Two more hostages murdered by Ansar-al-Islam, and a third (the Briton) likely to die tomorrow … all one can do in these circumstances is to express the deepest sympathy for the families and repeat everything John said at the time of the Nick Berg murder. We had the chance to take out Zarqawi before the war; why the hell didn’t we take it?
(Update) By which I mean two things: 1) can it really be true that it wasn’t done in order to avoid undermining the case for war; has anyone denied or shot down this theory yet? and 2) are there any other good reasons why it might not have been done, or at least attempted?
Well if we had taken out Zarqawi, it would have been harder to sell the American people on the war, and the glorious spread of democracy across the Middle East would never have begun.
“has anyone denied or shot down this theory yet?”
well if you read the ariticle you’ll see that the first time they refuesed to kill him was 2 years before hand ie way before Iraq needed to be “justified”.
Reason why they didnt - well exactly the same as why Clinton didnt do bin laden- there just wasnt the domestic or interantional will to justify it
2. cant do every thing right all the time
Anyway if they had and al quaeda had attacked anywhere in the west subsequently- you’d be writing posts about look what happens if you take pre-emptive action etc.
You’ll also notice that the article says they didnt at the time have the capacity to use ricin - so are you now adopting the strong pre cog pre emption policy?
Remember when people were saying that Zarqawi, having been identified as a Qaeda leader, would be taken out by Saddam himself before the war? I guess he decided that there was no point in doing the work for us; “any enemy of Colin Powell’s…”
The theory that Zarqawi was deliberately not taken out makes as much sense as arguing that Clinton acted the same with bin Laden. Does anyone, apart from the truely paranoid, really think that Bsuh and Clinton would sit around thinking “well if we just hold off getting them a little longer..”.
Apart from that it fails for the same reason that all conspiracy theories fail - it is too complicated and assumes the central actors have more control over events than they actually do.
I really have no opinion as to whether the US could or should have tried to attack Zarqawi before the start of the present war. But, the idea that we should compare the situaiton regarding him to Clinton against Bin Laden seems strained to me. Zarqawi was opperating in an area we had some nominal control over, and bombed regularly (the Northern No-fly zone) and where we had proxi forces. (The Kurds.) For reasons unknnow (maybe good for all I know, but unknown) we didn’t move against him. Bin Laden was in a country where we had no control, no local air power, and, at the time at least, no proxy forces. (We only recruited the Northern Alience later, w/ the help of big bags of cash.) Yet, Clinton did at least make some feable attempts against him w/ some cruise missle attacks. Again, I don’t know if this was the right thing to do or not, but the crys that since Clinton did nothing Bush can’t be held accountable really don’t add up, so let’s have an end to those, please.
I don’t recall rationality playing a big part in the push for war.
For more information on this story, see:
http://fugop.blogspot.com/2004/07/tentative-conclusions-on-nbc-zarqawi.html
http://fugop.blogspot.com/2004/07/best-theyve-got.html
http://fugop.blogspot.com/2004/06/missed-opportunities.html
Also, Jacob Levy at volokh.com wrote a lot of good information about this story around the same time (beginning of July).
We may have passed up on Zarqawi a sceond time: part of the Larry Franklin story is that we had the chance to trade some MEK captives for Zarqawi and others with Iran. We passed, based on backchannel support for the MEK. See here: http://fugop.blogspot.com/2004/08/mek.html
I apologize for the whoring, but I put a lot of work into those posts.
There is no justification necessary for deciding NOT to commit an international, state-sponsored murder.
If “we” just kill everybody, and all at once would be kinder I think, then “we” won’t have to worry about the bad people doing bad things anymore, because there won’t be anymore bad people.
Having followed this story only at a distance, I certainly don’t understand all the nuances. But I think a partial answer to your question #2 is suggested by this Christian Science Monitor article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p01s04-woiq.html
If Zarqawi really ISN’T the mastermind he’s been made out to be, and instead he’s more of a garden-variety thug, then murdering him might make a public martyr out of him in a way that would only increase the amount of mayhem attributed to his name. So if the goal is to decrease terrorism, it might be counter-productive.
I hesitate to attribute this level of rationality to a political decisionmaking process (and I shudder to think that we even have a “decisionmaking process” about whether to assassinate people), but it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw your post, after reading the CSM article earlier today.
The point is that there is absolutely no basis at all for the trust you put in US intelligence about Zarqawi.
The US supposedly knew where he was and what he was doing. Saddam supposedly conspired with Zarqawi.
Yet the moment the US takes over Iraq,
a) they don’t know shit about Zarqawi anymore. They don’t know where he is, don’t have any info to disrupt his terror organization, can’t prevent any of his terrorist activities.
b) they start to blame a lot of things on Zarqawi and his organization.
If it looks, smells and taste like propaganda, it may be just that. Or not, but then I would suggest you’ll need a bit more than a story that the US knew where he was before the war.
Those stories that have been fact checked have been proven wrong time and again.
And as noted before, the links between Saddam - Zarqawi - Ansar al Islam - al Quada are mostly based on innuendo and convenience rather than on undisputed facts.
One example to show the sillyness.
