Whoa

They got al-Zarqawi.  That’s actually good news.  Unfortunately, it won’t do anything to stop the wave of sectarian killings.  Nor will it bestow legitimacy on an impotent central government in Baghdad.  But hey, it’s one less thing to worry about.  One down, a gajillion-billion other things to go…

 

Comments: 28

 
 
 

That’s provided, of course, that they actually did get him. This is the third time he’s been killed. Yet, Rasputin-like, each previous time he’s turned out to not be dead after all.

But I’m sure that the wingnut will be crowing about how this is THE corner and we’ve really turned it this time, boy! Remember how capturing Saddam was going to end the insurgency? Remember how killing Uday and Qusay meant the insurgency had really come to an end? Remember how cleaning out Falluja was really going to clamp down on the problem? Guaranteed that Zarqawi’s death will likewise be trumpeted as the thing that will really, really do it this time.

And six months from now we’ll be at 3,000 dead American troops, with an Iraqi government no more in control than it is today, and with the sectarian slaughter going on at an even faster pace–and the wingnuts will be telling us all about how the NEXT corner we’re going to turn is really, really (we mean it this time!) the one that proves Bush was right all along.

 
 

But I’m sure that the wingnut will be crowing about how this is THE corner and we’ve really turned it this time, boy! Remember how capturing Saddam was going to end the insurgency? Remember how killing Uday and Qusay meant the insurgency had really come to an end? Remember how cleaning out Falluja was really going to clamp down on the problem? Guaranteed that Zarqawi’s death will likewise be trumpeted as the thing that will really, really do it this time.

Yeah, that’s the wingnuts’ central misconception- there’s no one monolitchic insurgency going on in Iraq. You’ve got fundamnetalist Sunnis, fundamentalist Shi’ites, Ba’athist Sunnis and just plain pissed off people all killing Americans (and each other). It’s a big fucking mess, and I don’t see any way out of it for years to come.

 
 

Well, this just means that NOW there really IS a light at the end of the tunnel.

 
 

Ayuh. When you think of all the “top leaders” that have been killed or captured over the past three years, with no discernable effect on the insurgencies…

But when one declares a global war on a tactic, it’s not much of a stretch for one also to confuse figureheads with leaders.

The long-term effects on the insurgencies will be roughly as efficacious as trying to cripple Britain by slaying the Queen.

 
 

I dunno, but it seems obvious being able to kill him like this is a sign he had already lost an internal power struggle, as this story claimed back in April: http://tinyurl.com/p2xfk

It’s like this in Afghanistan too: someone loses a power struggle, and is outed by people who want us to bump him off for them. We do it, and cry “victory”!

Shed no tears for this monster. It’s just that celebration should be tempered because this killing most likely a sign he was no longer a real threat anymore. How do you think they got the co-ordinates on him anyway?

 
 

Spot the real power (not really – The Americans and British do not have a monopoly on violence) behind the throne in Iraq.

Although I am really glad for the Iraqis that a mass murderer has been removed, I think Bush, Blair. Khalilzad and Casey should have stayed out of it rather than indulge in such blatant grandstanding.

 
 

As I understand it, the military was tipped-off as to his location by other members of his terror group. Doesn’t sound like he was that “in charge” after all.

 
 

I don’t want to sound like a troll or anything, but the immediate downplaying of an event like this is something that fuels the right’s “you’re with us or you’re against us” rhetoric. I don’t feel like I’m jeopardizing the legitimacy of my political views by admitting that Zarqawi’s death is a good thing. If nothing else, this is the silver lining in the grey cloud, folks. I’m more inclined to breathe a small sigh of relief and shift my critical focus somewhere it’s really needed.

Now of course if the chickenhawks start trumpeting this as justification for the illegal invasion of a country and the death of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians, yeah, I’m going to call bullshit on that.

 
 

I don’t want to sound like a troll or anything, but the immediate downplaying of an event like this is something that fuels the right’s “you’re with us or you’re against us� rhetoric. I don’t feel like I’m jeopardizing the legitimacy of my political views by admitting that Zarqawi’s death is a good thing.

1.) I (and everyone else on the thread thus far) acknowledged it was a good thing.

2.) I also said (correctly) that it would have little overall impact on the broader insurgency, just like Saddam’s capture had no impact whatsoever.

