I will admit it: I am ambivalent about Zarqawi’s death.
Oh I know this isn’t “politically correct”. I also know that it will inevitably be twisted, taken out of context, and ruthlessly used politically by those who’ve supported the illegal, immoral, and obviously failed occupation of Iraq, in their never ending quest to broad-brush so-called “Liberals” as “Anti-American, and even gleeful at American failures and troop loses. I also know that many on the left will run from this opinion by me just as they’ve run from so many other truths, unthinkingly preferring polity of any form over the inconvenience and hostility created by unpopular truths.
But never the less, I am ambivalent. On the one hand, obviously Zarqawi was responsible for immense suffering of innocent people, and his death was nothing if not “just” in the sense of the immediate. And his death may well result in a reduction of the horrific violence suffered by innocent people. For that I am immensely grateful. But my ambivalence arises on account of the less than immediate consequences, and within the context of the geopolitical realities of America’s criminal foreign policy in the region, and our own future as Americans.
Prefacing this for the moment, I do not believe that the death of Zarqawi does in fact mark a “turning point” in this monumental failure in Iraq. I believe this occupation will continue to fail, and that any one individual is inconsequential to an outcome based on innate outrage at being occupied and robbed. But if it does alter the course in a meaningful way, I have to selfishly ask what the implications are for us as Americans, and unselfishly ask what the consequences are for the rest of the world.
When Iraq “went bad”, I was indeed grateful that it did. For had it not, we’d have been confronted with a far worse situation had it succeeded; a criminal administration would have succeeded in it’s crime, and surely gone on to even greater affronts to the rule of law and peace. Had the war succeeded, we’d still be living in an intellectually and morally crushing environment where the leadership remained wholly unaccountable to anything other than polls measuring their success at exactly what Adolf Hitler attempted. Yes, it’s the tired old Hitler comparison, but I will neither apologize for making it, nor will I fail to defend the apt parallels. While Bush and Cheney have not murdered six million people based on racial purity, had they succeeded in their plan, they may well have murdered a million or more for their religion and theft and control of their resources. And they still may.
Zarqawi’s death marks for the moment, a renewed hope for the neo-conservatives that this may all turn out for them in the end. That hope is as lethal to this nation, and the rest of the world, as any hope ever held by a regime bent on world domination and the violent imposition of ideology.
The noise of the dying beast had begun to abate, replaced by whimpering and an understanding that very soon, the crime would be punished by the American people. But like the Nazi’s, the grandiosity of the ambition has been matched by tireless optimism renewed by the slightest hope. Zarqawi’s death has given hope to a demonstrated enemy of the supposed American values of the rule of law and accountability.
Zarqawi is not my "friend", and I do not grieve for his life. But he was “the enemy of my enemy”, and for those who claim to want an America which abides in it’s self-proclaimed principles of justice and the rights of self-determination of other peoples in the world, if they cast aside the imposed fear which precludes honesty, they too will find their ambivalence.
In the end, from the time it became apparent that the attack on Iraq was based upon lies and against international law precluding wars of aggression, there were two possibilities and two paths which would result. America needed to suffer the consequences it’s suffered for it’s actions. Anything which further enables it’s outrages, will preclude it’s hoped for restoration to collective moral sanity and respectability as a nation among nations.
Jay Esbe is a writer with a background in cultural anthropology and comparative religion and lives in Seattle Washington.
I trust that Mr. Esbe enjoys exercising his right to freely spew vitriol at his own popularly elected government who were entrusted by his fellow citizens with the solemn duty of administering the Laws and securing the common Defense.
However, as he trips over himself trying to make it clear that his disdain for the murderous jihadists is almost equal to his contempt for his own nation's government—upon whom falls the duty to pursue justice and establish peace—he utterly fails to recall that our nation was the target of the opening salvo in this conflict. He seemingly doesn't consider that when the jihadists sought to take out both the heart of our government and of our finances in one fell swoop, they were not playing make-believe.
As he openly implies his enmity against his own nation and government, his lack of honesty is seen in his complete failure to acknowledge the fact that Al Quaeda was cozy with Iraq long before 9/11/01; that, e.g., Al Quaeda operative Abdul Rahman Yasin, who made the attempt to topple the WTC towers in '93, was here on an Iraqi passport, where he had been living and drawing a salary. There was a plenitude of corroborating evidence that Saddam Hussein was both a supporter and perpetrator of terrorism.
