Understatement of the War
Zarqawi, Iraq/Al-Qaeda's leading terrorist behind Osama, had this to say in a recent audio tape:
"God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means ... even if armed infidels and unintended victims women and children are killed together," the speaker said. "The priority is for jihad so anything that slows down jihad should be overcome."
And here's the brilliant response by Gen. Richard Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"The tape only goes to show al-Zarqawi's complete lack of moral foundation. If you look at the statistics over the last couple of weeks, a lot of Iraqi men, women and children have died because this violent extremist is trying to convince others to do it. ... It's an outrage. "
Come on, Rich. Marilyn Manson has a complete lack of moral foundation - Zarqawi is a homicidal maniac.
The Muslim world, including Afghani's apparently keen on exercising their new freedom, rioted in the streets against the US when Newsweek reported interrogators at Guantanamo flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet (Newsweek retracted the statement under pressure from the White House.) I can guarantee the Muslim world isn't going to riot about this, despite the fact that it's going to aid the physical destruction of their homes and bring about more suffering than flushing every book in Cuba. Maybe Al-Jazeera should start airing the tapes of prominent clerics who disagree with Zarqawi, if there are any bold enough to speak up these days, and stop sensationalizing the maniacal rantings and destructive actions of terrorist lunatics.
posted by RJ @ 9:35 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that Zarqawi, if indeed he is behind everything the US alleges he is, is a homicidal maniac. But I have trouble condemning Iraqi insurgents who, unlike Zarqawi, are unconnected to international terrorist rings and a certain lanky murderer mastermind. My reasoning about what is and is not justified goes to pieces when I think about the fact that we INVADED another sovereign country. Pretend that a coalition of Southeast Asian countries had invaded the United States in 1965 as a pre-emptive strike because they knew we had weapons of mass destruction and were going to invade Vietnam on a completely false pretext. Would they be justified? If they did invade, would we resist, or would we let them set up some sort of hybrid government? Let me be clear--I am not "rooting for" the insurgents. I don't want ANY MORE PEOPLE to die in Iraq. But how are they morally bankrupt to fight back against an invading power? What would you do?
Painting it as a matter of fighting or not against an invading power over-simplifies the issue and takes it away from the subject of the original post. We're talking about whether or not to back a warlord who's advocating the killing of your own women and children if that's what it takes to fight against a foreign power - a foriegn power who I might add deposed a dictator committing genocide against your people and is trying to replace him with a peaceful democracy that you're invited to take part in.
I'm not calling the people of Iraq morally bankrupt - I never said anything close. I don't want any more people in Iraq to die either - I want to Iraqi people to take control of their own country so that we can get the hell out of there. But we're not going to leave just in time to let someone like Zarqawi take over - that is the thing we must not do.
I don’t have anything to add to this discussion because I agree with you both and have no way of sorting anything out right now. I do, however, have an open question: was Newsweek’s story about Koran-flush proved wrong on factual grounds? Everything I have read about it has said something like “Newsweek retracted their story... in light of violent riots in Afghanistan.” I have not read anything about factual errors or erroneous sources or anything like that – just that the story caused a big problem. Somebody please let me know!
redhurt, you contradicted yourself:
"Painting it as a matter of fighting or not against an invading power over-simplifies the issue...We're talking about whether or not to back a warlord who's advocating the killing of your own women and children if that's what it takes to fight against a foreign power."
So I shouldn't talk about it in the context of fighting a foreign power, because the real context is whether or not to back a homicidal warlord in fighting a foreign power?
I was defending the ignorant grunt followers of Zarqawi--I'll obviously never defend the murder of American soldiers. How about you answer the questions I asked in my comment?
I'm not contradicting myself. The point isn't whether or not the grunt soldiers should be fighting America - the point is that Zarqawi told them it's acceptable to blow up their own civilians - their mothers, their wives and their children - and none of them are voicing much outrage about it.
If your Southeast Coalition Against the US Invading Vietnam (SCAIV) had conquered our country and thrown out our government, of course I'd fight back. But if our country had been ruled by Sadaam Hussein and the SCAIV invaded, threw him out, and then tried to help us set up a democracy, I'd lay down my guns and run for president. I know the people of Iraq don't see it as that cut and dry, and isn't, and I can understand why they've fought back against us. What I can't understand is why statements like this last one Zarqawi made and our continued efforts to let them have their own government and get out aren't helping to convince those people that 1.) we don't want to rule their country and 2.) the popular warlords running the insurgency do not have their best interests, the interest if Iraq as a nation, and the interests of the Islamic people as a whole in mind.
Never in my post did I rail against the grunt soldiers you're defending, and that's why I think your reply was off topic.
redhurt: "Zarqawi is crazy, and I can't understand why the people of Iraq aren't more upset about his saying it's alright if they kill a few mothers and children to get to the US."
Chuck: "well, let's say that Asia invades the US. Wouldn't you drive a car bomb?"
As for what j. morgan said, while I haven't done much research on the Newsweek article, I haven't read anything substantial to indicate that the flushing really didn't take place. I personally see no reason why it couldn't have, and think it probably did. I really think it was retracted solely for political reasons.
