Zarqawi dead

[bascule]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658782.htm

 

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has announced that Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been killed.

 

Does this event change anyone's perspective on the situation in Iraq? Does it in some way justify the record numbers of deaths which have occured in the past month?

[Severian]

I don't think it will make any difference. Someone else will just step up into the position.

[Pangloss]

It matters, it just doesn't stop the violence. It keeps us from looking helpless and impotent.

[In My Memory]

Severian,

Does this event change anyone's perspective on the situation in Iraq? Does it in some way justify the record numbers of deaths which have occured in the past month?

I dont really know how I feel about Iraq, but the very least Zarqawis death destroys the morale and organization of the terrorist groups (which is a good thing), and I dont hate Bush as much

[silkworm]

Too bad we didn't capture him alive so he would no longer be a mythological character of legendary strength and courage to his supporters. Now he's just another martyr.

 

Anyway, I'm still glad to see it.

[ecoli]

Finally the air raids are doing some good. I don't think it will change much though

[Jim]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658782.htm

 

 

 

Does this event change anyone's perspective on the situation in Iraq? Does it in some way justify the record numbers of deaths which have occured in the past month?

 

It's a good thing. I would not justify deaths caused by terrorists with the death of another terrorist.

[Sisyphus]

I think the situation is such that the death of a single man cannot make any difference. It's no longer just Al Qaeda (itself a largely decentralized organization) or leftover Saddam supporters vs. the United States. It's ethnic pseudo-civil war, and the United States is just another faction. It's meaning is symbolic in the sense that it shows American power (although it certainly took us long enough), but it also sets him up as a martyr, instead of a guy who was starting to genuinely piss off ordinary Iraqis.

[gcol]

Severian' date='

 

I dont really know how I feel about Iraq, but the very least Zarqawis death destroys the morale and organization of the terrorist groups (which is a good thing), and I dont hate Bush as much [/quote']

 

I doubt very much whether Zarqawi's death has an anti-morale effect because (a) their morale derives from religious fervour whipped up by moslem clerics. As far as I know he was no such thing. (b) The terrorist structure is based on cells acting autonomously. Any broken links re-grow organically.

 

They have adopted well tried and documented standard communist insurgency methods. Named leaders are important for publicity purpose only. There are a thousand more waiting to fill the breach.

 

It makes good propaganda only for the forces of occupation.

[Jim]

I doubt very much whether Zarqawi's death has an anti-morale effect because (a) their morale derives from religious fervour whipped up by moslem clerics. As far as I know he was no such thing. (b) The terrorist structure is based on cells acting autonomously. Any broken links re-grow organically.

 

They have adopted well tried and documented standard communist insurgency methods. Named leaders are important for publicity purpose only. There are a thousand more waiting to fill the breach.

 

It makes good propaganda only for the forces of occupation.

 

 

This makes a difference on two levels. The more invincible Zarqawi seemed' date=' the more emboldened his followers would become. From the coalition perspective, Osama, as the democrats like to remind us, has not been caught and I'm sure the failure to capture or kill Zarqawi while our allies constantly took hits was damaging to morale.

 

The more Iraqis believe this war is winnable the more of them will take a risk to join the police forces, provide tips, etc.

 

There's little question that this helps although no one is claiming a few deaths will end all terrorist attacks.

 

Edit: Here's a collection of National Review comments on the issue. My personal hero, Victor Hanson, writes:

 

Zarqawi’s death is very important at this juncture, for symbolic in addition to operational reasons. Although al Qaeda in Iraq was decentralized, the loss of its prime strategist there will insidiously have long-term repercussions. And in the short-term it adds to the sense of momentum following Prime Minister Maliki’s selection of the remaining key three cabinet posts, in addition to tranquilizing, if only for a few days, the media’s obsession with Haditha. The Americans were wise to lower expectations, give center stage credit to the Iraqis, and note that Saddam’s capture likewise did not end the insurgency. Yet in a region where honor and sway are everything, the demise of this mass murderer only adds to the prestige of the new government at a time when it was desperately needed.

[padren]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658782.htm

 

 

 

Does this event change anyone's perspective on the situation in Iraq? Does it in some way justify the record numbers of deaths which have occured in the past month?

