The interesting thing to note about the air stirke is that it was launched from a Predator UAV and controlled several miles away by the colallition forces... This is the new technological age, death by model kit plane, with a missile strapped to the bottom... This is the future of assasination and air stirkes as well as warfare across the world...
Intrestingly we killed a women and child in the air strike. Which no-one seems to care about. Allied forces made no attempt to capture this man, instead preferring to kill him outright along with his spiritual advisor and a women and child. How can we keep pretending we're better then the insurgents and terrorists when we do the same as them, even if we don't mean to?
From what I heard earlier this morning (which was based on the military reports), the intelligence reported that al-Zarqawi's spiritual advisor was at the building along with some additional al-Qaida folks, and that he was the intended target. al-Zarqawi might have been there as well, but there was no hard evidence to suggest it. So it wasn't completely by chance, perhaps more a combination of intelligence and luck. The reports may have been updated since then, I'm not too certain. -monkey
great, now we just made a martyr and national hero. why don't we just go door-to-door handing out RPG's and AK's? most will be using them soon enough anyway.
I read it was two F-16s, and many forums I read populated by USAF servicement seem to go with that theory as well based on whats been said and seen so far. The footage I've seen of the bombs hitting the building seems to suggest as much to me as well - it appears to be footage from a Litening II laser targetting pod (carried almost always by the F-16 in USAF service and if you'll notice the 'time to impact' counter in the right hand corner of the video, this suggests it was those aircraft which released the weapon). As for the weapon used being a laser guided bomb or JDAM, can't tell actually, though I suspect the former (more precise than JDAM, though admittedly harder to deploy). As for UAVs being the future in air warfare, given time, they will be, so you're right in that respect As for capturing the guy, whilst that may well have been the more productive thing to do, as a commander are you going to ask a group of soldiers to knock on the door of someone who will willingly die as a martyr if it comes down it it, knowing that Zarqawis probably sitting in their armed to the teeth with AKs, grenades, and protected by a load of equally fanatical bodyguards similarly armed? The US has often called in air strikes on insurgents (who are often willing to die as a martyr) who have holed up in buildings with no means of retreat, no intention of surrender and the acceptance that the only way they'll be getting out is in a bodybag - the phrase 'Allah's waiting room' has been coined by some servicemen, distasteful as it may be. Risking troops to get such people would result in horrendous US casualties and declining morale. Capturing them would be of great intelligence value, sure, but in terms of actually going about it without them blowing themselves up with a load of coalition servicemen, the option is somewhat problematic
I'm not saying things are perfect over there as long as they continue to do what they have been doing, but surely more senseless casualties would make morale decline even more?
Its a simple question. Which option throws fewer lives away, which one is quickest, and which is most likely to achieve the wanted goal? Those of you who are implying that we shouldnt have bothered make me sick.
Jeez! Talk about black-and-white thinking! No wonder the world is in such a sorry state... @ Will: When I say that the allied forces got lucky, I am not implying they dropped bombs at random and got a lucky hit --just that they got lucky with some decent intel, got lucky with a good hit and got lucky killing more than they had bargained for. This was a calculated strike perhaps, but a lucky one nonetheless. @ Roto: nobody is saying that "we shouldn't have bothered". But people are saying that we should be realistic about the results of this intervention. We killed a *******. OK, fine, high-fives all around. But this is not a major blow to the insurgents, as is being proclaimed. It will not really change anything. And if we killed even one innocent person in the process, we may have to re-examine our methods and our morals on whether they are really that much better than those of the terrorists. Because even if we rationalise our actions for ourselves, people on the receiving end in the Middle East will not. "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." --Sun Tzu, the Art of War.
