Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Why didn’t we capture Zarqawi instead of killing him? (photo: Reuters)

ABC News got a big scoop on the other broadcast networks tonight by being the first by an hour or more to report that U.S. and Iraqi forces had located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a Baquba safehouse and killed him along with seven lieutenants who were meeting there. U.S. helicopter gunships may’ve provided the firepower which killed him. CNN is now reporting that Jordanian intelligence and possibly members of Zarqawi’s Iraqi network may’ve provided intelligence information beginning as early as two weeks ago allowing the Iraqis to pinpoint his location.

I find it hard to believe that NBC continued broadcasting Jay Leno and CBS continued with David Letterman while a competitor scooped them with news that the third most wanted man in the world had just been killed.

But what astonishes me even more is that the U.S. decided to blow him to smithereens instead of capturing him. After all, this is the second or third most wanted terrorist in the world. Wouldn’t capturing him alive have been an extraordinary coup? Either he provides you with extremely helpful information about his network and activities as some captives have done; or if he clams up you put him on trial before the world for his crimes as an example of what happens to people who do the things he’s done.

Not knowing the background for this operation, there may’ve been some reason that rockets were called in instead of forces to capture him. But on the face of it this looks like a typically rash and hasty decision by the Bush Administration at the expense of a future potential intelligence bonanza. In fact, it makes you wonder whether Bush and Cheney looked at the mess the Iraqis have made of the Saddam Hussein trial and said: “It’s just not worth it to capture and try him. Let’s just get it over with and embrace rough justice.”

UPDATE: Glad to report that this NY Times reporter is asking the same question as I. Here’s the answer U.S. forces provided to him:

As American commandos surrounded the house where they believed Mr. Zarqawi to be, the commander on the ground decided to call in the airstrike. It was not clear why the American officer decided against storming the house and capturing Mr. Zarqawi, which would have given the Americans a chance to interrogate him.

One reason, General Caldwell said, was that such an assault might have cost many American lives without any guarantee of taking Mr. Zarqawi alive. Another reason, asserted by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday, was that Mr. Zarqawi might have escaped, as he had many times before when the Americans had him in their sights.

“You have to ask yourself: is it worth putting American men and women’s lives at risk to go in to what was probably a heavily fortified and guarded thing, in order to grab him?” General Caldwell said.

If I were in U.S. intelligence the answer to that question for me would be: “hell yes.” If you take this guy alive and you get him to talk think how many lives you save. Think how many Al Qaeda operations you thwart. Think how many Al Qaeda operatives you freak out by letting them think that Zarqawi is spillinghis guts to you. I’m for a little less blood lust and a little more consideration of the long-term benefits of bringing him in alive. But blood lust appears to have won out.

Another warning: no doubt the Bush Administration is going to be crowing tomorrow as they did after Hussein’s capture. But i say here exactly what I said then. Zarqawi was an important agent of terror in Iraq. Things can’t help but be a little better without his catalytic influence. But I see Zarqawi as a symptom of Iraq’s problems, not as a major cause. Zarqawi resonated in Iraq because its underlying problems presented him such fertile ground for terror operations. Nothing in the conditions on the ground in Iraq have changed with his death. His network will undoubtedly go on. I see very little changing there unless and until the U.S. decides to leave and/or the various Iraqi factions of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds figure out a way they can live with each other. I don’t see either one of these developments happening anytime soon. Therefore, the chaos we’ve witnessed there over the past few years will continue and very little will change.

So if you hear talking heads tomorrow talking about a new day in Iraq, don’t you believe it.

Just what Hamas needs–a friend like Osama bin Laden. As if they, and the Palestinians don’t have enough problems between imminent bankruptcy, malnutrition, economic stagnation and constant Israeli shelling. They need a friend like Osama like they need a hole in the head.

Nevertheless, there were some interesting aspects of bin Laden’s audio tape as reported in the NY Times. Apparently, he hardly mentioned Iraq at all. It’s almost as if bin Laden conceded that Iraq was a lost cause for America and that our departure was guaranteed. Almost as if bin Laden is saying he’s tired of toying with Bush as the latter has defeated himself in Iraq. Now, the former seems to feel the need to look to new domains for potential Al Qaeda “traction.” Those domains are, he now informs us, Palestine and Sudan. No doubt, he’s throwing some food against the wall to see what sticks.

Osama’s newfound support for Hamas (consider that he’s denounced the movement for participating in electoral politics) should be a lesson for the west in the price they pay if they continue their attempts to isolate and humiliate Hamas:

Mr. bin Laden sought to tap into the wide public support among Arabs for Hamas, which Israel, the United States and the European Union regard as a terrorist organization.

“The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist-crusaders war on Islam,” he said.

No doubt bin Laden is right. The bullying of Hamas and the Palestinians plays poorly (to say the least) in the Arab street. If we continue with such an open-ended policy of suffering, we WILL create a perfect opening for the jihadists, another Iraq in the making. However, if we see things more pragmatically and come to understand that there may be a way to test Hamas to determine its level of seriousness; and subsequently to bring Israel into dialogue and negotiation with Hamas, then we will have blunted the power of bin Laden’s message.

Thankfully, Hamas had the good sense (which they don’t always display in these situations) to reject bin Laden’s “good wishes” while sounding a note of warning to the west about their short-sided policies toward Palestine’s elected political leadership:

As in the past, Hamas sought to distance itself from Al Qaeda and its leadership. But Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, said Western financial penalties against the Palestinian Authority government it now leads were a source of anger for Muslims around the region.

