A US air raid killed the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi along with 7 of his aids.

Zarqawi taken out

This leader of the Iraqi insurgency, who lead a reign of terror against innocents in that country, was killed in an operation that involved "ordinary Iraqis" who were among those victimized by this brutal beheader.

Questions for debate:

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

Well firstly, not to be the pessimist here, but I would rather wait for independent confirmation. This is not the first time there has been a claim to have killed him. He is apparently harder to kill than a cockroach.

That aside, assuming the report turns out to be true, while it is certainly an event of some significance and a loss for the Al Qaida forces in Iraq, the reality is that Al Qaida forces represent less than 5% of the insurgency, according to the US generals on the ground in Iraq. I cannot imagine how this death will have any effect on the 95% of the insurgents who never had any connection to him or his organisation anyways. In fact, from what I have read a lot of the insurgents will be celebrating his death as much as the US will.

So, while I do not wish to minimise the importance of his death, he was one of the lynchpins on Al qaida, so his death is important, I just can't see how it will make any real difference on the ground in Iraq, for better or for worse.

Does his $25 million bounty get equally divided among the families of the soldiers that killed him???

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

Its too early to say. The mood of the Iraqi people is about as clear as mud and quite how they'll react to this is beyond the scope of my meager intellect.

I wouldn't call it a 'military victory' either. Politically its significant of course, and its certainly a PR victory, but militarily speaking I don't think this will change much. Those Iraqi's and others who make up for the insurgency in general will simply regard Zarqawi as a martyr and get on with their murderous intentions.
Some of these fanatics will even envy him his death!

I think the real victory here lies in the message this sends. Just as with Saddam Hussein, that message is loud and clear, you can run, but you can't hide.


2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

No, but it does my heart good to know the bastard got his just deserts.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

I don't think that this one event will have a huge impact on the overall campaign, but it will have an effect.
Zarqawi's charisma and leadership was the glue that held many disparate groups together. I believe that we will see some dysfunction and lack of coordination, and hopefully, some splintering of various factions.....leading to a lessening of attacks.

I think this victory is huge. One tends to forget the impact that charismatic leaders can have in the history of conflict. Zarqawi was the motivator and the inspiration for many fanatics. Yes, there will be those fighting to take his place. But, human history has shown that individual leaders success or failure can have a big impact on the overall results of a military campaign.

We're winning in Iraq. It's tough but we're staying the course contrary to the political cowards who backed the war and now want to cut and run due to the discomfort being suffered in this difficult, but essential campaign.

If we run, we lose. And we lose big. 9/11 was the direct result of Clinton cowardice in Somalia. We were shown to be a country that would turn tail and run if we suffered casualties. That legacy inspired Bin Laden to up the ante and attempt to push us out of the entire Islamic world with one bold stroke. He (falsely) assumed that "all Americans are alike" and that Bush would prove to be as cowardly as Clinton.

He was wrong.

Yet, the party of Clinton has continued his legacy of tough talk followed by a quick flip flop when the going gets tough.

I'll keep reminding this forum until heck freezes over that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and others voted FOR the Iraq war and "talked tough" about Saddam Hussein.... until the poll numbers started to drop.

The Sheehan/Pelosi/Murtha wing of the democrat party insists that "Bush lied" and that we "can't win" this war and that we should pull out. This is a new phenomena in American politics that hasn't occured since the Vietnam debacle. This level of defeatism is beneath a country like the USA and the practical implication of this self imposed defeat on short and long term American prospects is not appreciated, understood, or reported on by the left-leaning, and democrat cheerleading major US and EU media.

This is a big win for the US and we should continue taking the fight to these Islamist fanatics until they are totally and completely defeated.

We can't afford to do any less.

Remember how everyone predicted how insurgency would die down after Saddam was captured? How the sunnis would be morally defeated after Saddam's sons were killed? We all know how it turned out. While I am glad to know that Al-Zarquawi is gone, I have no illusions regarding the future of the insurgency. We can't win in Iraq in a long term; as long as we are the occupying power, we'll always be under attack.

P.S. Check DJIA futures - they barely moved this morning after the news broke out. At least, after Saddam was captured, they jumped for a day.... This is a small PR victory for the coalition, but in a long term, it's insignificant.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

The reporting is so bad in Iraq right now I really do not know what effect this will have. I can already guess the common report. "He's dead, but X attack occured today."


2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

Nope, not at all. I think this has a bigger impact in the US than Iraq. Americans are generally in a sour mood these days about ever topic. It's nice to get some good news for once. Whether or not Americans care is a whole other topic of debate.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?
As good as this is, there is not yet a turning point. This administration may be able to use it though as an exit reason.

