History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I realize that it is probably necessary to document our assassinations with photographs. But I cannot help seeing a parallel between this picture of Al Zarqawi with an older practice of posting the heads of the executed on top of castle walls.
How proud we are. And maybe we should be. He was murderous and this war is hard. It is a victory, though only time will tell if it is the "opportunity. . . to turn the tide” as President Bush hopes.
So the sense of lamentation in this post is not a lament for Al Zarqawi or a denunciation of the war. My lamentation is over how we humans brutalize ourselves, how we make ourselves more brutal, when we fight.
Dr. Luker - There are multiple reasons for the tactic of showing Zarqawi's image. Yes, one is to dissuade future AQ/terrorist leaders - you dismiss that reason. Another intent is to assure partners of the resolve to find and eventually eliminate AQ/terror leaders and networks. A third reason is to introduce uncertainty and suspicion in the AQ/terrorist networks. Note the strong emphasis in the briefing on how the Coalition received its intelligence on Zarqawi from "inside" sources and the near simultaneous strikes (17 I believe) on other targets. Perhaps the dissuasion effect may be minimal, but I suspect the increased level of security and increased distrust in AQ networks might have greater impacts on recruiting, planning, and conducting operations.
There are other reasons but I'm hoping you "get" that the military tends to view the operational environment and adversaries as complex, adaptive systems and attempts (understanding the limitations) to cause multiple system-level effects through its actions.
Caleb McDaniel -
6/9/2006
Sorry to proliferate comments: just wanted to append a blanket statement of uncertainty to most of what I've argued in this thread.
As my comments on this blog and elsewhere have made clear, I have a strong moral and intellectual inclination towards pacifism, which tends to color a lot of my comments on issues like these. The only reason I feel a need to say that is because I'm aware I sometimes conceal that preference -- rhetorically at least -- and instead appeal to just war theory or existing international law, both of which stop well short of a fully pacifist position. Part of the reason I appeal to these other sources of moral authority, even when I'm not sure if I fully subscribe to them, is because I'm still trying to figure out what I believe about war. So I approach these kinds of dialogue somewhat socratically. Some might say that amounts to sophistry, and I'm not sure that's not true. But at any rate, I am thankful for the dialogue, and aware that even as I accuse others of double standards, I'm aware that I have quiver full of them on my own back.
Caleb McDaniel -
6/9/2006
To be clear about my last paragraph: Theories of just war insist (rightly) on a distinction between the execution of innocent civilians like Nicholas Berg and the killing of enemy combatants in self-defense. So just to underline this again: I'm not trying to compare Al-Zarqawi's death with the deaths of people like Berg, or in any way to extenuate the utterly reprehensible and immoral acts that have been perpetrated by Al-Zarqawi.
But these kinds of distinctions from just war thought have to applied systematically, not occasionally: are Al-Zarqawi and other terrorists enemy combatants in a conventional war that is subject to just limitations? Or are they are international criminals subject to legal prosecution as such?
Caleb McDaniel -
6/9/2006
Thanks for the follow-up comments and questions; they pressed me to do a little more homework before making a response. (Maybe one of these days I'll learn to do my homework before making comments ...)
Apparently the Geneva protocols against the exposure of combatants to "insult and public curiosity" do apply only to prisoners of war. (See here.) The dead are accorded the right to be identified and "honourably interred" by the rites of their culture. (See here.) So technically speaking, the letter of the law has not been violated by the display of Al-Zarqawi's head.
We could get into an argument about the spirit of the law (did the Conventions really mean to say that a living prisoner of war must be protected from "public curiosity" but that he or she forfeits that protection as soon as he or she dies?) but I'm not informed enough about international law to make a credible case on this point. My main point was to identify what I still see as a kind of double standard in the administration's stance on these questions.
I agree it's hard to make that point stick because this war has been conducted from the beginning in a semantic shadowland. On the one hand, we're told that people like Al-Zarqawi aren't combatants but criminals, which means they are not technically protected by the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, if they really are criminals then it is not appropriate to execute them extralegally, and the objective should have been to capture Al-Zarqawi and bring him to trial instead of bombing him from a distance of thousands of feet. Yet on the other other hand, we are told they are combatants in the sense that they can be held without charge for indefinite periods of time for purposes of military intelligence. It's hard not to conclude that the government's decisions about when to consider its enemies "combatants" or "soldiers" or "criminals" or "terrorists" are guided more by ad hoc and opportunistic considerations than by consistent and scrupulous attention to international law.
