That was my thought. Seems to me that everybody in Al Qaeda is either a #2 guy or a lieutenant. It’s good that this guy was caught, but who the fuck can take statements like this seriously?
Zarqawi’s death in June was a “severe blow to Al Qaeda,” and yet June was the deadliest month over there since the war began. And then July was worse. I haven’t seen any stats for August yet, but the news in last few days (which, aside from this guy’s capture, includes 66 people killed on Thursday, 40 or so tortured and shot bodies found today) doesn’t seem any better. If things change as a result of this capture, great, but who would expect that? The alleged leadership vacuum has probably been filled already. I’m curious who al-Rubaie thinks is listening to him at this point.
And, of course, the OP’s article. At least since the capture of Saddam Hussein, we’ve been told repeatedly that the capture or killing of one or another of these bad guys is a “watershed” or “turning point” or “milestone” or “important step” or something of the sort. But overall, the situation in Iraq does not seem to get better, so what do all these “watersheds” and “milestones” actually mean?
It may very well be that the wholesale decimation of the entire AlQ apparatus in Iraq might have little noticeable effect. The situation has deteriorated beyond merely struggling with AlQ. Iraqis are dying at the hands of Iraqis, whether this is the fruition of AlQ’s evil plan or Bush’s nincompoopery is neither here nor there, the trajectory of the napalm is intersecting the locus of the fan.
I noticed what friend Squink noticed, with equal if not more alarm: Al-Sisani, bulwark of moderation and temperance and Shia heavyweight, has withdrawn himself from any further political influence.
This is a Bad Thing. The good news would be that AlQ will likely destroyed, crushed by the rise of the Shia theocracy. (We tend to forget that AlQ derives from the Wahhabist sect, one of the most, if not the most, virulently anti-Shia Sunni sects…)
We are relieved of our jock-itch, which is good because the smallpox is taking hold. Sure looks like we’re in a world of shit
I think John was taking issue with my earlier claim that eliminating the al-Qaeda No. 2 “keeps being presented in the media as one of those turning points”. He was illustrating that the news stories even about, e.g., the death of Zarqawi weren’t all rose-colored optimism, but included realistic caveats about how there’s still a long way to go, etc.
He has a point—assuming the point that I think he has was in fact the point he was actually making—but I still think there has been too much recurrent “just-around-the-cornerism” in these successive reports about getting the bad guys for anyone to get a clear sense of what they really mean.
This may be an exit strategy no one has thought up. I offer it at no charge. If the death toll in Iraq is several thousand per month and rising every day then eventually there’s won’t be an Iraq left. No Iraq, no problem! Talk about an outside the box solution…
Still looking for that “crippling blow” quote. None of the quotes you gave has the same implication. And, as I said earlier, it is commonly reported that al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for only a fraction of the insurgency and only a fraction of the violence going on there.
The claim was that whenever one of these #2 guys is caught the press calls it a “crippling blow”. I don’t see that even when the press reported about the #1 guy.
According to this media matters piece the crippling blow talk at the time of Zarqawi’s death came from CNN. TV is a nice media for that sort of stuff as it leaves little footprint around for checking up on later.
OK, I’ll spell it out for you slo-o-o-owly: it wasn’t worth hyping, either by the folks who did it, or by those media that made a big deal out of it. For instance, the Washington Post gave it front-page treatment in the print edition, and top of the front page online.
But if you’ll notice, my real point is about the Administration’s buildup of an otherwise unimportant figure named Zarqawi, and how that was apparently yet one more load of Bushit. (Funny how I mention him (Zarqawi, not Bush) in all three of my questions. Zarqawi, Zarqawi, Zarqawi.)
Rooting for al-Qaeda?!? You idiot, this isn’t about al-Qaeda at all, other than how their presence in Iraq has been completely overhyped for “Iraq = GWoT” purposes.
Only because you’re a freakin’ idiot who can’t read.
This is about Bush’s hyping Zarqawi, and hyping al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq, in order to win the political war back home.
You are aware, I hope, that events in Iraq wouldn’t have been any worse if Bush had refused to conflate “the terrorists” with Iraq’s internal conflict for the past three and a half years. And he might even have preserved a smidgen of credibility at home.
Yes, 2. Success, 3. You missed the entire point of my OP, which is 4. Par for the course with you.
