Mr. Speaker, Americans woke up yesterday morning to the news that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in an air raid in Iraq. Even though he was a vicious man, who had contempt for every single thing America represents, I do not believe his death signals a particular turning point in the Iraq War.

There have been other supposed watershed moments that were loudly trumpeted by enthusiasts for this war, but none of those turned out to have long-term significance, and I do not believe this to be any different. It will disrupt the operational capability of al-Zarqawi's organization, but most certainly will not end the civil strife that has engulfed Iraq.

Although Zarqawi was the leader of a group called al Qaeda in Iraq, it is important to note that he was not closely allied to Osama bin Laden. In fact, the two men had something of a long-standing rivalry. Zarqawi's death is not in any way a blow to bin Laden and the al Qaeda that is responsible for 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, the insurgency is a decentralized force that extends well beyond the influence of a single man. As foreign policy scholar Ivo Daalder points out, the anarchy that has taken hold in Iraq cannot be attributed to just one terrorist. Iraq has mushroomed into what Daalder calls a ``large-scale sectarian conflict'' and what I would call a full-blown civil war.

Dueling militias, fueled by ethnic hostilities that are centuries old, are fighting for control of the streets of Iraq and leaving a trail of carnage and bloodshed in their wake. It is difficult to see how the elimination of one man changes that tragic dynamic.

To the extent that Zarqawi's death has any impact, it will probably further animate the insurgency and lead to even more violence.

We can never forget what Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman said last year about the insurgents, and I will quote him. He said, ``We can't kill them all. When I kill one, I create three.'' So if killing one insurgent creates three more, what happens when you kill one of the most visible insurgent leaders?

And here is an interesting twist. If killing Zarqawi was a primary goal of the Bush administration, why did they not act when they had an opportunity 4 years ago? According to NBC News, on three separate occasions in 2002 and early 2004, Zarqawi was within our sights, but all three times, the plan for attack was vetoed at the White House and the National Security Council. Why the hesitation on the part of this famously trigger happy administration? According to NBC sources, it was all about selling the Iraq War.

At the time, the administration was furiously trying to build public support for the preemptive invasion of Iraq, resorting to all kinds of misinformation if necessary. And they did not want to lose the public relations value of keeping Zarqawi alive and dangerous, which just goes to show that this misadventure in Iraq seems to have always been more important to the administration than actually stopping terrorists.

Remember when the President made the reference to: ``Wanted, Dead or Alive''? Maybe the real motto should have been: ``Wanted, Dead or Alive, Unless You Might Be a Useful Propaganda Tool.''

Mr. Speaker, conditions in Iraq are unspeakable. According to the BBC, the morgues in Baghdad alone have reported more than 6,000 violent deaths so far this year, an average of 40 a day in a single city.

The administration lit the match that ignited this inferno. The death of al-Zarqawi will not extinguish it. We must remove the one thing that gave rise to the violence in the first place, the very appearance of American occupation.

For the safety of our Nation and the long-term stability of Iraq, there is only one answer: Bring our troops home.