I'm willing to concede, though, that deciding whether the government struck the right "balance" here will be mainly a matter of personal judgment.
I also want to make clear that I'm not trying to draw an exact parallel between the kinds of horrific videos Al-Zarqawi and his ilk release (of beheadings and the like) with the photographs that the U.S. government has released of Al-Zarqawi and the Hussein brothers. But I do want to say that it's not easy to explain exactly what makes the cases different in a way that won't seem arbitrary to the other side, which is precisely why it's best to try to stipulate these kinds of situations in international law. It's true, for example, that the U.S. does not release video of decapitations, but it does release video of the actual bombs being dropped on houses. Is the distinction between the two cases just that in one case we don't actually see the moment when the human body becomes the human corpse, whereas in the other we do? If so, it's hard to spell out exactly why that's the distinction that matters without simply saying that it seems self-evident.
Jonathan Dresner -
6/9/2006
I discovered this when I was investigating the origins of the word for a group of fourth-graders I was working with.
The food is of somewhat later origin: the use of salted or vinegared rice to preserve fish became a popular dish in the Edo (17-19c) period: the sushi we have now is the descendant of a convenient street food....
Ralph E. Luker -
6/9/2006
In the late 19th century in the U.S., it was common to photograph the dead bodies of loved ones in their caskets as a means of remembering them. In the 20th century, even in the face of its horrors, we did a lot of hiding of death. Having said that, if American authorities think that they're going to dissuade potential terrorists by making clear that we will kill them, American authorities still don't understand the mind of martyrs or those who seek martyrdom. Death is _no threat_. Get it?
Oscar Chamberlain -
6/9/2006
At one level, I agree Charles, as I hoped that I made clear. Identification is an essential part of a strategy like this.
So we cannot be "above such things." That's the tragedy of war, though, isn't it?
And here we may disagree, because I don't think many people can keep embracing such ugly necessities without becoming a bit uglier themselves. That is also the tragedy of war.
Charles V. Mutschler -
6/9/2006
Which again comes back to the point that this provides verification that the person is dead. I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons to do this, and I don't think the photos of Zarqawi released by the military are unreasonable. Trying to equate those with the footage of someone being killed is, I think, an unreasonable stretch.
Lastly, I suppose I'll offer some support for the head on a pike mode of communication. It's ugly, but it leaves no doubt about message - "if we find you, we'll kill you." I know most of the readers on this list probably feel that they are above such things, but when communicating with the Zarqawis of this world, it may be more effective to communicate with them in kind. War is an ugly business, and guerilla war especially so.
Charles V. Mutschler
William L Ramsey -
6/9/2006
Maybe the best parallel is our own country's tradition in the west of photographing the corpses of gunfighters,etc.
Ralph E. Luker -
6/9/2006
You've quite killed my appetite for sushi.
Jonathan Dresner -
6/9/2006
By the way, I don't think Oscar's parallel between the release of the photo and the staked head is a simply emotive or aesthetic response: We see the staked head as being fundamentally barbarous, triumphal, but I think that in largely illiterate societies it was actually fundamentally communicative.
In Warring States era Japan, the heads of distinguished enemies were preserved in salt or vinegar (this is actually where the term sushi comes from, a long time ago) and paraded through the capital: the streets would be lined with notables and their representatives, looking carefully at the faces and accoutrements of the deceased for what we'd now call "closure"... Who you killed was very important in an aristocratic society, and though we have built up quite a taboo structure about dead bodies and privacy, displaying the dead was a form of honor, both to the victor and the defeated.
Col Steve J -
6/9/2006
As Jonathan suggests, the issue of whether Zarqawi qualifies as a "combatant" and for Geneva Convention protections is debateable.
However, even if we err on the side of yes, the Geneva Convention restriction on taking photographs applies to prisoners of war. As I read the protocols, the standard for the dead is "respected." The protocol directs the parties to agree to terms on how to identify the dead. This standard, clearly meant for state on state conflicts, is obviously problematic when one "party" is not a signatory to the protocols and when the ability to negotiate such terms with non-state "participants" is nearly impossible.
I think the Coalition drew the right balance in "respecting" Zarqawi while "identifying" him. The photos (I have seen) only show his face (sufficient to identify him) and after removal from the scene. Clearly, the coalition gains strategic communications value from the display, but I believe the action was within the bounds of the protocols and Jonathan has a point that identification without proof would be suspect.
