In focus: Abu Musab sacrificed It's not so much America killing an enemy as trading one of its key cards of propaganda for political gain in an elections year, writes Galal Nassar The death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in a US raid on a village near Baquba in northern Iraq should have been a reason to celebrate, but it wasn't. The reason is that Zarqawi should have been killed by the Iraqi national resistance and not by the US occupation forces. The latter have created the myth of Zarqawi. The Americans have created that ogre of a man to justify their imperial policies. Zarqawi deserves a US medal for services rendered, and in a way, his killing was a fitting homage to his criminal past. The timing of Zarqawi's assassination was chosen carefully to maximise US gain, to make Washington look good in its global campaign against terror. Until the moment Zarqawi was killed, the US had been running from one disaster to another. Its record was a continuous catalogue of failure. After a period of inaction, the Taliban began to inflict substantial losses on Afghan and international forces. In Mogadishu, the forces of the Islamic Courts defeated pro-US factions. In Iraq, civil war was just around the corner. With the death of Zarqawi, Washington has lost a major propaganda asset. The man's brutal tactics gave the Americans a unique opportunity to sully the image of national resistance in Iraq and elsewhere. Zarqawi beheaded hostages, assassinated civilians, and killed Shia Iraqis, bringing disgrace upon the resistance, fomenting sectarian strife, and diverting attention from the crimes of the occupation forces. So why would the Americans give up such a valuable asset and at this time? The answer is twofold. On the one hand, sectarian strife in the country has already achieved its objectives. The Sunnis have made important concessions and the Shias have become more pliant to US demands. On the other hand, President Bush needed a victory to shore up his declining popularity and avert Republican defeat in congressional elections in November. You may have noticed lately the fascination of US media with Zarqawi. The media played and replayed that tape in which Zarqawi holds a machine-gun and fires, Rambo-style, into the distance. Zarqawi was being portrayed as the face of Iraqi resistance. His killing gave the administration the big victory it needed. Within hours of Zarqawi's death, President Bush was on television, speaking in the arrogant tones he used in the early days of the invasion. He described the killing as a major achievement, commending the performance of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In death as in life, Zarqawi helped the US cause. The Americans would be wrong to assume that the death of Zarqawi means the end of resistance in Iraq. Resistance is bigger than one man or one group. Perhaps time will prove that the fall of Zarqawi will be a boost to the national resistance, for it would rid it of the mindless mayhem that terrorist has brought into the picture. Perhaps now the world will see the Iraqi resistance for what it is: a noble and honourable movement that aspires to free the country from occupation. Zarqawi was the fig leaf that covered US crimes in Iraq. Now that the Americans had to sacrifice that leaf, one wonders if they'll be looking around for someone to fill his shoes.
