09
Jun
Dissecting the Zargawi Spectacle
TIME TO GO: “GETTING” ZARQAWI
JOHN BOLTON, BLOWHARD
INTERNET USERS LOSE NET NEUTRALITY IN HOUSE
Timing is everything. And to the managers of the Iraq War, perception has always trumped reality. From the beginning it was a war of media stunts—the attempt to assassinate Saddam with 50 cruise missiles before the invasion, the Shock and Awe, the bringing down of the statues, Jessica Lynch, Saddam in the hole, the purple fingered Iraq election and many events staged for media consumption.
The essence of information/media warfare is to seize the advantage, frame the story, and capture the audiences’ imagination from the staged flags of Iwo Jima to whatever really happened to that not so safe house in Baquba.
But now we have the bloodied head of the feared Zarqawi displayed on TV by the very military that will not allow us to see the American dead coming home. He was brought down, we were told at first, by not one, but two, 500 pound bombs, in a later televised operation that CNN tells us cost $500,000 and has been underway for months. (And yet, we learned later, despite their devestating impact was apparently not blown to smithereens but was carried out of the house “mumbling some words” by police and died then. This whole scenario is more than even the best Hollywood screenwriter could imagine.)
What a coup! What a show! And what an event for Iraqi “leaders” to show-off, with claims like he has been “eliminated.” Within hours, the spinmeisters were claiming a “major victory” and pronouncing another “turning point” in the war.
Think also of the timing. Yes, they think about timing all the time. Timing is, as I have said, everything. A day earlier the NY Times had the defeat of the CIA backed warlords in Somalia on page one. The day, and week before, it was All the Haditha, All The time with many commentators like Paul Rodgers, to cite one example, arguing that responsibility for the crimes and the cover-ups goes way UP the chain of command.
To the Pentagon, this was not good, not good at all. In fact, a very public opinion conscious Administration was aware, had to be aware, that a new AP poll was coming out showing well over 50% of the American public as sick of the war. Here’s that report.
“The poll, taken Monday through Wednesday before news broke that U.S. forces had killed al-Zarqawi, found that 59 percent of adults say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq — the highest level yet in AP-Ipsos polling.”
It was time to act, to put the “good guys” back in the limelight. (Can you believe the good-guy, bad guy comparision dominates the way the people charged with assuring “full spectrum dominance” talk and think?)
Their assignmnet was to get all those folks back home back on the proverbial reservation? They are consumed with turning around a public relations disaster?”
Their tactic: give them a mediagenic “Miracle,” something to cheer and wave the flag for again .
What better time to pull the rabbit out of the hat and re-dominate the news cycle by burying the bad news while replacing it with some good news.
They returned to the PR playbook relying on that oldest of formulas called “change the subject.”
And yesterday morning, they changed it, as AP focused on the upside:
“With al-Zarqawi out of the way and the new government in place, some Sunni Arab leaders may be emboldened to resume a dialogue they started last fall — exchanges sunk by al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq.”
THE LONG HUNT
According to Raw Story, the hunt for Zargawi had been underway for a long time with its recent success only disclosed, of course, way after the fact.
”According to military and intelligence sources, five of Zarqawi’s men were picked up in early May by an already ongoing effort by an elite US special ops force, known by some as Gray Fox and by others as Task Force 145, which had been scouring Iraq for Zarqawi since the insurgency began.”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_real_heroes_of_Zarqawis_fall_0608.html
HMMMM…..Isn’t “Gray Fox” a perfect name in the age of Fox News?
So they may have known where he was in early May. But rather then reeling him in then, they waited for a more opportune moment in order to maximize the impact.. Like yesterday!
Significantly, the “good guys” moved just as a trifecta of bad news stories was souring the public on the War on Terror
The new message of the day quickly became “Gotcha,” recalling L Paul Bremer’s announcement of the capture of s Saddam with an upbeat, “We got him.”
The implication, of course, echoed on every major media outlet, was, once again, that now the tide will turn.
No one remembered or mentioned an NBC story aired in 2004 that reported the Administration had three opportunities to kill Zarqawi and didn’t. NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported on March 2, 2004
”NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.”
Hmmmmm,…
The unquestioned assumption in the mainstream is that Zarqawi is Al Qaeda. And that since everyone hates Al Qaeda Zargawi’s removal is a major blow against Osama and his evil doers. The often epressed hope was that with Musab out of the way, peace would be at hand, the insurgency would become history.
Not so fast. Dream on.
Professor Juan Cole, who knows more about Iraq than any ten TV journalists, was quick to point out:
’There is no evidence of operational links between his Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don’t expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon.”
The key words again: “just a sort of branding,” just another way of saying that show biz has infiltrated news biz with Zarqawi playing the role of the evil pirate that everyone can blame any crimes they want.
In fact as Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Middle East Human rightw activist pointed out, the press has long distorted his relationship to the resistance too:
”Zarqawi was not a leader of the Iraqi resistance/insurgency. In fact, the leadership of the Iraqi resistance condemned Zarqawi and company. US intelligence itself believes that most of the resistance is home grown and not linked to Zarqawi/Al-Qaeda. This was intentionally obfuscated in the media parroting of government triumphalist PR.”
Hmmm…”government triumphalist PR.”
