A "senior Pentagon official" is telling CNN that the military just came close to killing Zarqawi:
The official said U.S. warplanes targeted a suspected safe house [in Fallujah].As they began to drop 500-pound bombs on the house, a convoy of cars rolled up to the home. A man left the house, the bombs fell, and the man was thrown to the ground.
He was put into the convoy of cars and the cars drove away.
The official said al-Zarqawi is thought to be the only person in that network of terrorist insurgents who travels with such a large security detail.
The man they saw fall to the ground "wasn't wearing a name tag," but they believe it may have been al-Zarqawi.
The strike killed 20 to 25 people, a senior coalition official said.
The folks at CNN, hard-bitten skeptical journalists that they are, are now leading their site with, "U.S. official: Fallujah strike almost got al-Zarqawi." Now, according to one post-invasion study of 50 U.S. airstrikes against suspected "high-value" suspects in Iraq, the U.S. actually hit none of them. The problem wasn't bad bombs, it was bad intel.
Now consider the purported Zarqawi almost-hit: 1) It happened in Fallujah, a city the U.S. probably doesn't have many eyes since the town was essentially ceded to rebels and where the purported American-allied force, the Fallujah Brigade, doesn't seem, um, over-enthused about helping out. 2) Zarqawi himself is a mystery, about whom the military--and just about everybody else--doesn't know much. I'm not saying Zarqawi wasn't there. I'm just saying CNN should hire new Page One editors.
As for the regular invocations of Zarqawi, by the U.S. , the media, and now guerrillas, it could all be accurate. But another possibility is that there's some sort of a feedback loop going on. That is, the administration decides that it serves its interests to hype a foreign, Osama-connected bad-guy as the source of the troubles. The media, though I sense increasing skepticism, largely repeats the line, turning Zarqawi into an iconic figure. And then maybe guerrillas, who may or may not have real connections to him, decide, "This guy's a superstar, We're on his team!"
In other words, Zarqawi could become a rallying cry, regardless of his real role.
That makes me wonder how wise it is for the U.S. to keep invoking his name.
P.S. I'm going to be writing more about Zarqawi's history, maybe on the blog but also a longer piece.
P.P.S. (UPDATE 6/28): From this coming week's Time:
Al-Zarqawi has become an inspirational figure, like Osama bin Laden, for militants who espouse his methods and religious fervor. "Most are not members of his group in a formal sense," says the insurgent. "But everyone, especially the foreigners in Iraq who share his ideals of jihad, considers himself part of Attawhid wal Jihad" [Zarqawi's group].
re: why USMC doesn't release names of towns that marines are killed in, while the ARMY does...1st, you'll notice that the marine was with a recon unit. If the enemy knows where your unit is, specifically, you can't recon much in any kind of secrecy. 2nd, if the enemy knows the position of a marine unit, he'll know the relative strength. 3rd, and probably most notable (and there will be argument from ARMY guys), the marines are a first-strike, killing force. Their mission is to do the most military damage (killing) in the shortest period of time, with the smallest amount of men...the ARMY, on the other hand, except for a few elite units, is a huge organization more adapted to maintaining the status quo...example, USMC sweeps into an area and smokes out the bad guys, kills them and leaves the mop up and administration to the ARMY. That's why the USMC doesn't say exactly where it's units are.
Posted by: barbara | January 13, 2005 at 01:13 AM