Reactions to Zarqawi's Death are Telling

My reaction to the death last week of archterrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq al-Zarqawi was simple. Elation. And I had a little extra bounce in my step, as a U.S. Air Force veteran, that the boys in blue delivered the 1000 pounds of justice that took him out.

Make no mistake - Zarqawi was the enemy. Our purpose in war is to defeat the enemy. To deal death and destruction to them in sufficient force that we disable their ability to hurt us. That is the stated goal of war. Therefore, Zarqawi's death - despite the efforts of Democrats and the media to lowball it - is a significant milestone in our war effort. Are we done? No, they can still hurt us. But we're closer to being done. And I say three cheers to our fine military folks who are getting the job done.

Things are looking up in Iraq. Our troops have been doing a fine job winning the war against militant Islam, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't know if you saw the news article last week that stated that 40% of the terrorists that we identified after 9/11 are now dead. 40%. That's a significant and successful number. The rest are weakened and dispersed. They cannot defeat us, unless we quit. Which, thankfully, George W. Bush will never do.

I was dismayed by general reaction to Zarqawi's death from the left. Their naysaying reactions, denying victorious credit to our war effort, are telling and are just more evidence that the left wants us to fail in this effort. It's disgraceful.

The most curious reaction you will have heard by now. It came from Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who was beheaded at the hands of al-Zarqawi. Mr. Berg, a pacifist and an anti-war activist, said this:

I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."

and this:

Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."

"Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."

He also said that George Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of dead in Iraq.

This is both curious and sad.

I think the same things about Michael Berg that I thought about Cindy Sheehan. Two things:

1. As a grieving father who lost his son in this conflict he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say - crazy or sane. I could not even begin to relate to his grief and only have empathy for him personally.

2. When he uses that situation in public activism - in his case as a candidate for Congress from the Green Party - then his views are subject to scrutiny and criticism. In this case, I would repudiate his expressed views totally and would never consider voting for him.

There is just so much wrong about his statements. Not just the factual errors, such as attributing hundreds of thousands of deaths to President Bush, when no such numbers have perished. No, it's his moral equivalence argument comparing President Bush to al-Zarqawi, and finding Bush worse, that is repugnant.

If you're a progressive and you find yourself in general agreement with Mr. Berg's statements equating Mr. Bush with al-Zarqawi - and finding Bush worse - I would seriously urge you to re-evaluate your thinking on this war. Because if that's your postion you have unquestionably lost perspective, and you don't have grief as a mitigating factor.

Well done, U.S. Air Force. Aim High!