According to the online post from CBS3 Philadelphia, Berg stated “I think the news of the loss of any human being is a tragedy. I think al-Zarqawi’s death is a double tragedy.” The article continues to quote Berg with “His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge.”
Of course, in the newscast I saw, the above statements didn’t quite sound so bald – as there was more explanatory language in between each idea. For a fuller text of Berg’s comments, see http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html?eref=yahoo. These fuller remarks convey the true meaning behind Berg’s words – and demonstate even more the man’s integrity and honesty.
I admire Berg for his ability to feel compassion and denouce deathAnd I believe his assessment of Bush is accurate – in that I, like Berg, think Bush operates from revenge. But I cannot view al-Zarqawi’s death as a trajedy, nor do I feel for his family (as Berg stated he did on television – again – I admire the man’s integrity and compassion, but I share it not).
And yes, we may well see an increase in violence in Iraq as a result of this death though I do not think the threat of increased violence would have been a valid reason to leave al-Zarqawi alone (though I would have preferred he be captured).
Nor do I think the projected increase of violence can be laid at our doorstep for killing al-Zarqawi. To me, liberal, and apparently, quasi-pacificist that I am, while no death is to be celebrated, this death is not one to be mourned, nor one that is a trajedy.