The Nation’s David Corn also argues the resistance will fight on:
”His death–brought about by a US air strike that was apparently ordered after a captured Zarqawi lieutenant disclosed Zarqawi’s favorite hiding places–may not mean much in terms of bringing peace, democracy and stability to Iraq. His al Qaeda in Iraq–which was estimated to number no more than several hundred fighters–made up the smallest slice of the insurgency. His departure will not have much impact on the forces fueling the fighting and chaos in Iraq.”
Of course, President Bush mentioned none of this when he gave in his grim “political hay making–we are doing the job that needs doing” press conference at the White House climaing credit for the latest assassination by our side in a war that has degenerated into a battle between multiple death squads.
On the right, the news rapidly became grist for talking points in the ditto head echo chamber. Here’s a smirking comment in a blog called Red State:
”My guess is that he is not going to find those 72 virgins either. He may find a bunch of disgruntled suicide bombers who didn’t get their virgins! My impression is that there aren’t a lot of sweet virgins in hell. Abu is going to burn in hell for some time, perhaps forever!
“Furthermore, he was killed because of a tip from an Iraqi citizen. This morning, Dan Seanor,(sic) former coalition spokesman, said that tips are coming in from all over Iraq.”
TIPPING POINT?
What about the Tipping point argument? Stop The War’s Malcolm Kendal Smith in England writes.
”The anti-war movement will not feel sorry in any way over Zarqawi’s death. While we have always defended the right of Iraqis under international law to resist the US and British occupation of their country, we have never supported the use of tactics which target innocent Iraqi civilians, of the kidnapping of aid workers such as Margaret Hassan, or the murder of journalists who have died in record numbers trying to report the realities of life in Iraq since the war in 2003.
“Zarqawi and his terrorism were a consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq. As were the 1,400 deaths by violent means recorded in May 2006 by Baghdad’s central morgue alone. As were the numerous atrocities committed by the US military, the names of which are engraved for ever in history: Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Tal Afar, Haditha and many more….
“Zaqawi’s death will no more be a turning point for Iraq than any of the “new beginnings” proclaimed by Bush and Blair, because the chaos, destruction and slaughter in Iraq can only end when their source is removed – i.e. when all the occupying troops leave Iraq and Iraqis are free to decide for themselves how they want their country to be governed.”
Not everyone on the left in the UK feels this way. Jonathan Steele of the Guardian believes “The death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi offers Iraq’s government a chance, long term, to fix the mess created by the U.S. and Britain.”
http://www.tompaine.com/
WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US?
These events and the continuing horrors there may not mobilize a war weary country as Bob Herbert noted in the NY Times.
”For the smug, comfortable, well-off Americans, it doesn’t seem to matter how long the war in Iraq goes on - as long as the agony is endured by others. If the network coverage gets too grim, viewers can always switch to the E! channel (one hand on the remote, the other burrowing into a bag of chips) to follow the hilarious antics of Paris, Britney, Brangelina et al.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13539.htm
And no facts, no revelations, no exposes will dislodge the ideologues for whom no crime cannot be excused or ignored. Here’s Gordon Sawyer fulminating on a website in Georgia:
“Let me ask you: does it make you sick in the pit of your stomach to read or hear about our GI’s being investigated for possible criminal charges because they shot someone in the heat of battle? These are our brightest and best who volunteered to defend our freedom, and here they are in Haditha, Iraq, doing the job we-the-people asked them to do. And what do we know about the situation last November 19 in which some Iraqis were killed. First we know Haditha is a hotbed for the bad guys….
This could have happened to any one of the military people we have in Iraq … any one of the soldiers of Charlie Company (My Lai?), or any of the young Marines from our area”…
Gordon is no doubt happy today with Zarqawi the Horrible out of the way. Unfortunately, whether he likes it or not, the bloodshed will continue and those who committed crimes there will eventually be brought to justice, Moses, Jesus, and Allah willing.
BOLTON APOPLECTIC AT THE UN BY CRTICISM OF US STANCE
Ian Williams reports on a speech by Deputy Secretary Mark Malloch Ground criticizing the US government’s stance and the hysterical response by UN Ambassador John Bolton:
“For example, Ambassador Bolton currently has to persuade the other members of the Security Council, whose votes he has dismissed as irrelevant, to make the UN that he thinks the US should quit, enforce international law, in which he does not believe, against Iran for non-existent breaches of a Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty that he himself had been trying to sabotage in his previous position as head of disarmament affairs at the State Department.
“Of course Malloch Brown was not so crass as to name Bolton. The clever thing to do would have been to ignore the speech, but since Bolton has all the diplomatic skills of a Bull elephant on heat, he rose to the bait and angrily denounced the Deputy Secretary General, thus reinforcing the latter’s credibility with the non-aligned delegations.”
http://www.ianwilliams.info/
Another Good Read: Robert Perry:” Why Democrats Lose”
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/060706.html
MARCY LOSES BUT SENDS A MESSAGE IN CALIFORNIA
Tom Hayden writes:
“I kept the feelings to myself, but i was hoping that Marcy Winograd would achieve 33 percent in her anti-war campaign against Jane Harman. When Winograd finished with 37.5 percent, many of her diehard supporters may have been dismayed. But I was deeply relieved because she had been tested and proven herself a serious threat to the hawkish consensus, now and in the future.
Politics is simplified into winning and losing, but politics also is a process of changing the balance of forces. Marcy revealed the hidden depth of anti-war sentiment among Democrats, and delivered a message for 2008.