Callin’ ’em like I’m seein’ ’em, dude. I don’t give a shit if Jeff Goldstein or Insty say bad things about it.

 
 

I’m more inclined to breathe a small sigh of relief and shift my critical focus somewhere it’s really needed.

Go get ’em, tiger.

 
 

It’s a great thing. The way I understand it, Zarqawi put a video on the internet but was sloppy and it led to clues as to his whereabouts. Now whether that means that some members of his group gave him up or not I don’t know.

The insurgency will go on, but it is nice to finally get rid of this nut. I’m actually worried about any retaliation for his death.

 
 

So does this mean we’ll be seeing a different playing card on the news tonight? That’s always fun — kind of like the War on Terra home game! Anyone make a good hand yet??

 
 

don’t want to sound like a troll or anything, but the immediate downplaying of an event like this […]

You know, there was a time when the military would have downplayed news like this (and even better news). They would not have wanted to raise expectations that would later be dashed by reality.

It is different with the Chimperor, of course. Expectations are reality. So they play up every little piece of encouraging news with brass bands and balloons, and the dittoheads of the press corps cheer on queue and rush breathlessly to get the propaganda news out ASAP. Later, everyone wonders why the glorious war against Eurasia isn’t going as well as the news reports.

Is it a good thing they got Zarqawi? It depends on whether the person(s) who replace him are competent or not. Zarqawi wasn’t the brightest candle in the chandelier. It is entirely possible his death will make things worse. Even if that turns out to be incorrect, I still don’t see his death having much of an effect on Iraq as a whole.

 
 

Yep – the Dear Leader’s cleaning up the mess he made for a change … and al Qaeda in Iraqâ„¢ has already named a successor!

 
 

Eric Alterman has a nice take on this:
“Getting Zarqawi four years too late: It’s nice that they got Zarqawi. Too bad they didn’t try harder before the invasion, when they lied about his membership in Al-Qaeda to create their phony link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. …”

@No MSG:
but the immediate downplaying of an event like this is something that fuels the right’s “you’re with us or you’re against us� rhetoric

Perhaps–but it doesn’t matter, really. Nothing anyone on the left does will prevent the fueling of right-wing rhetoric or tone down their congenital hatred of Democrats, truth, freedom and equality (in more or less that order).

Criticism from the left hasn’t changed wingnut behavior, after all.

 
 

Is it a good thing they got Zarqawi? It depends on whether the person(s) who replace him are competent or not. Zarqawi wasn’t the brightest candle in the chandelier. It is entirely possible his death will make things worse. Even if that turns out to be incorrect, I still don’t see his death having much of an effect on Iraq as a whole.

Interesting point. Zarqawi’s most bloodthirsty actions- in particular the wedding bombings in Jordan- led him to be widely reviled in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

 
Bored Huge Krill
 

That’s provided, of course, that they actually did get him. This is the third time he’s been killed. Yet, Rasputin-like, each previous time he’s turned out to not be dead after all.

I’m not so much concerned about whether he’s really dead, but whether he will subsequently reanimate given his already demonstrated capability to regenerate amputated limbs.

I can visualize the scene at the morgue now…

BRAAAAAAIIIIIIINS!!11!!

 
 

and the other benefit of his death is that the right-wing blogs can go through yet another round of “why isn’t the Left posting about this?” coupled with some links to random lefty blogs, and specific ignoring of all of the lefty blogs that have actually posted about it. that, plus their posts about the actual “getting” of Zarq. can make up a whole day’s worth of posts for them. Plus all the linking to each others’ posts. Man it is easy to be a right-wing blogger.

 
 

So does this mean we’ll be seeing a different playing card on the news tonight? That’s always fun — kind of like the War on Terra home game! Anyone make a good hand yet??

No, but somehow I made a Yahtzee!

 
 

Look, there are two factors driving the Iraqi insurgency. One is the foreign military occupation. As long as American and British military forces are there, the Iraqis will fight them. This is as it always has been, and how it always will be. Once American forces withdraw, that reason will be gone.

The other reason for the violence is the “yugoslavia effect”. Anytime you create a country by drawing artificial borders that encompass different ethnic groups, you create a situation that will turn violent. Then, if you keep a lid on it with an iron-handed dictatorship for decades, when that dictatorship is gone, all the pent-up hatred will come out and you will get ethnic cleansing and retaliation killings and civil war.

