Zarqawi-Lite: AQ in Iraq's #2 guy captured

[elucidator]

The question I would like to ask would be something like “If the Shia decide to wipe out the Sunni, what’s our plan?”

[Waverly]

Being the #2 guy must be a lot like being the drummer for Spinal Tap.

I sure feel a lot safer without all of these #2’s out there. Do they have a #3 guy, or do the myriad of #2 guys make the next in line #241?

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

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 see that you’re not disputing my contention that the official line was that Zarqawi was a big deal.

As far as the other is concerned, there’s a big difference between “We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue,” and “We can expect the violence to continue at the same level.”

It seems to me there’s a closed equation here: if Zarqawi was the major figure he was supposed to be, then his elimination should cause problems for the movement he led. If it didn’t because (a) he was eminently replaceable within his movement, (b) his movement’s impact was minor, or (c) Hi, Opal!, then the Bushies essentially invented the myth of a potent Zarqawi.

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.

True dat. But lately he’s again been lumping every bad guy in the region together under the rubric of “the terrorists” and if anyone’s calling him on it, I’m just not seeing it.

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.

True, but it hardly matters unless AQ in Iraq is actually a major force in the violence over there. Since everybody who seems to know anything thinks they’re peripheral despite their bloodthirstiness, I can’t see that it makes a difference.

The upsurge in violence is for reasons that dwarf whatever is happening with AQ in Iraq, whether that organization is prospering or going down the tubes. We had no reason to believe Zarqawi’s death would be any sort of landmark at all, and few would have cared about his death if the Administration hadn’t built him up.

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.

Again, I’d say that unless and until AQ in Iraq is demonstrated to be a nontrivial player, the ups and downs of the organization are hardly cause for alarm.

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.

That’s me - as tough a customer as they come, here on the Dope.

There’s been a certain amount of dialogue between the mainstream press and the lefty blogsphere, as the latter accuses the former of too often being stenographers, failing to ask the good questions, and failing to write stories that would counter the Administration line even when it’s obviously bullshit.

The press’ line is that in order to write a story with elements questioning that line, they need a ‘hook’ to hang it on, such as Congressional hearings or the like; they can’t just write (for instance) that ‘why hasn’t Zarqawi’s death made a difference’ story just out of the blue, two or three months after his death, when his death has long since stopped being news.

OK, here’s their ‘hook’ - the new #2 guy in the outfit he ran just got captured. His name’s on the front page again. Now, per the press’ standards, is their opportunity to bring up any questions about Zarqawi that haven’t already been asked, and turn them into a story.

Did they take advantage? Or did they muff it? Because they’re not going to do a Zarqawi story next week, or three weeks from now, or whenever, just out of the blue. As Gary Puckett would say, it’s now or never. (Or at least for a good long while. And you can thank me later for the earworm. :))

[kaylasdad99]

@elucidator

The question I would like to ask would be something like “If the Shia decide to wipe out the Sunni, what’s our plan?”

If the answer he gave in the question linked by John Mace in post #20 is any indication, his answer to your question will probably be something along the lines of:

“It’s not up to us to have a plan. That’s for the Iraqi government to deal with. It’s why we brought freedom and democracy to Iraq; so the Iraqi people could choose a government that’s capable of coming up with a plan to cover that contortionism, err, to respond, to respond to that uhh, event horizon, err, eventually, err, it’s up to the government of Iraq to deal with that if it comes up, not America.”

Or somethiing like that.

[kaylasdad99]

@Waverly

Being the #2 guy must be a lot like being the drummer for Spinal Tap.

Heh. Or #2 in The Village.

@Waverly

I sure feel a lot safer without all of these #2’s out there. Do they have a #3 guy, or do the myriad of #2 guys make the next in line #241?

If Patrick McGohan wasn’t all dead and everything we could ask him who’s Number 6. Take him out, and it’s time to holler “Jenga!”

[kaylasdad99]

McGoohan, that is.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

There’s been a certain amount of dialogue between the mainstream press and the lefty blogsphere, as the latter accuses the former of too often being stenographers, failing to ask the good questions, and failing to write stories that would counter the Administration line even when it’s obviously bullshit.

The press’ line is that in order to write a story with elements questioning that line, they need a ‘hook’ to hang it on, such as Congressional hearings or the like; they can’t just write (for instance) that ‘why hasn’t Zarqawi’s death made a difference’ story just out of the blue, two or three months after his death, when his death has long since stopped being news.

I call BS on that. Not you, but what “the press” is saying. They can damn well write any report they want whenever they want to. And if they really need a hook, there’s always one hanging around-- it’s always the nth anniversary of something or other.

And with Bush launching his new PR campaign to increase support for the war, there is ample opportunity to ask important quesitons about the progress of the war. Not to mention the upcoming midterm elections in which the Democrats are going to be hammering the Republicans about that issue.