The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.
Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.
Napoleoni, the author of “Insurgent Iraq,” told reporters last week that Powell’s argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi’s status, influence and connections “the myth became the reality” — a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists,” Napoleoni said.
In an article of Napoleoni’s in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, “In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary — his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures — that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more ‘al-Zarqawis’ capable of filling his place.”
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida’s “transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.”
The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war’s start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi — similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members –rebuffed bin Laden’s anti-American brand of jihad.
“He did not have a global vision like Osama,” said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.
A former member of al-Zarqawi’s camp in Herat told her, “I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab’s character. He never followed anyone.”
The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.
In late December 2004 — shortly after the fall of Fallujah — the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden’s first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.
“… We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us … and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq],” bin Laden declared.
Among students of anti-colonial movements, this analysis is nothing unique. What is new is that a stodgy publication like Foreign Policy has caught up.
That should be a scandal… yet it won’t be. Watch that news die quiclky!
I still haven’t seen anyone deconstruct Colin Powell’s case before the UN. What was loaded into the trucks seen on satellite photos vacating before inspectors appeared?
The truth about Al-Zarqawi.
He wished more than anything for a US invasion to depose Saddam Hussein, and we granted his wish completely, with bonuses.
Al-Zarqawi was a sworn enemy of Saddam Hussein. Prior to the US invasion, he was basically a small-time revolutionary living in a lost corner of Iraq, towards the north, bordering with Iran. The main goal of Al-Zarqawi was deposing Saddam Hussein, because of Al-Zarqawi wants a religious fundamentalist islamic state, and that is the last thing that Saddam Hussein wanted. So Saddam Hussein had this guy very well bottled up.
There is no historical link between Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaida… none whatsoever. It was only after Saddam Hussein was deposed, and the severe controls against Al-Zarqawi’s group was removed, the he was able to move into a more central position and start leading the ‘insurgency’ movement in Iraq. But he still had no recognizable name, so he joined Al-Qaida at that point, and was quickly recognized as the internal leader of the Al-Quaida movement in Iraq. But the Zarqawi / Al-Qaida allience only started AFTER the US invasion was ‘mission accomplished’.
By deposing Saddam Hussein, we basically broke open the cage that was holding this monster at bay. We need to recognize that, and admit it as another of the many failures in the US Iraq policy.
And for those that are always looking for something more siniester, I’ll remind you of something very important when it comes to the US, Al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein situation. We have gone through this before, with Bin-Laden himself. Bin-Laden was supported and armed by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war. We made Bin-Laden into the leader that he became. When the war was over, he turned towards his real goal, which is the expulsion of all ‘infidels’ from the region. Since Al-Zarqawi was also fighting against Saddam Hussein, is he another ‘ally’ that turned against us? What dealings did the CIA have with Al-Zarqawi prior to 9-11?
So, this is where the digital “black helecopter crowd” is meeitng!
Dvorak, you’re a lefty, not a tech curmudgeon!
Bwahaha. Colin Powell believed his words so much that he resigned rather than face the consequences, serves him right.
By the way, when you accuse someone of having W.M.D’s the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on someone else to debunk it. You made the accusation, you prove it. They never did. And now they’re in defense mode.
The Zarqawi myth has several uses. The US military can shell Iraqi towns and claim they are hitting “Zarqawi targets.” Because Zarqawi is Jordanian, the US can paint a foreign color on insurgents attacking US troops. By claiming attacks on civilian targets for Zarqawi, the US hopes to create tension between Sunnis and Shias.
Former US Ambassador to Afghanistan Khalilay Zilmad, who has been micromanaging the drafting of the Iraqi constition despite denials to the contrary, has been aiming at widening this drift.
Despite all the provocations, the Sunnis and Shias have refrained from attacking each other. (In fact, after the attack on Fallujah, large number of Sunni refugees were seen praying in Shiite mosques, which is something you don’t see everyday.)
Although both groups want to see the backs of US troops, their strategies differ. Shiites have been agreeing to most of Zilmad’s demands in the hope that it will bring an early withdrawal. Sunnis think US troops have no intention to leave and have opposed American machinations from the start. So, they have opposed provisions in the draft constitution that allow oil assets to be given to foreign companies. They are angry with the Shias for not opposing Zilmad’s moves.
Sunnis also want a strong central government. Because Sunni provinces have very little oil, they fear a federalist setup. Foreign oil companies will be able to bypass the central government and gobble up oil assets by lobbying or paying off politicians and officials in the pronvinces. American government can also engineer the breakup of Iraq if they think American companies are not getting the necessary dividends from the invasion.