Taking out the top leadership of terrorist movements has always be a significant move. Yes they get replaced, but the replacements are not a good at it and their opponents are getting better. So more terrorists will die and the cycle continues, since their replacements will even less effective.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq? Not one bit, we should never have been there in the first place. Wrong war, wrong country, wrong means.

No Arab country is worth a single American life.

The root of the problem long proceeded Clinton. The seeds were sown back in 1979 when President Carter allowed a two-bit religious theocracy to take and hold America territory and US Diplomatic personnel. He wouldn't even allow our Marines to fire in self-defense. The same day a mob of 3,000 attacked the Soviet Embassy in Teheran and one guard fired 3 shots into the air. Guess what all 3,000 left. That was the start of the problem. If we won't even allow our military to defend US soil how much of a fight will we put up when they invade another Arab country?

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

We'll see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it. Guys like him are like weeds and cockroaches, you kill one and another one appears just as quickly.

I doubt that much will change and I think it is a sort-of milestone, but definately NOT a turning point.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

No. We will never win there. One dead al-qaeda doesn't mean we are winning.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

Since calling this a war is rhetoric, then rhetorically speaking, this event can be termed a turning point. A terrorist leader has been snuffed. Maybe the followers will lose purpose and resolve. Maybe the take that he just got martyred will give his followers more purpose and resolve. It's a strange mindset and hard to tell just what insane people might do next.

I'm not very certain that the insurgent attacks will lessen. As said many times before, hope I'm wrong. I do think the way that Mister Z got it might make other terrorist leader wannabees think twice about that career path I like the touch of the predator drone. It speaks to my fantasy of predator robotic bees taking out the bad guys, except instead of a stinger, it's a little lump of high explosive straight up the shaft where the sun don't shine. SPLUT! Another bad guy bites the dust, or maybe colors the dust is more appropriate.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

It is not a matter of the US winning or losing, but whether the Iraqi people win or lose. The US already won the initial objective, which was to put Saddam out of power and remove the immediate threat of WMD. Now the US can't pull out until the Iraqi people pull up.

Well, that's not exactly true. It may become a sink or swim thing, where the US pulls out, ready or not, now make it happen Iraqi people. It's a funny thing how motivated people become when the other people doing the dirty work up and leave.

So no, this has not changed my view on the Iraq situation, whatever rhetoric one wants to use to describe it. It has not changed my view on terrorism either. The only way to fight terrorism is with police efforts, like nabbing the Canadian guys before they got a chance to do harm. That was actually a greater victory in the GWoT than wasting Zarqy boy. Mister Z was active only in Iraq. The Canadian terrorists were threats in our neck of the woods.

Now, if only our leadership understood that way back when. Ah well, so it goes. The administration will try to milk this as long as possible, but it's not enough to change the present course of history. That is, it won't make a difference in November.

1. Nope. It just means there's one less dirtbag killing civilians and our soldiers in Iraq. That's great, but does that mean it's the end of the insurgency? No way. Sending Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his overdue stint sitting on a very hot rock in hell is the best news to come out of Iraq in months. But if you think that means it's all sweetness and light from here on out, you are high. The insurgency in Iraq goes beyond the life and death of one terrorist.

2. Oh, so whether or not the war was won or lost was predicated upon the death on al-Zarqawi? That would be funny in a sick way if it weren't so patently absurd.
Hopefully Zarqawi's death cripples the insurgency and by killing the head rat, the smaller ones can be flushed out all the better to be exterminated like the vermin they are. However, it is a wild leap of logic to equate Zarqawi + Dead=We Win!.



And I'll keep reminding this forum until hell freezes over that it was George W. Bush's failure to respond to ample warnings from other governments, the Clinton Administration and Richard Clarke that allowed Osama bin Laden the opportunity to see his plans of killing thousands of Americans reach fruition.

I'll keep reminding this forum while revisionists would like to paint Bush as some great military mind, he STILL hasn't crushed the Taliban in Afghanistan, STILL hasn't brought peace and stability to Iraq despite his arrogant claims of "mission accomplished" and STILL hasn't killed or captured Osama bin Laden almost FIVE years after declaring he'd be brought in "dead or alive."

I'll keep reminding this forum that despite the CIA's efforts to pay off Somali warlords that lawless failed state still fell into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists this week.

