According to an AP article, al-Zarqawi's wife gave an interview to the Italian paper La Repubblica where "she said al-Qaida leaders sold out al-Zarqawi to the U.S. in exchange for a promise to let up in the search for bin Laden". Seems pretty far-fetched, right? Maybe not.
Here is the Reuters headline for an article that came out on July 4th: "CIA disbands unit set up to hunt for bin Laden". Its notable that al-Qaida may have given up Zarqawi to the US for a slow down in the hunt for bin Laden, and even more so that the US would give up bin Laden for Zarqawi.
Obviously bin Laden is more important to al-Qaida than Zarqawi, so why should Zarqawi turn out to be more valuable to the Bush administration? The reason is two-fold.
1. Zarqawi was supposedly making life in Iraq very difficult for Iraqis and the coalition forces, though with his death not much has changed. To the average American the situation in Iraq is spinning out of control and with the White House blaming Zarqawi for much of the chaos, it could only improve polls and standings if he was eliminated.
2. If the US really does get rid of bin Laden, the 'War on Terror' would in most American's eyes be over or over enough to call it a day and bring the troops home. This would create a domestic and foreign policy vacuum for the Bush administration and the Republican bloc ramping up for the November elections.
Its arguable how much traction the Bush administration received in the polls for finally delivering some 'good news' from the frontlines - Zarqawi's death - but it was supposedly important enough that it may come at the cost of not getting the criminal responsible for 9/11, and who knows how much that may cost us in the years to come. Trading long term security for short term gains is a failed, dangerous and immoral policy every time.
