After Zarqawi

Front Page Magazine has an interesting and detailed analysis of GWOT, the war in Iraq, and the death of Zarqawi. The symposium panel members state some important facts.

Mr McCarty - Defeating al Qaeda is the national security mission that the American people broadly support. They would like to see democracy in Iraq, but they would never have sent their military there for that reason alone, and the fall off in popular support owes precisely to the fact that the administration has allowed the war to become more about democracy-building and less about wiping out jihadists. Americans need to see the mission in Iraq tied demonstrably to defeating al Qaeda. On that score, the administration has done a very poor job of communicating what is actually a very good case. Zarqawi’s killing is an important chance to start turning that around.

Zarqawi's death is the death of a vibrant symbol for Islamists.

Mr. Peters - In this long war of symbols, we destroyed a vital symbol for our enemies. It will not end, or even shorten, the greater War on Terror--which Middle-Eastern Islam will wage intermittently as it continues to fail as a civilization. But, in the mid-term, his death may help in Iraq. For now, we can be certain that it was a tremendous blow to terrorist morale. In this contest of wills, our will was superior. God willing, it will remain so.

Zarqawi radicalized the Iraqi insurgency.

Mr. Darling - The death of Abu Musab Zarqawi represents a major victory for the US in Iraq. While his group was by no means the largest component of the Iraqi insurgency, it should be remembered that insurgencies are not conventional militaries and their capacity is not determined merely by manpower. What Zarqawi lacked in terms of manpower he made up with in raw violence, which enabled him to serve as an enormous radicalizing influence both on the Iraqi insurgency and on Iraqi society as a whole.

Killing Zarqawi gives the US confidence in its intelligence community.

Mr. Gunaratna - Zarkawi's killing will now give the confidence to the US intelligence community as well as to its operational forces to target similar leaders in the coming months and years. With the appropriate investment, Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri are likely to meet with their deaths. Killing or incarcerating (still better) terrorist leaders - both ideologues and operatives are a paramount necessity, but the US, its allies and friends must realize that in Jihadist conflicts much more needs to be done to permanently change the strategic landscape. The US must think beyond operational counter terrorism, if it hopes to make a strategic impact.

In summary, Mr. McCarthy states:

These events tell us a few things. First, Zarqawi’s killing remains significant, but time does march on and events have a way of superseding what we think is most important today. Second, al Qaeda is not going away unless we rededicate ourselves to the conviction that it has to be rooted out and destroyed. Which is to say: As between whether democracy ultimately takes root in Iraq or whether al Qaeda gets a new headquarters in Somalia, I would say the latter is vastly more important to U.S. national security. Yet, it is the former that has gotten our attention, energy and sacrifice – which, again, causes me to wonder whether we, as a nation, grasp that the central mission of the war on terror is to quell the jihadist network. Finally, third, the latest American leaks and judicial decision have to make us wonder whether our country is sufficiently enough invested in this effort. As all of my colleagues have stressed, this is a long, difficult struggle. It is hard to imagine how we prevail – as opposed to treading water, or, worse, being hit again – absent a unity of purpose.