“We have warned many times that the siege upon Hamas and the policy of hunger will create a situation of hatred in Arab and Muslim nations,” Mr. Zuhri said. “It will create the impression there is a Western war against the Islamic world.”

The CIA’s former bin Laden expert presents the keenest analysis, warning us that bin Laden’s work is made infinitely easier by the mess that is U.S. Mideast policy:

Michael Scheuer, former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s bin Laden unit, said the segments of the tape he had read about suggested that Mr. bin Laden “is at the top of his game” largely because of America’s own foreign policy. “We cut off Hamas after we had a fair election,” he said. “It looks like we are going to intervene in another Muslim country with oil, in Sudan; we followed Israel’s lead with Hamas. His most important ally is American foreign policy.”

That says it all, I’m afraid.

I’ve read some wacky conspiracy theories suggested by “progressive” opponents of the Dubai ports deal, but I think what I read at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Stakeholder blog last night takes the cake. The post titled Oy, linked to a New York Post (that’s Rupert Murdoch’s shmatte) story, QAEDA CLAIM: WE ‘INFILTRATED’ UAE GOV’T (registration required). The Stakeholder post thanked the Left Coaster for alerting it to the story.

U.S.: Surrendering to terror and paranoia (cartoon: Gary Markstein/Cagle.com)

The first thing that struck me about this was that two erstwhile progressive websites were leaning on a Murdoch rag to support their opposition to the ports deal. Have we no shame?? I expect Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs to link to nasty unsourced anti-Arab stories from the British tabloid press. But I don’t expect the same from my colleagues in the progressive blog world. Would you rely on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity as a source for one of your posts unless you meant to ridicule them? I know I wouldn’t.

But even worse is the actual “substance” of the story:

February 25, 2006 — WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it “infiltrated” key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of “mujahedeen detainees,” who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

So get this straight, this “disturbing” and “explosive” story is based on a purported message that Al Qaeda sent to UAE rulers. Al Qaeda was pressuring the government to release the former’s prisoners and in order to gain more leverage it claimed it had operatives in place within agencies who could do great harm to UAE. Why in heavens name would anyone trust the truth of the Qaeda message?? Did they provide any proof of their alleged infiltration? Rather than trusting the authenticity of the message, it’s far more likely that Qaeda was blowing smoke up UAE’s ass attempting to spook them into releasing the Qaeda detainees.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port deal, who fear the Dubai-based firm could be used by terrorists to sneak money and personnel into the United States.

And indeed it has, though the Post could never have imagined that gullible so-called lefties would be the ones to use such ammunition.

Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.

That’s the only fully accurate statement in this entire story. And in case anyone wondered about the “journalistic standards” of the Post, they need look no farther than here. The Post quotes the alleged contents of the message here:

“You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned,” the message said.

“Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.

“Your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them.”

As a suspect under interrogation would say on a TV cop show: “is that all ya got?”

The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured by U.S. forces in the war on terror.

They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point.

A word on the Combatting Terrorism Center. It is an anti-terror military institute affiliated with the U.S. Military Academy and directed by Gen. Wayne Downing. Downing was the general who resigned in 2002 (before the Iraq war) from his White House job as assistant to the president for combating terror when Don Rumsfeld rejected his plan to topple Saddam Hussein relying on air power and heavy special forces operations.

Downing is likely quite disaffected from Bush Mideast policy and so would have a vested interest in releasing documents which shed negative light on the Dubai ports deal. So until someone can prove otherwise, the source of the alleged document and its distributor is suspect.

“If it’s real, the document shows that the UAE really is trying to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, because they were being threatened by al Qaeda,” said terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino.

“But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait.”

“If it’s real.” That’s the $64,000 question. If I had that much money I’d bet against it. And if it is “real,” why does it prove “Qaeda seems to have people on the inside?” It merely proves that Qaeda SAID it has people on the inside. How much credence do you give to statements from Al Qaeda?? Right. I don’t either. And who is Lorenzo Vidino and why should anyone put any trust in him?

So what we have here is garbage. But garbage spewed by the far-right press and embraced avidly by Democrats and progressives desperate to lay a glove on Bush. Besides desperation, this dance with nativism indicates the abject failure of the progressive movement to shed a mortal blow on the Bush presidency. We’re so damn frustrated at this failure that it seems that some of us have relaxed our usual standards in order to grasp this frail reed of a controversy.

Finally, to me the ports deal and “evidence” such the purported Al Qaeda message show that Americans suffer from the same paranoia about Al Qaeda which it was attempting to instill in the UAE when it wrote this message. If we believe that Al Qaeda “owns” UAE, then certainly AQ will only be a footstep from our door when Dubai Ports World takes over the U.S. port terminals. Then it’s only a question of time before AQ hurts us badly and DPW will be the conduit for such terror.

This hyperactive, paranoid fantasy only shows that Al Qaeda has taken over our psyches. When you let it do so you are doing the bidding of both Al Qaeda AND George Bush, who after 9/11 did his best to create a national security state in which there is no other priority but fighting terror. Terror dominates us–our minds and our souls. How sad. Neither Al Qaeda, nor terror, nor fear owns me. I wish I could say the same about some of my progressive blog colleagues.