Zarqawi? I hardly know ye.

The national paper of record today published an analysis of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who the U.S. claims is the leader of the anti-American terrorist insurgency in Iraq and the clearest link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Surprise surprise, but the story's nowhere so clear-cut. Zarqawi may or may not be working in tandem with bin Laden, but he's almost certainly not a member of the al-Qaeda network. In fact, he might even be a rival to it. It's highly unlikely that Zarqawi was ever affiliated with Hussein, even after 9/11. Rather, he apparently had close connections to the government of Iran and to the Ansar al-Islam group, both of which opposed Hussein. And finally, given the chaos in Iraq now, he probably isn't even the terrorist mastermind which the neocons make him out to be. It's just too hard to run terrorist operations inside and outside Iraq while on the run and under near-constant attack. No sir - Fallujah is no Waziristan.

In sum, then, Zarqawi is as chimerical a threat to the U.S. as those weapons of mass destruction were (what's the past-tense imaginary of "were"?). Bush's and Cheney's certainty otherwise is just the usual tedious tissue of innuendo, lies, and false assumptions. Remember how the insurgency would collapse when we killed Hussein's sons? And then when we captured him? Clearly, myriad forms of popular support, numerous groups, and diverse ideologies gird those who attack American forces in Iraq, and, increasingly, those seen as American allies. Trying to uproot all the anti-Americanism is a bloody fool's errand that dwarfs the error of pinning the insurgency on Zarqawi.