Washington - A covert CIA effort to finance Somali warlords has drawn sharp criticism from U.S. government officials who say the campaign has thwarted counterterrorism efforts inside Somalia and empowered the same Islamic groups it was intended to marginalize.

The criticism, expressed privately, flared even before the apparent victory this week by Islamist militias in the country dealt a sharp setback to American policy, according to U.S. government officials with direct knowledge of the debate.

The officials said the CIA effort, run from the agency's station in Nairobi, Kenya, had channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to secular warlords inside Somalia with the aim, among other things, of capturing or killing a handful of suspected members of al-Qaeda believed to be hiding there.

"This has blown up in our face, frankly," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit research organization with extensive field experience in Somalia. "We've strengthened the hand of the people whose presence we were worried most about."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_3911866?source=rss

Who do we blame for this screw-up? Porter Goss or the geek that hired that hack?

I'll keep reminding this board it's the Sock Puppet-in-Chief who called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "Axis of Evil." So what's up the Axis these days? Iran is a bloody mess with a "government" that doesn't exist outside the security of the Green Zone. Iran is led by an ideological extremist who may be developing nuclear weapons and threatening to turn off the oil to the West and North Korea already has nuclear weapons with a nutcase in command. Feeling more secure?

I'll keep reminding this board that almost 2500 Americans have perished in Bush's war and many of those wounded or crippled are coming home to find their veterans benefits cut by the Republican Congress. I'll keep reminding this board that Bush and Rumsfeld send troops into Iraq without sufficient numbers of body or Humvee armor. I'll keep reminding this board of the stop-loss orders and multiple deployments that keep the troops fighting and dying in a war the Chickenhawk-in-Chief said was over.

But mostly, I'll keep reminding this board that Clinton's lies never killed anyone. George Bush's lies continue to kill and maim every day.

So what exactly did the Clinton Administration do to prevent 9/11? It seems like you are placing all the blame on Bush for this. Are you saying the the entire thing was planned, trained for, and accomplished and there was not blame to be placed on the Clinton Admin as well? If you are going to make outlandish statements please back them up.

It really is amazing how a good day for the fight against terrorism and the U.S. military is a bad day politicly for the left.

The Iraqi Prime Minister confirmed the kill.



I disagree with your first statement and agree with the second.

The role of the individual in history is huge in my estimate. Although many, if not most, historians believe otherwise, I think that it is individuals that ultimately shape historical forces into the end results. Many historians hold the theory that political forces create the leaders and if a specific leader were eliminated (Lenin, in 1917, for example) then the tide of history would essentially remain unchanged but with a different leader.

I disagree. It is visionary, charismatic, talented, and driven individuals who use the sociological forces around them (unhappiness due to sectarian tensions, foreign occupation, poverty or what have you) to create the outcome they desire.

In this case, Zarqawi is using the forces around him to create a chaotic and violence filled Iraq. A different leader, with a different vision, could use those same forces to create a more stable, safer Iraq.

To be fair, Zarqawi might have a replacement waiting to take up the reins of power. Or there could be infighting which could be kept internal or spill out onto the streets of Baghdad.

I saw a history channel program featuring George Washington, the first American action hero. They seem to think that had Washington fallen when he bravely (foolishly?) risked his life so many times, that the Revolution would have failed. Only Washington's personal bravery and charisma kept the Continental Army together at the end of 1776 when his army was disintegrating or again during the harsh winter of 1777 at Valley Forge. Further, only Washington's personal sense of liberty may have kept him from becoming King George the First of the US. Had Washington been a different man or held different motivations, things would be extraordinarily different today.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

No. Although this is an important event and may change the pace of the war, the outcome has not been affected.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?
I think that it could be a turning point in the most important aspect of this war, that of the American media coverage. Those IED's aren't just targeting the US soldier and marine, they are also targeting our will to fight. The jihadis are masters of PR, utilizing the internet, arab news, and the sheer power of charisma via characters like Zarqawi. The momentum on this front could (possibly) flip a bit with this bit of good news.

If nothing else, it's highly entertaining to see reporters and newspapers telling us that "The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq" is dead. Joe and Jane blue-state network TV viewer are no doubt looking at the screen and asking "wait - Al Qaeda is in Iraq? " Between the arrests in Toronto, London and now this, it's almost as if we are fighting and winning a global war against muslim jihadi terrorists. Who knew?

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?
No. We have been and continue to 'win' this war by any sane measure. We've deposed a dictator, killed his sadistic sons, co-opted many of the Shiite militants, held elections, control most of the country, and now executed the most prolific of the jihadis. Heck, Scientific American (everyone's favorite mag!) even reports that re-flooding the marshes is going well.



