Not all Americans walking on air over Zarqawi’s expungement
Waking up to the news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed was like Christmas come early. Seeing pictures of his bloated dead face nearly brought tears of joy to my eyes. I was simply walking on air all day.
But amazingly, and perhaps predictably, there are those dwelling amongst us here in the civilized world who aren’t happy about Zarqawi’s demise. One of them is American antiwar activist Michael Berg, whose son Nick Berg was allegedly beheaded by Zarqawi himself. In a statement pertaining to the death of Zarqawi, Berg said, “The death of every human being is a tragedy. How could a human being be glad that another human being is dead?â€
Well, when the dead human being was a mass-murdering, head-hacking maniac who wanted to take a large swath of the planet back to the seventh century, being glad comes pretty naturally to most people — unless, of course, their brains have been rendered partially inoperable by far left ideology.
Here’s another telling excerpt from Berg’s statement: “He (Zarqawi) has a family who reacts just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel badly for that. I feel doubly badly because Zarqawi was a political figure and his death will re-ignite another wave of revenge.â€
He feels badly for Zarqawi’s family? If I had a family member like Zarqawi, I’d be thrilled to hear he had been stopped by whatever means it took. If there’s an ounce of decency in them, Zarqawi’s family should also be glad. However, if they admired the things he did, then they are probably delirious with joy over his glorious martyrdom, believing that he is in paradise right now being ravished by voluptuous virgins and patted on the back by Allah himself.
As for re-igniting “another wave of revenge,†it’s not about revenge. It’s about Zarqawi and his ilk trying to turn Iraq into a seventh century theme park, replete with theocratic totalitarianism and state-sanctioned beheadings as common as traffic citations.
This kind of Bergian attitude represents another major problem for the civilized world. It makes it tough to effectively fight terrorism when throughout the Western world there are so many like Berg who are seemingly unable to differentiate between, on the one hand, the worth of a good life and, on the other hand, the worth of a life spent doing evil, and then make value judgements accordingly. When it comes to the death of someone like Zarqawi, how can any sentient and moral human being not be glad?
Berg also said that despite what Zarqawi did to his son, he’s not interested in revenge. That’s very noble. But would it be too untoward for Berg to at least be glad for all the innocent people who will now get to go on living because they won’t be murdered by Zarqawi?
No one thinks the fighting is going to suddenly end now that Zarqawi is dead, but maybe there will at least be an opportunity for things to improve. One thing’s certain. If it were up to the Michael Bergs of the world, the Zarqawis of the world would lord over everything because there would be no one to oppose them. I wonder how Berg would enjoy living in that world.
Greg Strange provides conservative commentary with plenty of acerbic wit on the people, politics, events and absurdities of our time. See more at his website: http://www.greg-strange.com/
| More from Greg Strange
Stumble It!
June 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Mr. Berg is pathological. Liberals are pathological. I’m sure many readers here have done it, but spend a day posting and replying on a left wing site and you will welcome the relative lack of frustration caused by a rubix cube. I looked at one today, and made a couple of comments. It is frightening and amazing what passes for discourse there. Berg type slogans and generally trouncing on any dissent is the order of the day.
Intellectual honesty, if rightly applied by both sides, would solve much. But they want to blame everyone but those who are to blame! Read Scott Ritter on Haditha…it is 100% Bush’s fault.
Ask them about Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda, and see what kind of pretzels their minds become. Berg is at least a good front man because he is not subtle in his insanity.
June 10th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
If you are going to criticize Berg, you should at least accurately represent his position. Berg claims that the US government had a lot to do with his son’s death. First, the US government forces held his son in detentional for several weeks, and then repeatedly lied to Berg about his son’s whereabouts and status. While Berg’s son was in prison, the Abu Ghraib scandal became public knowledge in Iraq and angered many Iraqis. Berg believes that his son was captured and killed partly because he was released from US custody at exactly the time when Iraqis were looking for American targets in retaliation for Abu Ghraib. If it wasn’t Abu Ghraib, it was retaliation generally for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So Berg blames the US government.
Many experts have pointed out that Zarquawi was a relatively minor figure who was created into a major bugaboo by the Bush administration who needed to find a connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq. Ironically, the Bush administration’s focus on Zarquawi gave him more fame and prestige and allowed him to attract more funds and followers. Nonetheless, Zarquawi was still a minor figure in what has become the Iraqi insurgency–the vast majority of which is home-grown. Maybe Zarquawi did try to incite violence between shiites and sunnis, but he played a much smaller role in creating the current civil war than the Shiite death squads whe operate out of the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and are funded and armed by the US government. It was our own “Salvador Option” and the policies of Negroponte and Bremer which did more to create the current civil war than anything a few foreign jihadis like Zarqawi did. Another important point is that Zarqawi was largely an independent actor who chose to affliate himself with Al Quaeda. Also Zarqawi was been heavily criticized by other Iraqi insurgent leaders for deliberately fomenting civil war.
June 10th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I was amused to see the gloating over the killing of Zarkawi. Imagine, even the president paid public attention to the killing of an outlaw after sending the entire U.S. military after him. I think Zarkawi’s pronouncement of being the leader of “Al-Queda in Iraq” was his “Bring ‘em on” moment.
Zarkawi had been elevated to be the face of the enemy in Iraq, the symbol of the insurgency. To an American people that reveres leaders and “leadership qualities,” the killing of a leader is a significant event. But it is just as likely that whoever informed on Zarkawi was among the second-rank insurgents, each hoping to get rid of Zarkawi and taking over the command of the organization.
Killing the symbol is magically equivalent to killing what he represented, so now we’re seeing a “Mission Accomplished” moment from the Bushites, understandably enough in a less cocky way than the first time. But the “irrational exuberance” of Zarkawi’s death will soon pass, I bet, as the insurgency continues unabated with a new head honcho, eager to make his mark on history.
Besides, the Zarkawi myth smells fishy. From USA Today: “Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures.” Based on the customary 365 days a year this comes out to 72.6 attacks a day, roughly three attacks every hour of the day come rain, shine, or sandstorms. No weekends off, no vacation. And Zarkawi masterminded all that? What a busy dude. He must have been a veritable Alexander the Great – a very tired Alexander. Of course, it means that there are many more insurgent groups that will continue their activities, Zarkawi or not.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:17 am
[...] My fellow pacifist Michael Berg doesn’t think so. Having lost his own son at the hands of al-Zarqawi, he still sees no cause for celebration in this death. This has led, rather predictably to some very public castigations of Mr. Berg for not being sufficiently happy. [...]