Setting back and preparing a defense for the next attack after 9/11/01 would not have been a wise course of action. It was strategically imperative to go on the offensive. By invading Iraq, we were both unseating a despot and incapacitating a hotbed of terrorism. WMDs may not have been lies at all; for they could have been trucked into Syria prior to the invasion.
Just remember, Mr. Esbe, that you live and enjoy the blessings and prosperity of freedom that Iraqis couldn't have dreamed of under Saddam Hussein. Hopefully someday you will develop a greater appreciation of their value, and of the cost at which they were attained, and of the price of their preservation.
by
jmgainor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 12:00:13 AM
I trust that Mr. Esbe enjoys exercising his right to freely spew vitriol at his own popularly elected government who were entrusted by his fellow citizens with the solemn duty of administering the Laws and securing the common Defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ESBE: Yes, as a matter of fact I do. But there's a presumption on your part here that needs to be corrected, before I allow you to continue your mouth-breathing brain-dead diatribe; My right doesn't require your quotation marks. It doesn't require any government to "grant" it to me either. It's absolute, inalienable, and derived by me from MY God, not yours. My right is not given to me, only ackowledged. And anyone who doesn't fully acknowledge it, is going to have a problem with me very quickly. You don't appreciate my inalienable right to free speech because you're a fascist hiding behind the flag. There's nothing lower. Nothing. If you had even the most basic grasp of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, you'd recognize your own B.S. before it escaped your big stupid mouth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jmgainor: However, as he trips over himself trying to make it clear that his disdain for the murderous jihadists is almost equal to his contempt for his own nation's government—upon whom falls the duty to pursue justice and establish peace—he utterly fails to recall that our nation was the target of the opening salvo in this conflict.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Esbe: I know a coup' when I see one Mr. Gainer. That makes the gulf between our understanding of this situation wider than the oceans which used to seperate us from our enemies. I will expend zero energy here attempting to convince you that you're wrong about virtually everything you believe, value, and defend. Just know, that there are probably at least 75 million of your fellow Americans who believe George W. Bush's finger prints are all over the World Trade Centers, and if you think we're all "Liberals" and pacifists, you're further gone than your little flag waving patriot act implies. My revulsion at creatures such as yourself far exceeds any you may believe you hold for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jmgainor: He seemingly doesn't consider that when the jihadists sought to take out both the heart of our government and of our finances in one fell swoop, they were not playing make-believe.
As he openly implies his enmity against his own nation and government,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Esbe: This is not my government. This is an appointed dictatorship in violation of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and in violation of the Constitution under the signed articles of international law to which the nation is Constitutionally obliged when signatories to treaties. I am anything but alone in that assesment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jmgainor:his lack of honesty is seen in his complete failure to acknowledge the fact that Al Quaeda was cozy with Iraq long before 9/11/01;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ESBE: HILLARIOUS!!!! Tell ya what sporto: You'd better start screaming about the 9-11 Commission's big cover-up right now, because according to you, they're LIARS; They said NO SUCH NEXUS EXISTED. It's one of the few things they were honest about, but I didn't need them to tell me that. You're a moron, but that goes without saying by me for the vast majority of people who read this web site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
jmgainor:that, e.g., Al Quaeda operative Abdul Rahman Yasin, who made the attempt to topple the WTC towers in '93, was here on an Iraqi passport, where he had been living and drawing a salary. There was a plenitude of corroborating evidence that Saddam Hussein was both a supporter and perpetrator of terrorism.
Setting back and preparing a defense for the next attack after 9/11/01 would not have been a wise course of action. It was strategically imperative to go on the offensive. By invading Iraq, we were both unseating a despot and incapacitating a hotbed of terrorism. WMDs may not have been lies at all; for they could have been trucked into Syria prior to the invasion.
Just remember, Mr. Esbe, that you live and enjoy the blessings and prosperity of freedom that Iraqis couldn't have dreamed of under Saddam Hussein. Hopefully someday you will develop a greater appreciation of their value, and of the cost at which they were attained, and of the price of their preservation.
by jmgainor (0 articles, 1 comments) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 1:00:13 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Esbe: It's difficult to know where to begin with an impaired koolaid drinker like this because virtually eveything they believe, is based on unadulterated bullshit. But thanks for the laughs buddy.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 8:10:25 AM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