Colin Powell in his infamous speach to the UN - “One of his specialties and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons” - yet nobody has been poisoned in Iraq, and the mysterious camp where Zarqawi gave his poison training has never been found.
And last, the murders are “claimed” by “Monotheism and Holy War” or “al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad”. Not by Ansar al Islam. They are supposed to be different. But who cares?
Zarqawi is the leader of al-Tawhid. Ansar al-Islam was the camp in northern Iraq (the Kurdish areas). They are only tangentially related. Al-Tawhid was centered in Europe, and was heavily monitored by German intelligence.
The NBC news story is much more about the chance to take out the alleged Ansar camps than Zarqawi himself.
david m’s link above is a good one, and it reconfirms my skepticism of any link between al Qaeda and Zarqawi.
No less an administration mouthpiece than the New York Times (only slightly kidding!) said so on 6/26/04 (don’t know how to link an archived story).
It quotes an al Tawhid member saying his group was more “in rivalry” with bin Laden, and an NSC counterterrorism guy saying “Zarqawi’s camp was set up as much in competition as it was in cooperation with Al Qaeda.
And even freedom-hating, dictator-appeasing Rumsfeld (I’m not really kidding) saying “someone could legitimately say he’s [Zarqawi] not Al Qaeda.”
Of course, that wouldn’t stop the NYT from repeating the admin’s spin, probably the next day, about “al Qaeda’s top lieutenant in Iraq” or some-such @#$%.
If the administration is saying something, which might be in any way favorable to any position (say, al Qaeda in Iraq) you’re safer betting it’s a lie.
This is a bit OT from Daniel’s point about the horribleness of it all, and what might have been done beforehand.
From that point of view, I can well believe that Zarqawi’s camp in Iraqi Kurdistan was left alone because the objective in Iraq was always going to be regime change, and the existence of the Ansar camp facilitated the cover story. As I recall, Zarqawi and ricin were the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s argument to the Security Council that Iraq might engage in WMD terrorism. I think they were a sort of substitute for Bin Laden and anthrax, the Iraqi connection to which is the real “forbidden truth”.
Zarqawi is the leader of al-Tawhid. Ansar al-Islam was the camp in northern Iraq (the Kurdish areas). They are only tangentially related. Al-Tawhid was centered in Europe, and was heavily monitored by German intelligence.
I followed the links to an old blog entry from John Quiggin, and he defended the same “mistake” as follows:
“To start with, Zarqawi is the leader of Al-Tawhid, not Ansar Al-Islam, as John states.”
This is a quibble. While our knowledge of these groups is conjectural to some extent, it appears that a number have linked together, beginning with the establishment of the Kirma camp and developing further. These groups are now generally referred to, collectively, by the name of Ansar-al Islam and Zarqawi is generally referred to as the leader. Google gives thousands of references to this effect.
Personally I think this is wrong. But it is mostly useless to fight the common wisdom. Especially when there are no reliable sources to refer to on this issue.
luc, how can the common wisdom be wrong about a question of common usage? It is a matter of fact that a variety of groups are now referred to, collectively, by the name of Ansar-al Islam and that Zarqawi is generally referred to as the leader of Ansar-al Islam.
It may be that this standard usage is misleading as regards the origins of the group, but so what?
Apart from that it fails for the same reason that all conspiracy theories fail - it is too complicated and assumes the central actors have more control over events than they actually do.
I just love it when people come out with this old chestnut and believe themselves to be hugely wise and realistic to have done so. What the hell happened at the Watergate Hotel then, lugnuts? Was there a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland or wasn’t there? Did the Pentagon Papers have funny superscripts in them? How did the Contras get all that Iranian money? As Carl Ogleby said, conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means.
It may be that this standard usage is misleading as regards the origins of the group, but so what?
But that is the whole point. There has been so much disinformation spread about Ansar al Islam before the war that it is hard to get a straight and true story about what it was then. And sticking to that old name gives the impression of ignoring all the changes that have occurred after the war, both in the story and in the actual organization of the group. And the difference is such that I think it is misleading to speak of the same group.
Even the evil people at the WINEP can’t get that story straight. Jonathan Schanzer first described the group as Ansar and left Zarqawi mostly out:
And then described the group as led by Zarqawi and using the al-Tahwid name:
But at least he switched the name when the story changed.
Not that I think both stories contain much truth, but then I haven’t read any believable description of Ansar al Islam, Zarqawi and al-Tahwid.
Here is the big picture as I see it. Sociologically, al Qaeda, Tawhid, and Ansar al-Islam are all part of what Gilles Kepel calls “salafi-jihadism” and Marc Sageman calls the “global Salafi jihad”. Al Qaeda is bin Laden’s organization. Tawhid is Zarqawi’s organization and exists because Bin Laden didn’t want Jordanians in al Qaeda, since they might be working for pro-Western Jordanian intelligence. (I picked up this idea from an article at SAAG.org or Jamestown.org, not sure which.) Ansar al-Islam is the movement to bring about a Sunni Islamist state specifically in Iraq. It is not restricted to Kurds, but it was first formed in Iraqi Kurdistan.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review