increasing desperation,” when in fact, as the BBC allows, “it may be further evidence that the insurgency is stronger and more sophisticated than US commanders and intelligence have calculated,” or are willing to admit. In desperation, the Pentagon has once again deployed “more than 1,000 soldiers to flush out foreign fighters and Iraqi extremists from Haditha,” as the Los Angeles Times reports.
Even so, “the pace of suicide bombings, sabotage and assassinations has shown no signs of abating,” and will not do so until the United States gets out of Iraq, something they keep telling us they will not do, even though it is obvious that with every “sweep” through Iraqi “terrorist strongholds” the resistance not only grows, but increases its deadly effectiveness. As if on cue, following the now dog-warred Straussian master plan and shooting script, “U.S. and Iraqi officials accuse Syria of tolerating the use of their territory as a conduit for foreign fighters entering Iraq,” once again refusing to face reality, a totality that demands common sense be enlisted: the Iraqi resistance is indigenous, not cooked up in Damascus or Tehran.
Meanwhile, as if to admit the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi myth is on its last legs, an “Internet statement signed in the name of al-Qaida in Iraq said the group has appointed an interim leader for al-Zarqawi in light of his purported injury,” even though this was later disputed. As usual, the “statement, posted on a Web site known for carrying extremist material, could not be immediately authenticated,” although this hardly matters. “The back-and-forth on same Web site, known as a clearinghouse of Islamic militant material, could be a sign of confusion or competition within al-Qaida of Iraq. It follows speculation about the Jordanian-born militant that has been unusual in size and scope.” Of course, it makes absolutely no sense for al-Qaeda “in Iraq” to air its dirty laundry and admit this weakness publicly. But then, since the American people, who either directly or tacitly support Bush’s “war on terrorism,” are so easily fooled and are remiss when it comes to picking up on crucial details, this may not be much of a concern for the masters of war who are emboldened by the fact so few people actually care about their bald-faced lies and deceptions.