I see your point, and it says that I should have been more precise.
As you’ve pointed out, “[c]ommanders at the Pentagon” predicted “that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death [would] cause an upsurge in violence in Iraq” in the days after Zarqawi’s death. But we seem to be well past the point where this could be some temporary upsurge of AQ in Iraq-initiated violence to demonstrate their continued relevance. In fact, in his radio address this past Saturday, Bush said the operation that’s been going on since mid-June to respond to the upsurge of violence in Baghdad, Operation Forward Together, “is still in its early stages” after eleven weeks, which certainly telegraphs the message, “don’t expect things to get better fast - we expect it to take awhile.”
As Squink pointed out, the official line was that Zarqawi was a major player in The Resistance To All That Is Good And True In Iraq, and his death (at least, after a passing spike in the violence) was supposed to make a nontrivial difference in the state of affairs there. It hasn’t.
I’m calling out the Administration in lying about Zarqawi’s (and AQ in Iraq’s) importance all along, and I’m calling out the press for apparently missing this opportunity to ask why Zarqawi’s death hasn’t paid some dividends, given the official line about Zarqawi up to the time around his death.
It’s equally amazing how they simply evaporate after their arrests instead of actually, y’know, being put on trial somewhere and incarcerated following what must be slam-dunk convictions.
Add up the number of “corners” that have been turned during the course of this war then mulitply it by the number of “last throes” the “insurgents” have had.
I think its a bit of a straw man that this is being touted as some great event. Sure, I saw it on the news this weekend…I saw it on TV too. But there were a lot bigger stories out there. I also didn’t see the administration strutting about as if the war was nearly won now. The only one’s I REALLY saw making hay out of this were the Iraqi’s.
Hell, there isn’t even a single GD thread on this afaict. Certainly its not a big deal around these parts. Sorry, but even on Fox New’s website the top story is about Steve Irwin’s death followed by reports of a new tropical storm…the top editorial is talking about Bush’s new push to re-sell the war ( :rolleyes: )…and a brief skim there doesn’t show any mention of this story.
So…who exactly is making a big deal about this? It IS news after all…and if not the big strawman turning point, its certainly not a bad thing that the guy was captured. It wasn’t a bad think that Zarqawi was wacked either. A case may be made that THAT was played up quite a bit…but then, it was played up in the press BECAUSE the guy was played up in the press before as the big bad guy over in dem parts. Beheading folks and then publishing the video tends to draw attention from the press and all.
BTW, for those of you scratching your head and cutting up about all the no. 2’s in AQ, note that even in the OP he makes the key point…this guy was the no. 2 man (supposedly) IN IRAQ. Get it?
It will be about as significant as cutting the head of a hydra. We could kill every last one of the 7000 number two guys in al-Qaeda, even get Osama himself, and it isn’t going to make a whit of difference. Every death produces a martyr, every martyr produces a recruit.
The significance of this guy is that he was CAPTURED, which means he can become a source of information, unlike al-Zarqawi, who was KILLED, and though it’s nice that his death makes one less terrorist in the world, there’s little his corpse can do to help the US and legit Iraqis round up more terrorists, arms caches, planning documents, etc.
You’d have to cherry-pick news quotes to demostrate that was the “official line”. There are plenty of news quotes from Bush himself that contradict that thesis. Here’s one from MSNBC:
I think you’re being unduly harsh on the press. In the early days of the insurgency, Bush and his minions certainly overplayed the numbers and the role of the “foreign jihadists” in Iraq. But he got smacked down pretty hard by “the press”, and it was they who forced the adminstration to start admitting that sectarian violence, and not the foreign jihadists, was the major cause of violence and instabiltiy in Iraq. I’m also not sure we generally know for sure which acts of violence can be attributed to Iraqi sectarian confilcts and which are caused by the al Qaeda in Iraq network. Do was have a good way of measuring whether al Qaeda inspired violence has decreased, increased or stayed the same? I doubt it. It is certainly alarming that this al Qaeda guy, if he is indeed al Qaeda, was a home-grown Iraqi from Saddam’s Intelligence organization and not one of the so-called foreign jihadists.
Anyway, you’re a pretty tough customer if you insist that the press not only ask the question you want them to ask, but at precisely the time you want them to ask it.
