« The Next Bush? | Main | What a Day »
June 08, 2006
Ding-Dong, Zarqawi's Dead
I've got to run to the conference in a minute, but this morning we dispatched a monster. Zarqawi's crimes were heinous and manifold, he sawed off the heads of innocents and obliterated the lives of civilians. His destruction is a morale victory, if nothing else.
Will it change Iraq? I hope so, but highly doubt it. Zarqawi was something of an outsider to an insurgency that's sectarian-based and homegrown -- he overstated his own importance, we bought into the myth because we needed an enemy, but the insurgency itself never was his creation or accepted his authority. From all I understood, he was being ever more rejected by the movement he'd helped found. In any case, the insurgency is self-sustaining, not reliant on a charismatic leader or strategic genius for its perpetuation. But good can still come from this. As Matt says, even if Iraq doesn't change, we could use the death of our bete noire over there to begin redeploying away from the country.
Update: You know what impresses me? That we not only had snapped a massive picture of the slain terrorist's corpse, but that we had the presence of mind to frame it. Gotta wonder if they had a nice frame just sitting around, or some poor grunt was dispatched to the Iraqi Michael's at 3 in the morning. Also: did Zarqawi really have one leg, as many seem to have thought? Or was that a myth?
June 8, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345da28d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ding-Dong, Zarqawi's Dead:
Comments
The problem with terrorism as we are experiencing it is that our enemy is not an organized state from which power emerges from a single locus. Rather, it is a radically individualized movement full of mini-leaders, self-starting cells, and zealous lone gunmen. The killing of a supposed leader does nothing whatsoever to affect the actual power base any more than the ousting of Hussein did to affect the threat posed by Iraq.
Bottom line is that these aren't governments we’re dealing with. In traditional warfare, you may reasonably target the enemy’s power locus (their government) since this is the entity responsible for directing the country’s assets against you. If you manage to take them out, the threat will generally stop since the prime motivator has been eliminated. However, terrorism functions as a populist movement where the power derives from the bottom. There is no single government but rather hundreds or maybe thousands of tiny governments and the power in this case is no more Zarqawi than it is any other zealous individual motivated to strike US interests.
I think it is infinitely more likely is that Zarqawi’s death will further inflame US hatred and that somebody even more vicious will rise to take his place. In fact, this may be the best possible outcome since it is far more likely that 3 or 4 individuals will view for power, each seeking to run their own ops campaign to prove their abilities. Absent Zarqawi’s leadership, whatever form of "command" he had over his followers has now been abruptly splintered and the US will probably have to face a more diffuse level of aggression from a group that was once concentrated.
http://www.thehindsightfactor.com
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^
Posted by: urthwalker | Jun 8, 2006 11:10:41 AM
The problem with terrorism as we are experiencing it is that our enemy is not an organized state from which power emerges from a single locus. Rather, it is a radically individualized movement full of mini-leaders, self-starting cells, and zealous lone gunmen.
You are absolutely correct. As much as you would not like it to be so, it is becoming a war against radical Islam.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 8, 2006 12:00:52 PM
The picture frame is bizarre, but illustrative of how the Republicans would probably like this week's news cycle to shake out: framed around big, bad Zarqawi's death.
Posted by: goodasgold | Jun 8, 2006 12:02:29 PM
This is a great thing. I have been demanding that we get US troops out since before we actually went it and leaving Iraq with Zarqawi still alive would have been a permanent blow to the US. Now we can declare victory and go home.
The Bush Administration needed Zarqawi to go in. He was pretty much the entire substance of the "Saddam harbors terrorists" even though his known training camp was in fact in a part of Northern Iraq not under Saddam's control and fully vulnerable to, I don't know, maybe a mass bombing attack from planes that were already patrolling the airspace?
No they needed Zarqawi alive. Now we all need Zarqawi dead, it is the modern equivalent of Vietnamization, it allows us to say "We did our part, now its up to you" to the Iraqis.
I think this may be more significant in other ways. Zarqawi used the US presense in Iraq to fan Sunni-Shi'ite strife. Remember that the Shi'ites held back for the longest time, in the face of provocation after provocation while Zarqawi constantly worked to create dissent. I don't know, maybe the genie is out of the bottle, maybe too many people have been found dead with drill holes. But Sunni and Shi'ia were never going to draw back from the abyss while al-Zarqawi was around to drive them over. So I am a little more hopeful than urthwalker.
Zarqawi should have been removed from the face of the planet even before 9/11. We knew what he was, we pretty much knew where he was, or at least his operational base was. He was just too useful a symbol for the Vulcans of the PNAC, he enabled their getting their war on. Didn't turn out as our New Century folk hoped it would, maybe they can salvage some tiny fraction of their missing moral authority by using his death to get us out.
Bush is going to get a popularity pop here, Republicans may get a modest pop just from the shadow, but removing Zarqawi removes a huge boulder that was in the way of the way out. There actually may be a tiny glimmer of light at the end of this horrific tunnel. And would train every minor political gain they could possibly make to see that last soldier get on that last transport plane out of Baghdad.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | Jun 8, 2006 12:09:19 PM
Bush is going to get a popularity pop here, Republicans may get a modest pop...
Sadly, this is really the main focus for the left...
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 8, 2006 12:48:36 PM
This is the third time that Zarqawi has been reported dead, for those of you keeping score.
