I’d been thinking anyway that it was time to ask the question, “So, how much difference did Zarqawi’s death make, anyway?” since he’s been dead for three months now, and the violence continues to spiral out of control.
And now we have the obvious followup question, “Why should anyone expect this turkey’s capture to make any more difference than Zarqawi’s death did - that is, none whatsoever?”
And of course, “Will anyone in the press take advantage of this opening to ask Bush, Cheney, or Rummy why, if Zarqawi was such a big deal, things have continued to go down the toilet in Iraq in the three months since his death?”
I don’t understand. They shouldn’t have caught him? This is bad? It’s not good news?
Is it just not good news for you that we have a success that you need to demean it?
I really don’t want to ask why do you hate America, and why are you rooting for Al Quaeda and why do you want things to go bad for us over there but your OP makes these look like valid questions.
So let me just ask for the record:
So, what exactly are you Pitting here? Would you rather the guy was not caught? I think even the administration will admint that the foreign jihadists and al Qaeda types are behind only a fraction of the violence in Iraq-- most of it is Iraqi Sunnis kiling Iraqi Shiites and vice versa.
Your two questions appear to be the same question cunningly disguised.
Anyway, yep, it’s a good thing we got him (assuming the next person in the “chain of command” isn’t even worse, of course). The problem is; how good? Will this have a large effect on al Quaeda? Small? These are important questions to ask, for two reasons that I can think off the top of my head; firstly the more important thing is whether killing off seconds-in-command is an effective military policy; the funds used in intelligence to find out where these guys are and in the hardware (plus, of course, personnel) in the actual event might be better used somewhere else.
The second reason would be that we need to assess the claims of *other * people that this was effective. If, for example, the U.S. Army, or the press, or the administration, or respected thinkers etc. were to claim this as a fantastic coup, likely we’re going to think “Well, excellent. Keep at it!”. If, however, we look into it and find that reality doesn’t appear to match their claims, then not only should we question the intelligence of these people but also their honesty.
Trivially good at best, and meaningless. Assuming he really is a member of Al Qaeda, and even assuming he’s high up, he’ll be replaced immediately. Besides, most of the violence is by the locals, not Al Qaeda. However, I will say that it’s good that they arrested him, instead of bombing the neighborhood to rubble and claiming they got him.
Haven’t they been claiming that the insurgency is mostly foreign and Saddam loyalists ?
I think the OP’s point is that it’s being oversold as more important news than it actually is. The press keeps announcing that we’ve caught al-Qaeda’s No. 2 operative and that it’s struck a crippling blow at their organization. Then a few months later, lo and behold, they catch another one. Meanwhile the conflict in Iraq doesn’t improve. Yes, of course it’s a good thing that al-Qaeda operatives get caught. But it keeps being presented in the media as one of those “turning points”—now we’re really striking at the heart of the terror network! The enemy is reeling! They’re in the last throes!—and then a little later, it happens all over again.
RTF’s first paragraph questions whether or not it made a huge difference - not whether it was a good thing or not, but to what extent was this a success.
The second one says the same thing, but it coloured by his opinion that Zarquawi’s death made little difference. Not all that unreasonable a point to make.
And lastly, he questions members of the administration as to why their opinions are what they are (and questions the press’s ability to do their job). He then ends with a note suggesting he doesn’t think this last question will be answered, suggesting that the other two he posed might be.
RTF asked both of those questions, and expected answers. He didn’t say that this was the horrible failure that you seem to be implying he did. I really don’t see where you’re getting this from.
Just FTR, the number two guy in Al-Qaeda is Ayman al-Zawahiri. He was AQ’s number 2 guy before 9/11, and he will be AQ’s number 2 probably until such time as he dies or is captured or retires. (In fact, I’ve read in some places that he’s becoming more important in the operation than OBL, but I’m not sure about that.) If this guy is who they say he is he is the #2 guy of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a separate organization. A bad but not too bad analogy would be to compare Dick Cheney with Cruz Bustamante. (Lt. gov. of California.)
Interesting debate technique, Scylla. RTF asked three questions in the OP:
“So, how much difference did Zarqawi’s death make, anyway?”
“Why should anyone expect this turkey’s capture to make any more difference than Zarqawi’s death did - that is, none whatsoever?”
“Will anyone in the press take advantage of this opening to ask Bush, Cheney, or Rummy why, if Zarqawi was such a big deal, things have continued to go down the toilet in Iraq in the three months since his death?”
Interesting questions without a significant partisan bias. But I guess you either didn’t have or didn’t like the answers for those questions. So you decided to invent some new questions and pretend that RTF asked them instead:
“They shouldn’t have caught him? This is bad? It’s not good news?”
“Is it just not good news for you that we have a success that you need to demean it?”
“Is it a good thing that we got this guy?”
“Is it a success or a failure that we got him?”
So, in keeping with this technique, I think it’s clear from your post that you want to have everyone who opposes you rounded up and put to death. To which I have some questions of my own:
“That’s the same kind of thing Stalin did. Do you really think Stalin is an appropriate role model?”
“Stalin used to beat his wife. When did you stop beating your wife?”
“As a conservative, do you prefer being compared to a Nazi instead of a Commie?”
“If you are going to be compared to a Commie, which one would you most like to be compared to? Personally, I’d pick Leonid Brezhnev - he at least had good hair.”