Hmm, I'm not sure it matters all that much to be honest. This isn't a fight any of those dudes are going to give up any time soon. No doubt good for propoganda though, if it turns out to be true.
I think it's true... it's been all over the news here... But I don't think anything will change... There are probably 50 other sic weirdo's that are willing to take his place...
It depends, whilst I agree that there are probably plenty of others willing to try and take over from him in terms of being the mouthpeace and 'leader' of the insurgency (or at least, his particular element of the insurgency, ala Sunni Wahhabi extremists), the fact that he is gone sends a message that nobody involved in the insurgency is untouchable. His death could lead to a split within whatever group or vague coalition of groups Zarqawi was head of, as others wish to succeed him - though whether this results in a decrease in the number attacks, rather than an increase in violence as others strive to make a name for themselves so as to succeed him as top of the pile, only time will till :S
Tbh, if this is an insurgency in the true sense of the word, it'll make no difference. Having seen the news I'm convinced of his death, but remain unconvinced of the supposd effect it will have.
Then you'll have yet another group of messed up minds who wants to prove themselves, which will result in even more attacks and more killing... Don't you just love how murder leads to murder?
I still think there will be a lot of Iraqis pleased with this news. It was them that he concentrated on killing for the most part.
Evil begets evil... Don't get me wrong, I won't lose a moment's sleep over the death of this megalomaniac. But the thing is, you can kill the man, but not the belief system. He is now a martyr in the eyes of his followers, feasting in the Heavens on the rewards of righteousness, and many people are queueing up to take his place and follow his path straight to the same place. The war on terror is a war that cannot be won, because the opposing party is not out to win, just to keep playing. The only way to win is to stop playing the game.
Stop playing the game? You cant stop playing The Game. But now that we've mentioned it, we all lose The Game. Oh well. On a serious note, even if it doesnt accomplish anything genuinely meaningful in the long run, its a boost to the morale of Iraqi citizens and American citizens and servicemen alike.
I saw this on the news this morning; both the local news and the Today Show seemed excited about it. President Bush gave his official address while I was ironing my shirt, and I've been giving this some thought over the last couple of hours. The conclusion I keep coming to is this: They've cut the head off the hydra. In all of the coverage, the various news people all happily forgot to mention one big fact: Osama is still out there. Everyone (Bush included) kept talking about how this dealt a huge blow to the insurgency, and lead us to believe that terrorists everywhere would be running with fear because they lost the leader of Al Qaida in Iraq! I tried to apply this from another perspective. If "terrorists" managed to kill Vice President Dick Cheney, would it cause a severe blow to American Democracy? Would Americans run in fear because the number two guy was killed? I don't think this will be any different. The political spin over the next few days will undoubtedly bring Bush's approval rating up a few points, because he's obviously "winning the war on terror," but overall I have a feeling that this will be a minor, temporary roadblock to the terrorist cause. One thing that keeps sticking out in my mind is Bush's closing comments during his speach. "God bless the Iraqis." Does anyone else think he still considers this his crusade? -monkey
The way you guys talk about this gives the impression that in some sense they shouldnt have bothered to try. While its not going to stop the terrorists for any real period of time, it makes people feel better - and that guy deserved it IMHO.
Any military tactician will tell you that a well motivated army that loses its leader will suffer little more than a morale hit and be even more keen to reach its goals in "revenge". Al Qaeda is not an army, but is very well motivated. Killing its leader could actually make things worse as with no central control things are likely to become even more indiscriminate. In fact, his martydom WILL cause more deaths in revenge. To make a difference he should have been captured as this would have put doubt in the mind of his followers and scuppered any plans that he had a part in organising through increased suspicion and loyalty challenges. To further emphasise supermonkey's point, even if a terrorist organisation wiped out the US president and vice president does anyone honestly think any Americans would not be defiant and insist on retribution? 3000 people killed in the WTC and the US invaded a country, deposed a government and instilled one it liked.
Fair enough, it may come off that way. It hasn't been that long since the official announcement and already the reports are unclear. According to the President, we confirmed that Zarqawi was there so we bombed the place. According to military officials (the ones who actually carried out the mission), they confirmed that Zarqawi's spiritual leader was there, so they bombed the place and got Zarqawi as a bonus. I just wonder why we immediately resported to bombing the place? Did we even attempt to capture anyone, or was complete annihalation the first action of choice. Choices of good guys and all that jazz. It's good that one less terrorist leader is running around, but I don't share the President's happiness that he's dead, nor his optimism that this will spell the beginning of the end of terrorism. -monkey
Twice. Just to make sure the message got across. All peace & quiet in Afghanistan now? No. Seems the occupying troops make more enemies every day with their total lack of care for the civilian population they're ostensibly there to help. In both countries.