I believe US protests about Al-Jazeera's actions focused on the fact the network showed actual US POW's (during combat with Iraq - clearly a violation) and showed US dead Soldiers in a morgue with no intent to identify them (except as US Soldiers). Do you recall seeing any official coalition released photos of Iraqi dead?
I haven't talked with some JAG friends. Since you mention "international standards of decency," would you be more specific - other than the Geneva convention and the additional protocols I cited - as to what international law you believe the coalition violated in showing the head shot of Zaraqawi?
Jonathan Dresner -
6/9/2006
And conceivably combatants on the other side of the conflict could make the same excuse
Not credibly. I'm afraid that I'm not always persuaded by the slippery-slope fear of utilitarian arguments, and this is one of those cases. The situations are not parallel enough for the arguments supporting the several exceptions the US has made (the Hussein sons, Zarqawi) to be used to justify the frequent and lurid videos which have come out of the various irregular forces fighting in Iraq.
he was not a head of state, and not even the unambiguous leader of the organization to which he belonged
I don't think we have a legal category that covers "local head of terrorist group loosely affiliated with international coalition of terrorists." I do think US forces should be bound by the Geneva conventions, etc., but even if you permit Zarqawi the analogy to an actual military organization (rather than a Mafia), he's a regional C-in-C, not a sargeant. This is one case, to my mind, where a utilitarian argument is entirely appropriate: releasing the photos creates a certainty which is clearly a benefit to peace and stability without doing any more harm to anyone living. Calling it "inhumane" is excessive, at least.
U.S. military released the photographs
Yes, that's my point. They have two choices: release the photos or not. The latter would be immediately construed as "keeping them secret" the motive for which would be immediately suspect (especially since we've released similar photos as noted above)
Caleb McDaniel -
6/9/2006
Jonathan, I do see the evidentiary utility of having the photo made public, but arguably all kinds of utilitarian arguments can be made -- and are being made -- for the suspension of the rule of law. And conceivably combatants on the other side of the conflict could make the same excuse for showing pictures of a downed Black Hawk and its crew -- that it proves their claims to have killed enemy soldiers.
At the very least, we can't continue to demand that our enemies abide by international laws and conventions of war while creating exceptions for ourselves -- otherwise we undermine those laws and conventions. And even from a pragmatic perspective, I agree with those who say that when the U.S. appears to condone torture or the display of enemy corpses, it makes it more likely that American soldiers will be subjected to the same indignities.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions you're drawing between "political leaders" and "common soldiers," but I freely admit that might be my ignorance of the laws and conventions we're talking about here. I'm sincerely asking, for my own information, whether you can more fully inform me about that gap in protections.
Even if there were such a gap in the statutes and treaties themselves, I find it hard to see how Zarqawi classifies as a "political leader": he was not a head of state, and not even the unambiguous leader of the organization to which he belonged. Some reports seem to suggest that the U.S. has in a sense made him the leader that he was by pinpointing him as the "most wanted" man, and surely international laws of war do not allow one side to unilaterally identify certain figures as exceptions to the rules. Who counts as a political leader, at the very least, would have to be a more determinate issue.
Most of the news reports I've read say that the U.S. military released the photographs, so I don't see your point about "whether or not news organizations display" the photos as relevant.
I join you in lamenting that we've sunk this deep into a quagmire of rumor and suspicion. Greater transparency from the beginning of this conflict might have made our reports more worthy of trust in the eyes of the world so that we would not have to stoop to this level. At any rate, we can't say that our perceived untrustworthiness justifies us in behaving inhumanely or hypocritically with regard to enemy combatants.
Jonathan Dresner -
6/8/2006
I disagree. There is an evidentiary value to providing the most concrete proof possible of Zarqawi's death. Protections which exist for soldiers in international war law do not apply to political leaders (and whether or not you think Iraqi insurgents are protected by rule of law in wartime, their leaders do not qualify as common soldiers) nor are the circumstances the same. Whether or not news organizations display it is up to them, not to the government (free speech and all that), but in an environment where suspcicion and rumore run deep, transparency, even to this extent, is worthwhile.
Imagine how suspicious we'd be if the Administration announced that it had gotten Zarqawi without providing documentation and multiple confirmations from local sources?
Caleb McDaniel -
6/8/2006
Zarqawi's history of posting video of decapitations is cited as evidence of his barbarism. I don't see the morally salient difference that makes it okay for the U.S. to both (a) post pictures of its slain enemies and (b) protest that international standards of decency have been violated when pictures of fallen American soldiers are displayed on websites or Al-Jazeera. If American officials are right to do (b) -- which they are -- then what justifies (a)?