I hope his is really gone, and that the troops can come home, but judging from the past few years of events the most likely outcome is some relentless parading and back patting on the nooze for a few days while some truly destestable business gets done in DC and then it will be back to same old depressing status quo in Iraq.
Posted by: sprocket | Jun 8, 2006 12:55:23 PM
"destestable" = detestable
sorry for the typo
Posted by: sprocket | Jun 8, 2006 12:57:02 PM
As much as you would not like it to be so, it is becoming a war against radical Islam.
Shorter Fred:
"Can we nuke them all now? Can we? Can we?"
He can no more wait for his genocide than my kids can wait for Santa....
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Jun 8, 2006 1:15:22 PM
As I've already noted on my own blog, this may be a bigger victory on the homefront than it is on the ground in Iraq.
Posted by: Joshua | Jun 8, 2006 1:34:36 PM
After looking at your blog, Josh, I dunno why a self-described "long war" advocate like yourself doesn't enlist. (I've got a pretty good hunch, though.)
Posted by: sglover | Jun 8, 2006 1:55:57 PM
Shorter Fred:
"Can we nuke them all now? Can we? Can we?"
He can no more wait for his genocide than my kids can wait for Santa....
Hey, don't worry about Fred too much. After all, he believes slavery was abolished peacefully through the democratic process.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 8, 2006 2:47:55 PM
Also: did Zarqawi really have one leg, as many seem to have thought?
Remember that video he released a couple months ago? In it, he could be seen walking around with two (2) legs.
Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Jun 8, 2006 2:54:11 PM
After all, he believes slavery was abolished peacefully through the democratic process.
Yeah, what a dumbass
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 8, 2006 3:15:16 PM
Well slavery was abolished through a democratic process. And nobody was harmed in the process of voting on it. But calling the road to the 13th amendment "peaceful" is just...amazingly ignorant.
Posted by: Kylroy | Jun 8, 2006 3:32:18 PM
Yah, now that we've taken out Zarqawi we can pack up and go home after leaving behind 100,000 dead Iraqis, 2,500 dead US troops, thousands maimed, spending untold billions of US tax dollars and creating the stage for their next civil war.....yah, mission accomplished.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Jun 8, 2006 3:32:32 PM
"Well slavery was abolished through a democratic process. And nobody was harmed in the process of voting on it. But calling the road to the 13th amendment "peaceful" is just...amazingly ignorant."
Not ignorant so much as disingenuous.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 8, 2006 3:48:42 PM
Well slavery was abolished through a democratic process. And nobody was harmed in the process of voting on it. But calling the road to the 13th amendment "peaceful" is just...amazingly ignorant.
Heh. You're one of those people that think that the war between the states was all about slavery, eh?
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 8, 2006 3:48:46 PM
Fred, don't be an idiot. Lincoln didn't need to "save the union" until the South started the war, and they started the war because they wanted their precious slavery. Now go play in your room -- the adults are talking.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 8, 2006 3:50:26 PM
The first sentence in the Lincoln quote above is really, really hard to get around. However, I have faith in you. Perhaps you could redefine some of the words as you are so famous for and make it happen that way? I'll leave it up to you.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 8, 2006 4:00:01 PM
Has anyone mentioned that it was just four short years ago that US spooks zeroed in on Zarqawi - where he was, what he was up to - and were ready to zap him right where he stood. Then the White House stepped in and stopped the mission - TWICE - and let Zarqawi go free. Doin' a heckuva job there, Georgie!
Posted by: sprocket | Jun 8, 2006 4:04:07 PM
"The first sentence in the Lincoln quote above is really, really hard to get around. However, I have faith in you. Perhaps you could redefine some of the words as you are so famous for and make it happen that way? I'll leave it up to you."
What did I just say, Fred?
Lincoln did not start the war, therefore Lincoln's motivations are not relevant to the cause of the war.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 8, 2006 4:10:02 PM
And what did Lincoln say when he was re-elected in the middle of the war? From his 2nd inaugural address:
"...Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
Translation? If our country is utterly ruined by this war, it is naught but penance for the sin of slavery.
He wasn't talking to a crowd of abolitionists. He wasn't campaigning. He was addressing the nation as a whole, which means either: A) the nation wanted to hear it, ot B)Lincoln really felt that way. Either way, he wasn't looking to preserve the Union at any cost (else he would have approved the Crittenden Compromise); he was looking to end slavery.
Posted by: Kylroy | Jun 8, 2006 4:24:43 PM
Oh, and I missed this bit from the same address:
"These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
So, no, Lincoln flatly stated that slavery was "somehow" the reason for the Civil War.
Posted by: Kylroy | Jun 8, 2006 4:27:40 PM
Very entertaining.
The Lincoln quote that I made available to you was not a public speech. He was not campaigning for a re-election or public support. It was, instead, his private thoughts in a letter.
Hey, did you know Lincoln was a homo? (not really, but I thought as long as you are into revisionist history for political purposes you might as well go with that asinine idea as well...)
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 8, 2006 4:34:00 PM
Heh. You're one of those people that think that the war between the states was all about slavery, eh?
I see. So because the War of Northern Aggression had some causes other than slavery, the 13th amendment was reached peacefully. Got it.
Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 8, 2006 5:01:58 PM