Zarqawi was just along for the ride, a guy who saw an opportunity in the Iraqi violence to advance his own agenda. He’s done some truly awful things, and I ain’t gonna mourn him, but in no way was he a direct contributor to the root causes of violence in Iraq, and as such, strategically, his death is meaningless…

mikey

 
 

So does this mean we’ll be seeing a different playing card on the news tonight? That’s always fun — kind of like the War on Terra home game! Anyone make a good hand yet??

This just makes the previous full house (3 “#2 Man”s over 2 “Zarqawi”s) stronger (it’s now Zarqawis over #2 Mans). Unless 1-legged Zarqawis are wild, then we’ve still got 4 of a kind.

 
 

mikey, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

 
 

Now of course if the chickenhawks start trumpeting this as justification for the illegal invasion of a country and the death of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians, yeah, I’m going to call bullshit on that.

But I’m sure they’re going to do that (if they haven’t already). That’s page 27 of the Right Winger’s Handbook (published by Regnery). After all, if I were a right-winger, that’s exactly what I’d do.

 
 

I think the wingnuts may be a little upset about this. They were hoping he would be captured alive, so he could tell us all about how he and Saddam were BFF. Oh, and how he spent hours every day on the phone to his operatives in the US.

 
 

Why do I get the feeling that somebody just took a corpse and stuck a “Hi, my name is Zarqawi!” nametag on it? I thought they killed this guy a few times already. Mikey’s right, the insurgency’s not going to go away anytime soon, and the wingnuts will just find somebody else to pin it all on, as long as it’s not themselves.

 
 

Okay, good. The man was a monster and we’re all better off with him dead. I’m anti-death penalty, but even I have an exception clause for mass or spree or serial killings.

Can we do something about bin Laden, now? Please? Pretty please?

Of course, “the immediate downplaying” is kind of an interesting thing. There’s a difference between “downplaying” this and “accepting it for what it in fact is, rather than buying into the propaganda”.
Zarqawi dead means Zarqawi won’t kill anyone else. That’s pretty much it. And, of course, this is predicated upon his actually being dead, which is less “liberal naysaying” and more “realizing that this administration has very little credibility on this subject, seeing as how they’ve been wrong about exactly this before”.

I’m gonna go out on a limb, and you can call this liberal cynicism, but I’m guessing that two weeks ago, Zarqawi was another one of those Bush was “truly not that concerned about”. Today, he was more evil than Hitler, and probably behind the plot to destroy the American family via gay marriage as well, and thank God he’s dead! Ten days of celebrations and fireworks!

 
 

And two week from now, when Bush is still in the fucking 30%-and-below pit, Zarqawi will rise, like the one-legged phoenix, and go right back to what he was doing, being an Emmanuel Goldstein.

 
 

Well, that’s good news, absolutely– his death will certainly inconvenience the al-Qaeda associated elements of the insurgency a great deal for a while. Unfortunately, the ones that we have to deal with if we are, in fact, attempting to stabilize the country to any extent are the militias of the various sectarian/Ba’athist groups, especially the pro-Iran Shi’ites and the Kurds.
While mikey’s analysis is more or less correct in a general sense, though I wouldn’t say his death was entirely useless strategically, it merely constitutes a smack to one of the plethora of factions (albeit one of the more bastardically viscious ones) rather than a body blow to the various groups vieing for a piece of the action. I would also add that “rush for power in the next regime” as a motivation should not to be discounted; indeed, I might place such an motive ahead of the foreign presence or perhaps even the ethnic/sectarian strife (though that is a common excuse for desirers of power, and they are interlinked a great deal). Unfortunately, I suspect that any of these reasons is sufficient to motivate X amount of insurgency, and we happen to have all three going at once; leaving Iraq won’t stop the violence (and it would likely increase over the short term as the sides duke it out for supremacy), nor would establishing a generally accepted to be legitimate government, as anti-foriegner sentiment would fuel attacks against those associated with the US and their cohorts.
It’s a generally shitty situation, generally, and it is unlikely to get better at any schedule that meets anyone’s satisfaction; pretending improvement is a counterproductive means of dealing with Iraq, and that is what we seem to be getting from the current administration, unfortunately.

 
 

(comments are closed)