Zarqawi and the War on Terror

Josh Marshall has a good analysis of this story alleging that the Bush administration decided against taking out Zarqawi and his Ansar al-Islam organization before the war so as to concentrate on the Iraq invasion. I think the sources saying that Bush wanted to use Zarqawi as anti-Saddam propaganda are right. As Marshall notes, of course, Zarqawi was actually operating from the Kurdish territory, so his presence in the geographic area of Iraq really meant nothing.

The situation involving Zarqawi looks more ominous, though, when seen in the context of this article on the reach of his terrorist organization and the changing nature of the War on Terror. It supports ideas I've been touting for some time, portraying the rise of a number of strong regional terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda, of which Ansar al-Islam is one. I believe this transformation took place during the period when we switched our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, and furthermore that Zarqawi hopes for a failed state in Iraq in which terrorist groups can fester. Fortunately, as noted yesterday, I still see hope that Iraq will turn out okay, if all the cards fall properly regarding contentious issues and the general sentiment for continued unity in the face of such attacks.

However, I don't think Bush comes off well in all this under any circumstances. I already believe our Iraq campaign hurt our efforts against terrorism. Now, there is evidence that Bush essentially ensured the survival of a terrorist group to use as a propaganda tool for that Iraq war, a terrorist group which is now a greater danger than before because he mismanaged the aftermath. Tell me again why the Democrats have to prove they can be trusted to defend the nation?