This is were Zarqawi fits in. Suspicion points to failed politicians like Ahmed Chalabi and Iyad Allawi and Kurdish militias (allied to the US government and the mainstay of the new “Iraqi Army.”)
Incognito
“By the way, when you accuse someone of having W.M.D’s the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on someone else to debunk it.”
Actually, according to the terms of the first Gulf War cease fire it was Saddam’s burden to prove he destroyed the WMDs. But he kept such bad paper work that he couldn’t prove it. We know he had WMDs at the end of the first Gulf War but no prove that he destroyed them.
Of course we will never know what Colin Powell refused to say. It was well reported that he pushed back on Bush and Cheney vigorously on both the war and rhetoric. He made statements reccomending against the war, but became silent afterward.
When Bush spoke of mistakes he had made (in personnel selction) during the debates and “those people knew who they were” – history shows that Powell wasn’t even involved in the re-election effort at all.
Consider that just perhaps Ashcroft and Powell did not like what they had to do in their jobs and that they were lightning rods for distasteful policies not of their own making.
So where are they then. I assume mixed in with the paperwork?
“Dvorak, you’re a lefty, not a tech curmudgeon!”
Dvorak – we love your PC columns – please stick to writing tech!
I can’t help chuckling over comments from perceptive types ready to flame John for being too inexperienced and too “Left” to support the positions stated in the article — when [a] John didn’t post this article, I did [as noted at the top] — and [b] the content comes from a moderate, highly-qualified historian, Loretta Napoleoni, in a respected world-class journal. The kind of source that served the heads of our foreign service in the years before politics were required to thoroughly blinder best intentions.
I don’t doubt she’d be even less troubled than John or I would — by such keen-eyed critics.
Powell has admitted his performance before the UN will be remembered as the most embarrassing episode in his life.
Given the background they have given to this guy, it is difficult to believe he masterminded the Madrid blasts AND also assumed the leadership of insurgents in Iraq so very quickly.
Bin Laden spent a great deal of money and put in much longer time to get where he was.
I remember back in the late ’80s that Powell was one of the backers of a “position paper” that declared that the US military must not become involved in any foreign conflicts that do not have the full and sustained support of the American people (a statement which seemed to be a result of his Nam experience).
Imagine that. A military system beholden to the people it is protecting!
How sad, then, that now we get the wool pulled over our eyes yet again. What’s going on here??
(Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, Gulf of… ah hell…).
“History may never repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme often”
– Mark Twain
AB CD
What trucks??? Could you kindly give some reference. The American intelligence seems to have lost any credibility. So truthfully, we don’t know if the incident you refer to ever happened as you suggest.
Martin
I didn’t know that Hitler was a Boy Scout. I thought that he would have been too old for Boy Scouts by the time the movement reached Germany.
Ed
Maybe you could change your name to John. That might deflect some of the heat from Dvorak
Good post though, some good comments.
As far as trucks, I don’t have a link, but I’ve read it was part of Colin Powell’s presentation. If someone can find a description of Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN, that’s the reference.
Read the Duelfer report and David Kay’s work with the Iraq Survey Group. Chemical weapons and precursors were found hidden in a pesticide factory buried 6 feet underground in camouflaged drums.
AB CD – The best sample of the credibilty of the truck argument was presented by the Daily Show a couple of days ago, where they showed some satellite photos of some curvy roads with some buildings, and basically said “the trucks are takeing away the WMD’s, believe us, that is a munitions plant, and thise trucks are loading WMD’s”. Of course it was nothing if the sort. Powell could have shown pictures of an orange plantation and said “the WMDs are hidden under these trees” and it would have been just the same level of proof.
The problem is that we (including the House and the Senate) should and do assume that the Prez is telling the WHOLE truth when he provides info, not just partial truths, accomodated to make a point. Goebbels (Hitler’s propaganda minister) said thing s that sounded true based on bits and pieces or reality, but when looked at intelligently were quickly evident as nothing but monstrous lies. A whole country believed him, and 60 million people died.
And your pesticide factory drums… big DUH to you! Fire off a ‘bug bomb’ in a closed room, breathe deep and see what happens… of course they can call it a chemical weapon… even RAID from the supermarket is a nerve agent… so finding a nerve agent precursor in a pesticide factory is about as surprising as finding a biological agent (yeast) in a beer factory.
AB CD… you are reaaaaly reaaaly brainwashed.