 

 

I think the people who think those deaths are justified now, would believe they were justified even if Zarqawi was not killed. Those who feel it has not been justified while Zarqawi has been alive, for the most part, still won't feel those deaths are justified now that he is dead.

 

 

While I think everyone will agree it is good he's not out there anymore, that people's stance on what is justified will remain unaffected.

[SmallIsPower]

Yipeee! That being said,

 

Far more terrorists have been mobized because of the war in Iraq, then have been disuaded by Zaquwi's death. The beneficiaries Bush's "leadership" of the war on terrorism have been Al Queda, and the military industrial complex.

[Jim]

Yipeee! That being said' date='

 

Far more terrorists have been mobized because of the war in Iraq, then have been disuaded by Zaquwi's death. The beneficiaries Bush's "leadership" of the war on terrorism have been Al Queda, and the military industrial complex.[/quote']

 

Yet those newly mobilized terrorists have not attacked any United States targets.

 

As a side note, ABC reports that Arabic networks are emphasizing the harm resulting from killing Zarqawi. By this logic should stop looking for Osama.

[ecoli]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/caldwell.transcript/

 

Apparently, Zarqawi was still alive when troops found him.

[SmallIsPower]

Yet those newly mobilized terrorists have not attacked any United States targets.

 

I guess you don't consider the 2500 dead American troops as a "United States target", that's almost as many as died on 9/11. Considering Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, I'd say that's a disaster only Bush could create.

 

If they wanted Osama, they'd have him. Come on he's a 6''5" Arab with the most infamous face since Hitler, and on dialysis. He's still our man, they'll only sacrifice him in extreme circumstances.

[ecoli]

@small - he ment domestic targets, not the armed forces, who knew what they were getting into when they signed up to fight.

[Sisyphus]

When was the last domestic attack prior to 9/11?

[Pangloss]

WTC in '93 I guess?

 

On another note, it's interesting how this story continues to develop. Apparently the attack that got Zarqawi was timed to coincide with raids on 17 other locations, which produced intel that lead to 39 more raids today. It's turning out to be a lot more than just a single take-down. Whether it ends up having a major impact on the insurgency is another question, but it sure sounds like some kind of progress.

[john5746]

WTC in '93 I guess?

 

On another note' date=' it's interesting how this story continues to develop. Apparently the attack that got Zarqawi was timed to coincide with raids on 17 other locations, which produced intel that lead to 39 more raids today. It's turning out to be a lot more than just a single take-down. Whether it ends up having a major impact on the insurgency is another question, but it sure sounds like some kind of progress.[/quote']

 

I think short term, it may increase violence, but long term it is obviously a good thing for Iraq and our troops there. I am not convinced this makes the homefront more secure. Killing guys like Zarqawi, who would do evil somewhere eventually is a good thing no doubt, but I am not sure all those "insurgents" would be targeting America rather than be in Iraq if we had not invaded Iraq. In fact, they probably wouldn't have become insurgents if we had not invaded in the first place.

[ecoli]

WTC in '93 I guess?

 

wait... I thought OKC bombing was in '95.

[john5746]

wait... I thought OKC bombing was in '95.

 

I took it to mean domestic attack by foreign forces, which I think the WTC bombings could have been considered influenced by foreigners.

[ecoli]

I took it to mean domestic attack by foreign forces, which I think the WTC bombings could have been considered influenced by foreigners.

 

What about US embassies in foreign countries. Technically, that's US soil

[Pangloss]

Well they were talking about external threats, but you certainly point towards an important consideration, which is that there have been a number of news stories lately that suggest that domestic terrorism may not be gone either. There was some talk about this earlier in the week following the terrorist captures up in Canada.

[Pangloss]

What's the point of this, anyway? I really don't think the war on terror is going to end with a photo finish and a controversial call from the French ice-skating judge.

[FreeThinker]

Can anyone spare a though for the dead woman and children that died during this USA air strike? Only a naive person could think that the death of Zarqawi will make the situation any better in Iraq. If anything, it will get worst. The death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge. The whole war is largely unjustified and too many innocent people have died on both sides.