In an allegedly similar incident to the Hadifa killings supermonkey linked, a raid at Ishaqi, according to the military version, "Four bodies including that of an insurgent were found after the raid while up to nine "collateral deaths" resulted from the US raid, according to the investigation...Allegations that the troops executed a family living in this safe house, and then hid the alleged crimes by directing an air strike, are absolutely false." Despite the photographs of victims and eye-witness accounts. Now imagine the outcry if that had happened in Northern Ireland. Or read of the actual international outcry over "Bloody Sunday" when British troops fired into a crowd killing 13 men after coming under attack. But as expressed here Lawrence (of Arabia) got it in a nutshell. Time to get out of Iraq (and Afganistan) and let them work out their own solution, we are just as oppressive as the last regimes as far as I can see, with more devastating firepower. Again from Lawrence,
One man's scourge is another man's martyr, and the converse is also true. I think the most interesting thing here will be seeing the factioning that occurs. One thing that is very interesting about muslim organization is how much it splits nicely into small factions, which normally is a strong point in a multi-bodied organization like Al Qaeda. When you have one leader over all of those factions, pre-installed, it makes things very easy. "Oh, we have this leader. He talks to our leader." However, it gets a little more difficult when that top leader is gone. Will there be another to take his place? Many...but that's the problem. Which one? To choose one can inspire great dissonance in the other groups. So unless you bring another person in from outside AGAIN (let's not forget Zarqawi is Jordanian) to take control over the cells, you have to promote someone inside. That makes hard feelings. That makes a bunch of people each trying to desperately get their name out there to get the final nod. That means a lot of desperate leaders making desperate mistakes. I think the effect this will have is being analyzed in the wrong way. It's easy to draw the conclusion that we have not thrown the organization into utter turmoil just because #1 is dead if you base your assumption on the fact that there will always be many willing #2s to take over. In a world that focuses so much on 'honor' (used loosely) and recognition, though, you ignore a basic human need to be that #1...and though there are room for many #2s, there's only one #1. Let us all remember the lessons of the greek gods. The one to get the golden apple of leadership will of course have a need to prove that they are the fairest.
And that's kind of the problem. All these #2's will now outdo each other in terrorist action to catch the limelight of "promotion". Although this may lead to dumb mistakes (good for us), it is also very likely to lead to more spectacular death and destruction (bad for us). This is simply the wrong game to play.
Would i be right in thinking that with a leader in place, the wounderful CIA and assorted intel agencies have a chance at profiling the leader and guessing what direction or acts they will go and do next. with lots of #2's is there not now more chance of what were at one point unnoitced/unwanted targets now getting hit by people going "ohhh look over there no guards and no one above to tell me not to."
I don't really think so. The movements in Iraq are not as simple as US and Al qaeda, while there are probably milita's linked to the mujahadeen movement in there, messing stuff up, I think a considerably larger issue is the sectarian stuff, and the proper insurgents(as in, rebels without leaders or a set cause) who're just shooting Americans because they feel Americans shouldn't be on their home soil. It's not orginised, when the US uses the term insurgency they're bang on the money, there is no set leader, there is no set goal. There are many many different parties, different aims, opertunistic groups of a few 20 something's who just don't like Americans firing some morters into a general area. Iraq is a country with a large number of different groups, with different people who want different things. It's taken dictators with strong support militarily and financially to keep that place together in the past, I worry that not much is going to hold it together in the future.
So what do you propose we should have done? On a sidenot, remember Alexander- he failed to name a succesor and that destroyed his empire. Actually, the Iraqi citizens voted on that guy. Revenge is most deffinately un-avoidable. But does fear of revenge mean that we should stop what we are doing? L J
Er, no, it's not as simple as that. The election was definitely biased, arguably engineered, with favoured parties getting funds and logistical support from the U.S., and not-favoured parties, well, not.
There isn't much else that the CF could have done. To be honest I think it was more luck than judgement that he was there to be hit as it was his spiritual advisor they were after. If they were sure he was there I think they would have sent in ground forces as Zarqawi would have been a very valuable asset alive. Nope, I have personally been a peacekeeper so I have first hand experience of being disliked by both sides in a war (all three in my case). There is no easy answer, but for as long as the CF are there there will be someone to dislike them. Being a good peacekeeper is being an unnoticed one, bombing homes, causing collateral damage and casualties will never help the CF be unnoticed. It's an extremely difficult balance to attain, and unfortunately, the US forces will never be good at peacekeeping Iraq because of their modus operandi and the vested interest they have in the country.
