by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 12, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

etaliating for Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, five masked terrorists—possibly affiliated with Al Qaeda—beheaded 28-year-old Pennsylvania communications contractor Nicholas Berg on a crude video posted on an Islamic Web site. Berg's decapitated remains were found in a ditch by a military patrol May 8, confirming his nightmarish death. After asking Berg to identify himself and reciting Islamic prayers, a hooded assassin hacked off Berg's head with a large knife, parading it around like a Medieval barbarian. Beheading sends a gruesome up-close-and-personal message, designed to intimidate civilians involved in Iraq's rebuilding. Berg's murder was strangely reminiscent of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, decapitated in 2002 by terrorists near Karachi, Pakistan. Unlike Pearl, Berg's killers didn't force his Jewish confession before lopping off his head.

      Let there be no mistake: Berg's video sends a loud message to U.N. or NATO personnel considering getting involved in Iraq. Military personnel have a hard enough time assuring their security but civilians remain sitting ducks to abductions and drive-by shootings. Video images also inflame the passions of antiwar protesters, capitalizing on growing opposition to the Iraq War. When the U.N's Baghdad headquarters was truck- bombed Aug. 20, 2003, killing its chief Iraq envoy Sergio Viera de Mello, the international community headed for the exits. On the eve of June 30 sovereignty, Berg's barbaric murder tells the world community to stay away—or face the same fate. Whether Berg's slaughter had anything to do with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is anyone's guess. One thing's for sure: As long as the U.S. occupies Iraq, the military and civilians remain easy targets.

      Berg's beheading, shocking as it seems, was no different than other deaths performed under less dramatic circumstances. Watching his execution should remind the military that the U.S. is dealing with ruthless enemy, requiring the most draconic measures. Pussy-footing around, negotiating temporary truces, allowing the media to dictate the rules-of-engagement, making feeble excuses and granting off limits to religious shrines used as weapons dumps emboldens the enemy, inviting more violence. Instead of wringing hands about Abu Ghraib, the military must forcefully respond to Berg's death. Serial killers like Moqtada al-Sadr can't be placated, fearing reprisals from the Shiite community. Tying the military's hands serves no purpose other than perpetuating more kidnappings and torture killings. Either the U.S. must beat the enemy into submission or find an exit strategy.

      President Bush's ambitious plan to democratize Iraq and “transform the Middle East” must be reassessed in the context of not only costs—both financial and human—but in terms of popular support. November's election promises to be a referendum on Bush's Iraq policy. Recent polls, while not showing presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) rocketing into the lead, show Bush's approval ratings dipping below 50%—a bad sign for incumbents during an election year. Getting back to reality, Bush's original plan to topple Saddam and neutralize his weapons-of-mass destruction was accomplished—though, like the findings of former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix, no weapons were found. Even more alarming are recent polls showing that more than 70% of Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with Sept. 11.

      Even Bush publicly acknowledges that no reliable connection exists between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. A sizable majority of Democrats and independents believe that no connection exists. By now, most people know that the actionable intelligence on which Colin L. Powell based his case for war to the U.N. Security Council was based on fraudulent reports from the brother-in-law of Ahmad Chalabi, the dubious head of the Iraqi National Congress. But whatever the case for war, the GOP stands solidly behind Bush, accepting his mistakes without criticism. Today's mistakes now cost the U.S. treasury untold billions and the military and civilian contractors precious lives. Most people believe toppling Saddam was a good thing. But with Berg's bloody execution, shenanigans at Abu Ghraib prison and the mounting body count, voters are starting to question the wisdom of Bush's Iraq policy.

      Berg's barbaric slaying reminds a watching world that there are no rules-of-engagement for insurgents fighting a bloody guerrilla war. U.S. forces can't arrest a growing insurgency by showing restraint and negotiating temporary peace deals. With Fallujah still in chaos and the holy city of Najaf off limits, mass killers like Moqtada al-Sadr are still on the loose. There's no reason to assume that the escalating spiral of violence won't continue before and after the changeover on June 30. If the U.S. doesn't have the stomach to deal forcefully with Berg's killers or thugs like al-Sadr, it's time to cut our losses and find a way out. Picking fights with Islamists flocking to Iraq—and supported by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia—to fight U.S. occupation won't prevent the next Sept. 11. If the war on terror is bogged down in Iraq, it's time to stop spinning the wheels and move on.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.