He did deserve it, but let's not buy into this patting ourselves on the back now and kidding ourselves that this was a great military victory and is going to turn the tide. Let's also ask ourselves who it is going to make feel better. The average Western Joe? He doesn't even know who this guy is. Tomorrow he will be obsessing over Wayne Rooney's toe again. What about the people in the Middle East? They would just like the bombs to stop killing people please, and have some peace and political/economic stability to raise their families in.
This message pleased me very much when I read it at strategypage.com... but Nexxo (well, as always) is right, this wont kill the system, but it does show that coalition forces are able to kill "terror-VIPs" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... It shows that AQ is getting lazy...they start to make mistakes.This by far doesn't mean CF's are winning the war on terror but the terrorist ain't winning either, and at the moment they are making lots of looses. The "big AQ spring offensiv" in A'stan was shatterd by Coalition Forces...now their biggest man in Iraq got blown up... "The big leader Osama" is't as big anymore, too. That guy is 24/7 on the run from Coalition Forces, he can't lead AQ like that, thats a fact. AQ is somewhat running by "itself" now, sooner or later they will fall appart from the inside because of lots of little groups inside AQ that all got diffrent goal like spreadding out the Islam, crushing the Wester World...or just making money. And the last mentiond are getting more and more... (at least this is my view...)
I suspect that's likely the case. If I recall correctly, Saddam was captured because a soldier just happened to look in a hole, mostly by chance. If the initial military reports are confirmed, then it will appear that al-Zarqawi was killed by chance as well; the military was not aware that he was in the building. It doesn't really look like the coalition forces are making the great headway that the spin doctors would have us believe. That's kind of the whole point to the other side of the debate. Neither side is winning because neither side can win. Indeed, the terrorists have no desire to win, as long as the killing keeps on going and the fighting never ends. Already there are reports that indicate people's reaction to al-Zarqawi's death is very divisive. Some are happy that this crazed murderer is gone. Some think al-Zarqawi's threat was exaggerated by the US, and therefore don't think too much about his death. Then there are those who are saddened that this freedom fighter against Western oppresion is dead. I worry about the last group, because they now have a martyr to spur their cause. And as long as things like this continue to happen, they will have plenty of recruits to keep up the bombing. -monkey
I wonder how one arrives at the conclusion that the Americans only got him by chance, the US military might be perceived as gung ho, but they don't go around slinging 500lb laser guided bombs at buildings just on the off chance that theres someone they don't like inside IMHO, this must have been an intelligence led operation, rather than a chance occurence. They must have had reason to bomb the building, most likely a tip off from someone close to Zarqawi - but they'd still need the processes and chain of command in place to analyse the information and decide whether its valid or not, and if it is, pass it along to the special forces guys on the ground who must be deployed to the right place in a timely fashion, without alerting the bad guys of their presence. Then you've got to have an F-16 up there at the same time with a targetting pod and weapons, in communication with the guys on the ground near the target and so forth.... Such operations as this may require an element of luck, sure, but such 'time sensitive targetting' requires a great deal of professionalism on the part of a great number of those involved to carry it out succesfully. To dismiss it as mere chance, as though it was just a complete fluke, is to do the US military a dis-service in this instance IMHO.
Oh, but you can stop. England finally stopped playing the game in India, and they turned out pretty well. The US stopped playing the game in Vietnam and now the Secretary of Defense is over there trying to make them be closer friends. The Soviet union stopped playing the game in Afganistan and the new government (Taliban) established order and cut the opium supply. Granted they also made a mess of other things, but still, it didn't degenerate into civil war. All the other side in Iraq has to do to win is not quit. If they can keep killing Americans and keep making the news, sooner or later we will say "enough" and let them have that miserable piece of real estate. So we killed their leader (By targeting his spiritual advisor ). As long as someone will go on fighting tomorrow, it won't matter. The political rumblings here are that the democrats may run this year on the platform of "We're the party that will get us out of Iraq". I would expect this message will play very well in the US. @Roto, I know that was sarcasm, but it was a good launch for where I wanted to go
