Zarqawi Killed - Will It Make A Difference?

How do you know that?

Whether Zarqawi’s death will be trival in it’s consequences is something we will have to wait and see. If someone claims to know the answers — believe me, they don’t. The Iraqi themselves were involved to killing Zarqawi – how will that play out? Will this bring more credit to the Iraqi forces. Zarqawi’s plans for civil war — will that scheme be prosecuted with the same vigor as before? Can it be? Is his death “trival”?? Hell if I know.

Who knows? Not you, not me, and not anyone else outside of those who have intimate knowledge of the situation. As I’ve already said, I doubt a reasonable person will claim that his death doesn’t make a short term difference in morale – and morale is a substantial part of the battle. However, since this isn’t an organization that believes in public disclosure, I’m not willing to go as far as most on the board and almost assert the fact that ‘yes, there will be some lasting affect that matters’ or ‘no, never, nada.’ Anybody that does is fooling themselves, not me.

I don’t know what the effects of Zarqawi’s death will have on the long term psychology of the war. Never said that – never even implied it. Now, if I were a betting man, I’d think it’s not going to have any long term effect all else being equal. That said, it doesn’t remove the fact that this news has to be a boost to morale, both military and civilian ---- and it certainly doesn’t remove the possibility that a different al Quida leadership might decide that car bombing Iraqi civilians isn’t getting the job done – or that civil war is no longer on the agenda. Who’s the next new beheading star? Whose face will we all recognize next? Who will be his advisors? Again — Who knows? Point is - anyone that claims that this does or does not change anything long term is really just blowing smoke out of their backside.

Anyone wanna guess how long it’ll be before the Bush Administration starts waving a new Al Qaeda #2 to scare us with?

And really, why does the Bush Administration keep going after #2? Why not put in a little more effort and go get Mr. Bin Laden #1 himself? Or are they admitting that Osama is more useful as a fugitive bogeyman than a genuine accomplishment in the WoT?

The mere fact that it causes the Usual Suspects to flip-flop is enough to convince me that this is more than trivial. Also the ridiculous fact that you attempted to set up a standard of “if the war in Iraq doesn’t improve measurably within a week :smiley: then it is meaningless” demonstrates the panic some of you feel at any success in the war on terror.

May that panic continue and increase.

Regards,
Shodan

Although I tend to agree with you on this, I think even those who don’t will agree that we really should’ve gotten that bastard in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. I think it would have been a more signficant event then than now, as he and his ilk would not have been able to stir up more ethnic hatred than already existed.

There’s always the possibility (probability?) that he’s just uncatchable. I have the minimum of faith in this administration, but I can’t imagine Bushco not going after Public Enemy number 1. He’s useful as a bogeyman, I’d agree, but his capture would be the best concrete accomplishment of Bush’s entire presidency, which, you know, isn’t viewed with much optimism these days.

Do you mean in the aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan? I thought Zarqawi only entered Iraq after the initial invasion. Am I misinformed?

Dude – no lie. I can almost see the clinched teeth. Very strange.

No, Iraq. He was there before we invaded-- hence the critique that we actually could’ve gotten him there before the invasion.

Okay, this makes two avoidant, non-responsive posts. You are certain that this will make a demonstrable difference. I’m simply asking you what indicators will tell us that this is the case. I asked about a week. I asked about months. You choose the timeframe and respond however you like.

Just please tell us what will be the positive impact of this event and at what point will we be able to say that you were correct or incorrect.

That’s pretty straightforward. Of course, you could simply post another sidestep, but I do wonder why you keep posting simply for the sake of avoiding a response.

Was he the AQ guy who was hiding out with the Kurds? If he’s the one I’m thinking of, the White House had a chance to nail him in an airstrike before the invasion but they chose not to because they wanted to be able to say that al Qaeda was in Iraq (even though Zarqawi was hostile to Hussein).

It’s responsive all right, in Shodan’s own way. His “response” is that, whatever you say, the opposite must be true, and that the worse you feel about something, the better he feels.

That isn’t thoughtful, of course, but it’s responsive.

In the US-protected zone? Yes. Except he wasn’t “AQ” then nor is his operation thought to have ever been connected with Bin Laden’s; he adopted the AQ name *after * the invasion apparently as a recruiting tactic.

“I don’t know where [bin Laden] is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I … I truly am not that concerned about him.”
– George W. Bush, March 2002

Besides, if GWB actually went after Osama, it’d probably sour things between their two families. Especially since BCCI helped GWB quite a bit with Arbusto Energy and Harken Energy back in the '80s…

Almost. He was hiding out in the Kurdish region, fighting against the Kurds, so I don’t think he was hiding out “with the Kurds”.

Intersting speculation.

Duly noted. However, that was in 2002, when things were looking a whole lot better for the GOP (at any rate, a mindblowing quote I’d forgotten about). I must mention that our Pres & our country were pretty tight with Saddam back in the '80s too, but that didn’t stop us from digging him out of his hole.

That’s how I understood it, except for the part about not getting him for PR purposes. Zarqawi was hostile to Saddam, with the Ansar al-Islam movement in Kurdistan. If the Administration had killed him, they could have said that there were more of them in Iraq, after all. I’ll agree Bush is deceitful and incompetent, but I can’t believe he’d pass on a target like Zarqawi except out of ignorance.

Excuse me but what have we “flip-flopped” on? I’ve always said that victory in Iraq is meaningless. Winning doesn’t excuse anything. We still had no right to ever invade that country. If someone tells me they’re going to attack an old man on the street I don’t consider it a defense for them to say “Don’t worry, I’ll win the fight.” Winning is completely beside the point.

Not speculation, at least not entirely. My memory was a little spotty (I got it wrong which side of the Kurds he was on), but I wasn’t wrong that Bush passed on multiple chances to wipe out Zarqawi’s camp before the war. From MSNBC:

I remember reading about this stuff at the time. There were definitely some inside allegations that the WH passed on these opprtunities because they wanted to be able to claim that AQ had a presence in Iraq when they were making their case for an invasion.

See my link above. He passed on three.

I know that’s the way your favorite left-wing blogs like to quote that part of the speech. Why not actually quote the whole context:

Emphasis added, to show how this quote has been chopped up, presumably for added effect.