If I understand redhurt correctly, he isn’t contradicting himself at all. I don’t think he is talking about insurgents who are "just doing what they think is right”, but rather insurgents who have a clear anti-Western, radical Islamist perspective on the world that is being (allegedly) fed to them by Zarqawi. While Charles was making the case that we can at least relate to the former, redhurt was trying to talk about the White House's portayal of the latter. The means by which Dick Meyers wants to condemn Zarqawian insurgents is stupid. Rather than calling it like it is, he takes cues from the Texan who claims morality as a proprietary American invention – something “lacking” from the Muslim world, not “otherly.” All I think redhurt was advocating was a clarity about who Zarqawi is and his motivation rather than propaganda akin to the sloppy moralizing of the Cold War.
As for Charles’s question, however, I think it is a valid one. It seems to me that those quickest to advocate an all-out slaughter of “insurgents” are those who have the most libertarian, individualistic, vigilantism when talking about domestic issues. It is funny that the people who own handguns in case they need to shoot an intruder or support the “Minutemen” along the Mexican border are also those who think we need a purge of “rebels” in Iraq.
Fair enough, redhurt and j. morgan. I guess if you were asking, strictly, "Why haven't more Iraqis condemned Zarqawi as totally insane?" and not "Why would people follow him at all?" then I guess that is a topic from which I strayed. I think we can come up with some answers to this first question. I think people are afraid for their lives; I think they want power and think Zarqawi can give it to them; I think they're more used to the statements of fundamentalists than we are. You'll note that many westernized Muslims, especially professors, were quick to condemn his statement: how many Iraqi insurgents have college degrees? I hope this helps or provides a starting point for more discussion.
The colon in my last comment makes the last few sentences unclear. The emphasis was supposed to be something like, how many Iraqi insurgents are well-educated?
Yes, I see. I think your point that we can sympathize with many insurgents more than we acknowledge is also very reasonable and worth discussing - just not what I was bringing up in the original post.
Not many Iraqi's have college degrees. I just hope things like this statement and continued and obvious pushes for peace by Americans can help reverse the impression these people got when we invaded their country and instead make them believe that we're there to help; that we're ready to leave as soon as we're sure the country won't erupt in civil war upon our departure. I hope it helps them to see how crazy and truly bad Zarqawi's plans are, and that they'll stop supporting him. I think a popular leader of and for the people, such as a Cleric, who decided to boldly speak the truth in love on this issue would be heard by the Muslim people, and could go a long way towards forging a stable peace.
I think you would be surprised at the level of education possessed by many of the older Iraqis. Before Saddam Hussein began his wars of aggression, Iraq was the most educated Arab nation in the world. Unfortunately an entire generation of Iraqis has had almost no education whatsoever due to the appalling state of the nation under the UN embargo in the '90s.
As for the Iraqi 'insurgents' most of the information I have read indicates that they fall into two large groups. The first is composed largely of former Baathists. When Saddam lost power they lost everything and are fighting in a lost action to try to regain their former powers. As they were once the privileged classes I would say that many of them had access to advanced education.
The second group is primarily Islamist jihadis. Well over half of them come from Syria and Iran which is why 'insurgents' always will be in quotation marks when I say it. While many of them may be underprivileged most of the leadership of the global jihad have college educations, often from Western universities.
I have found that going to college is most definitely not a guarantee that someone will become a decent and thoughtful human being.
Going back to the initial point of Zarqawi and his ilk, I really don't know if homicidal maniac is the right term. However disgusting their methods, they are not committing terrorist attacks for the joy of random violence.
Weakening occupier moral is only a secondary goal of terrorism. The primary goal is to provoke a response that can be used to unite your population. However the US military is far too professional for that method to work. However the Islamist handbook doesn't contain any plan B. The terrorist attacks against Iraqi security forces began because attacks against US forces were failing to provoke a response. These attacks also failed to shake the morale of the US and Iraqi forces, and have helped to unify the country behind the new government.
Zarqawi's statement is consistent with the current strain of terrorist attacks. Terrorists, I or 'insurgents', have used Iraqi children as cover to get close to US vehicles before detonating suicide packs. This strategy has a chance of hurting US troops in small numbers, and will kill large numbers of Iraqis but has absolutely no chance of accomplishing their political goals. Every time the Iraqi public sees a picture of a crying US marine trying to save the life of a mortally wounded Iraqi child popular opinion moves away from the terrorists.
I do think 'morally corrupt' is more accurate than 'homicidal maniac'. The terrorists under Zarqawi are wantonly killing Iraqis not for the fun of it, but because they are stuck in morally bankrupt political methodology that worked for most of the last century. Despite the fact that those attacks are not working right now they will continue them, not because they love killing, but because they have no idea what else to do to advance their agenda.
Excellent response, Virtutis.
Perhaps 'homicidal maniac' is taking it a bit far, but I just don't think 'morally bankrupt' does Zarqawi justice. Morality is a popular platform for discrediting rivals in American society right now, and the phrase 'morally bankrupt' has been used to apply to so many different people in different situations that it's lost some of it's meaning. To call Zarqawi 'politically bankrupt' is to apply to him the same buzzword crticisms we used to complain about sex on TV and drugs in pop music, and I think we need to take him more seriously than that. He might indeed be morally bankrupt, but I think this statement does more to show he's maniacal than without morals. He deserves the strongest terms of condemnation we can apply to him, and 'morally bankrupt' doesn't do it for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home