There was an interesting AP item yesterday about one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. It just left out one small detail.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader allegedly claiming responsibility for the graphic beheading of a U.S. civilian in Iraq, is adopting an increasingly public and influential role in the decentralized world of Islamic militants, U.S. officials and terrorism experts say.
On Tuesday, an Islamic Web site released a video titled “Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughters an American infidel with his own hands,” according to one translation. In the most gruesome moments chronicling the beheading of Nicholas Berg, five men disguised by head scarves and ski masks shout “Allahu Akbar!” – or “God is great.”
As recently as March, U.S. officials said al-Zarqawi’s modus operandi was not to make taped public pronouncements nor to claim credit for attacks.
But that changed five weeks ago when he released what is believed to be his first audiotape – a 33-minute recording in which he called on Sunni Muslims in Iraq to “burn the earth under the occupiers’ feet.”
Then, he claimed responsibility for the attacks on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and an Italian police station in Nasiriyah, among others.
At least two other tapes involving al-Zarqawi, including the beheading, have followed.
I hate to be picky, but it seems only fair that every story about al-Zarqawi should include a mention of the fact that the Bush White House could have killed this terrorist and destroyed his operation, but decided against it.
NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Once again, it’s an important reminder that abandoning Afghanistan for Iraq was not a continuation of the “war on terrorism”; it was an abandonment of it.
Three times the Defense Department was prepared to strike at Zarqawi and three times the White House said no because they couldn’t be distracted from Iraq — the country that didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, wasn’t involved with 9/11, and didn’t represent an immediate threat to the United States.
It’s all about priorities — and Bush’s were wrong.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.