Quick - name the American president that saved the habitat of 74 rare endangered birds, including the Iraqi babble. George Bush - champion of the (Iraqi) environment.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

That's probably too much to hope for. Zarqawi's organization may be small, but they seem to cause an unusually large amount of violence wherever they go. Z-man was killed near Baquba. Did his men commit the bus massacre there last week? Or start the new fad of packing heads in fruitboxes?

I don't know, but I'm happy Zarqawi is dead. Getty Images has some great pictures of Baghdad celebrations.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

It's good news, and good news has been hard to come by.

I'm not the one trying to put the blame for 9/11 on the shoulders on one Chief Executive, Sleeper. And I never said "all the blame" belongs to Bush. Clinton missed his chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. I never have said otherwise.

All I'm trying to do is remind some folks with selective memory recall just WHO was POTUS on September 11, 2001. That would be the guy reading "My Pet Goat" to a bunch of schoolkids, right?

By the way, it was lord helmet who turned a good day in the war on terror into a commercial for the Republican Party. I just called him on it.

Oh Come ON Sleeper, that is EXACTLY the kind of comment that drags this debate down into the mud. Has anyone on the 'left' said anything on this thread except that they are glad he's dead/ its a good thing he's dead/ its about time he's dead?

The problem is not with the left supposedly grumbling because a member of Al qaida was blown up, that sugestion is revolting. The problem is when people on the far right use what is unquestionably a victory for the war on terror, to proclaim 'Mision Accomplished' again, or to use this as an excuse to say the US has won/Is winning the war in Iraq.

I am so tired of being called a terrorist sympathiser or friend of Al qaida because I point out that according to all measurable indicators, the US is losing in Iraq. Now if the main focus of the Bush jr administration was the war on terror, then this could be called a massive victory. Sadly the 'war on terror' has largely been abandoned in favour of the war in Iraq.

None the less, as I said in my first post, (and was soundly ignored in favour of being grouped with 'lefties sad this guy was killed'): VERY happy he's dead, good day for the US, just too bad it likely won't have any substantive effect on the situation in Iraq.

Yes I absolutely believe so. It is kind of difficult for two fractured parties who have a violent past to reconcile and make political good when you have a man like Zarqawi murdering the Shia of Iraq with such abandonment and ruthlessness. The fact he was hand given to the occupation force is a pretty obvious sign that he had fallen out of favor from his past protectors and enablers. So the question is the political path becoming more favored?

Let us all hope it is, because it is not total destruction of the Sunnis we want, or the Baathists, or the Shia. It is political reconciliation, let them duke it out in the parliament house, and not the streets of Iraq. We have to marginalize men like Zarqawi and those who share his idealogue. If that means suggesting to each and every one of them that if they have no desire to take their grievances to the government of Iraq, instead of the innocent people of Iraq, that they too could have a 500 lb bomb dropped on their heads, then so be it.

I have to feel that this offering was asked for, and in return it was rewarded. I think this "victory'" is far more a political victory than it is a military one. And that to me makes it all the more important.

According to the New York Times, there is more to this than just one house full of dead terrorists. 17 other simultaneous raids took place today, and there were significant political developments.



Plus, right after the announcement, the Iraqi Parliament approved the 3 security ministers to the cabinet. With the appointment of a Sunni as Minister of Defense, there may be real hope for an end to sectarian violence.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

This is certainly welcome news. Maybe some of the bloody car bombing will stop? On the other hand, I doubt if it is a turning point. Juan Cole doesn't think it is. The appointment of a Sunni Defense Minister may be more significant if the appointed Interior Minister is not a strong sectarian.

We also should remember that we had several chances to take Zarqawi out before the invasion, when he was hole up in Northern Iraq beyond Saddam's control, but chose not to apparently because of his propaganda value to the case for war.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

What is meant by winning? I think the US war party has had shifting war aims in Iraq. Even achieving its present minimal goals will be extremely difficult. Things might be a bit better for the Iraqis and the Shia might have a little more patience if some of the car bombing ceases. However, I still think sectarian violence will continue and the Iraq will wind up divided or with a dominant Shia government beholden to Iran. Perhaps the US will be able to keep some of its "enduring bases" to project power within the region, but that is uncertain. I certainly can't see any outcome that I would consider a victory for the American people.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

No. Like others have mentioned, it is good news (and good riddance to bad rubbish), but hardly a major turning point. Zarqawi’s death is seen as martyrdom to those who support his cause. I’m sure the fervor they feel is not abated. It remains to be seen whether a new cockroach will spring up to replace the old.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

No, why would it? One man’s death doesn’t change anything.

