Cause for Celebration?

I haven’t switched areas where I work yet, so I’m still in the busy, tech support-type area. Next week, I will move to a less frantic area, meaning I won’t be so tired in the evenings and will be more willing and able to post on days other than the weekend (such as today). Still, this is only a few days late (sorry “Coffee”!), so I suppose that’s progress. Strangely enough, I got very little sleep last night (4-ish hours), but I’ve got the energy to post anyway. Go figure.

Oh, and just as I put a disclaimer on my gaming posts, let me say upfront that this is a political one (again, sorry “Coffee”!).

As I was reading the news at work and thinking about the Iraq war, my thoughts drifted to the recent assassination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the ex-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The day after it happened, my co-workers were jubilant, pointing their web browsers to cnn.com to watch the footage of the bombardment that killed Zarqawi, over and over again. They reveled in the news, celebrating the death in a fashion akin to how one celebrates a sports team’s victory. Granted, three of my co-workers are either retired or active reserve members of the military, but did this moment really warrant such excitement? I hate to admit it, but I don’t think it did, especially looking at what has changed. Or, more accurately, what hasn’t changed.

Of course, I have no love for Zarqawi. The man was responsible for the deaths of hundreds (probably even thousands) of innocents, both military and civilian, American and Iraqi. He inflamed sectarian conflict and worsened the instable condition of Iraq. I can hardly criticize the decision to kill the man. Sure, capturing him and holding him accountable for his actions in front of the world might have been preferable, but doing so with an active terrorist leader isn’t exactly practical (besides, look at how Sadaam’s trial is “moving”).

However, my Christian values compel me to mourn all untimely death, no matter the circumstances. Giving the man the benefit of the doubt, as I give all that I don’t know personally, he likely wasn’t born evil (I’m not sure that anyone is), and thus the sanctity of his life didn’t deserve to be disrespected simply because of his inhuman actions.

Let me switch gears before I get lost in my own rhetoric (maybe I can try to explain that last part better in a future post): Regardless of his path towards evil, he was decisively that and had to be stopped from his role as an organizer of violence and propagator of unrest in Iraq. But has his death helped the situation over there? The endless reports from Iraq suggest not, and this article that I found today seems to confirm it: “Bodies flood Baghdad morgue despite Zarqawi's death”.

The problems in Iraq stem from more than the actions of one terrorist leader. They are multifaceted: societal and psychological, to name a few, and massive in scope. Within days of Zarqawi’s death, a successor was announced. While individual actions do shape history (Bush and his administration are an excellent proof of that theory), terrorist organizations have an intentionally decentralized structure, meaning that taking out the head has little effect on the day-to-day operations.

For the purpose of clarity, I want to state that I don’t question the need to bring people like Zarqawi to justice; they must be held accountable in one way or another (as much as possible, not through murder). I do question the belief that the assassination of such people is a sign of progress or a reason for hope. So pardon me for not rejoicing quite yet. The day that the body count rate declines and shows no chance of rebounding, I’ll be among the first dancing in the streets.