Dieser Artikel bringt das alberne Wunschdenken der USA und die plumpe
zugrundeliegende Propaganda zum Thema Sarkawi auf den Punkt. Der
Artikel ist meiner Meinung nach höchst lesenswert:
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=10415
Daraus:
"The press tells us that our "thrilled" President was "conservative"
or "carefully guarded," or expressed "cautious optimism" in
responding to the death of Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, the small-time thug,
beheader, fomenter of Sunni/Shia civil war, and all-around violent
extremist who became an American poster boy for terrorism in Iraq.
Who had even heard of him until, as British journalist Patrick
Cockburn points out, "he was denounced in 2003, by Secretary of State
Colin Powell before the UN Security Council as the link between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
Zarqawi was the most minor of minor figures, used by the Bush
administration mainly as bogus "evidence" of the Saddam/al-Qaeda
connection until he made himself conveniently available to step into
the explanation gap left open after Saddam had been captured and
things in Iraq only got worse (...)
But haven't we been through all this before? Haven't we had our
turning points, turned our many "corners," passed all those
"milestones" again and again? When Saddam's sons were killed in a
shootout at their safe house, when Saddam was plucked from his
"spiderhole," when endless "key lieutenants" of Zarqawi were reported
rounded up or killed, when several elections took place? Now, Zarqawi
has been plucked from his "spiderhole" too... well, whatever it was,
under whatever circumstances those were.
As is typical of absolutely any story out of this Pentagon, the
details of the first version of the Zarqawi death are already
beginning to blur and shift. Did a child die in the rubble? Was
Zarqawi really alive in that devastation? Did American soldiers find
him and try to administer first aid, as a military spokesman
reported? Or did American soldiers beat the wounded terrorist to
death, as CBS reported a witness saying Saturday? Or could our troops
have kicked him repeatedly in the chest while shouting for him to
reveal his name, as Hala Jaber, Sarah Baxter, and Michael Smith
report in the London Sunday Times? Did he mumble a few unintelligible
words and quickly expire, as the first U.S. military reports had it?
Or did it take him, as other witnesses reported, an hour and fifteen
minutes to die after Iraqis living near the house in which he was
hiding pulled him from the rubble? Was he really turned in by someone
in his own organization, as some American reports have had it, or is
that just a nice little piece of U.S. disinformation meant for
whatever is left of his movement? Was he tracked down by Jordanian
intelligence or turned in by some part of the Sunni resistance which
loathed his tactics? (...)
Paul Woodward of the War in Context website sums matters up this way:
"Zarqawi's death fits on a trend line. Unfortunately for the Bush
administration and the Iraqi government this isn't a trend of
increasing success in quelling the insurgency. On the contrary, it
seems to reflect a growing hostility between native and non-native
Sunni insurgents. Zarqawi's loss may be a blow to foreign jihadists,
but many Iraqi Sunni insurgents may now be quite comfortable seeing
him 'promoted' yet operationally sidelined as a jihadi
emeritus."(...)
I wonder what they'll be saying in November 2006? February 2007? Or
in any of those post-Zarqawi "years to come"? The real question is:
How many more turning points and ebbing tides can the American people
(and the American media) take?"
zugrundeliegende Propaganda zum Thema Sarkawi auf den Punkt. Der
Artikel ist meiner Meinung nach höchst lesenswert:
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=10415
Daraus:
"The press tells us that our "thrilled" President was "conservative"
or "carefully guarded," or expressed "cautious optimism" in
responding to the death of Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, the small-time thug,
beheader, fomenter of Sunni/Shia civil war, and all-around violent
extremist who became an American poster boy for terrorism in Iraq.
Who had even heard of him until, as British journalist Patrick
Cockburn points out, "he was denounced in 2003, by Secretary of State
Colin Powell before the UN Security Council as the link between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
Zarqawi was the most minor of minor figures, used by the Bush
administration mainly as bogus "evidence" of the Saddam/al-Qaeda
connection until he made himself conveniently available to step into
the explanation gap left open after Saddam had been captured and
things in Iraq only got worse (...)
But haven't we been through all this before? Haven't we had our
turning points, turned our many "corners," passed all those
"milestones" again and again? When Saddam's sons were killed in a
shootout at their safe house, when Saddam was plucked from his
"spiderhole," when endless "key lieutenants" of Zarqawi were reported
rounded up or killed, when several elections took place? Now, Zarqawi
has been plucked from his "spiderhole" too... well, whatever it was,
under whatever circumstances those were.
As is typical of absolutely any story out of this Pentagon, the
details of the first version of the Zarqawi death are already
beginning to blur and shift. Did a child die in the rubble? Was
Zarqawi really alive in that devastation? Did American soldiers find
him and try to administer first aid, as a military spokesman
reported? Or did American soldiers beat the wounded terrorist to
death, as CBS reported a witness saying Saturday? Or could our troops
have kicked him repeatedly in the chest while shouting for him to
reveal his name, as Hala Jaber, Sarah Baxter, and Michael Smith
report in the London Sunday Times? Did he mumble a few unintelligible
words and quickly expire, as the first U.S. military reports had it?
Or did it take him, as other witnesses reported, an hour and fifteen
minutes to die after Iraqis living near the house in which he was
hiding pulled him from the rubble? Was he really turned in by someone
in his own organization, as some American reports have had it, or is
that just a nice little piece of U.S. disinformation meant for
whatever is left of his movement? Was he tracked down by Jordanian
intelligence or turned in by some part of the Sunni resistance which
loathed his tactics? (...)
Paul Woodward of the War in Context website sums matters up this way:
"Zarqawi's death fits on a trend line. Unfortunately for the Bush
administration and the Iraqi government this isn't a trend of
increasing success in quelling the insurgency. On the contrary, it
seems to reflect a growing hostility between native and non-native
Sunni insurgents. Zarqawi's loss may be a blow to foreign jihadists,
but many Iraqi Sunni insurgents may now be quite comfortable seeing
him 'promoted' yet operationally sidelined as a jihadi
emeritus."(...)
I wonder what they'll be saying in November 2006? February 2007? Or
in any of those post-Zarqawi "years to come"? The real question is:
How many more turning points and ebbing tides can the American people
(and the American media) take?"