Meanwhile, a bomb killed 30 people in Iraq yesterday. And Staff Sgt. Richard Blakley was killed in combat operations yesterday.

And the beat goes on…

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

I would agree with the sentiments above that this is more of a political victory than a military victory. However, in essence this is more of a political than a military war, fighting for political control of the country, so it may indeed turn out to be significant. I am sure there are already those waiting in the wings to take over for Al Zarqawi. However, as was stated above, it does send a clear message that any who take up his mantle will likely suffer a similar fate, which has to be an impediment to activities.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

I would agree with the statement of our ambassador to Iraq, who said that while this does not signal the end of the war by any means, it is a good step in the right direction.

The litmus test to the above two questions, I believe, will be the reaction of the Iraqi people to the news. If they believe his death is a turning point, then, in reality, it is. If however, significant portions of them celebrate him as a martyr, or denounce US tactics in eliminating him, then at best we're no farther along than before.

Let me help you here, and state emphatically that there is no "measure" of success that civilians have in the US that can objectively show whether we're losing anything. CBS News and Al Franken don't have the magic sheet that shows W's and L's....

However, I can say that operationally the US wins battles, finds insurgent weapons, and overall diminishes insurgent capability every day of the week. Of course there aren't correspondents covering these daily details, as it wouldn't sell in the same fashion as stories about road-side bombs and Marine Massacres...

Please post your "measurable indicators", as I googled this and of course, there are none!

All kidding aside, regardless of your opinion about the war and its focus, Zarqawi's death marks a few distinct changes in the war. Firstly, it shows that US intelligence is capable of finding and eliminating prominent figures in the insurgent campaign, which at the worst boosts troop morale.

Secondly, it might prove to fragment insurgent leadership, influence, or possily even funding. No one really can predict what will happen, namely using the effect of capturing Saddam as a benchmark. It definitely changed the landscape and dynamics of the campaign in Iraq, got a reaction out of the people, and revitalized the confidence in US military operations.



Was it really "My Pet Goat"??? lol...
You know that for the first few months/years after 9/11 that people thought that GW was just the man for the job... but if we remember correctly the kids were the ones reading to Mr. Bush! (sadly)

I spoke with a Major just back from Iraq the other day and he was telling me of all kinds of metrics which showed that we are winning. They divide each theater into sectors and measure everything from hostile incidents to candy bars handed out to IEDs found to casualties. I doubt that the DOD has this on a website somewhere, but this officer and a few others I've met assure me that the army measures absolutely everything. To the point where it drives them nuts. And he told me all about their progress, which was specific and measurable. I suppose I could have met a CIA / Karl Rove plant, who goes out and strikes up conversations in order to spread more lies about the war, but somehow I doubt it.

A year or so ago, I had a similar conversation with a Lieutenant, and just on a recent flight I had my ear talked off by a captain who served in Iraq I and II, with similar tales of progress and metrics. That guy also told me of being "greeted as liberators" as well, and had pictures to prove it. Flowers, hugs, kisses, and (scary part) guns shooting in the air.

As for schools opened, water plants opened, electricity, etc., the measurable indicators are there if you care to look.

war on terror website

centcom daily briefings

iraqi troops take lead

Defense budget at all-time low as % of GDP

etc.

I thought this was an interesting perspective on the issue:

(emphasis mine)
Not only Iraq, but the US; who will the administration use as a scapegoat now that Zarqawi is gone?

In one simple sentence, Nicholas Berg's father defined why the "war" in Iraq will never end:

No, not wins and losses as you say, but actually there are plenty of measures. A good one is casualty rates, which are steadily increasing. There are problems with this of course, as one big attack can skew the figures, so we can also look at number of attacks on US forces per day, which are also steadily increasing, week after week, month after month. The US is at over 21,000 casualties, and has 132,000 troops in the country, a number which every commander who will speak on the subject is saying is simply not enough to maintain basic order. We have an Iraqi military and police force, which 18 months ago had only 3 batallions at level one ready status. 6 months ago, the number of batallions at level 1 ready status had dropped to 1. As of 2 months ago (according to the US ambassador to Iraq) that number had dropped to zero. This is the army that is supposed to 'stand up as we stand down'.

I don't want to be fascile here, but it is pretty much an axiom of military operations that if the enemy is getting stronger and more capable, and your allied forces are getting progressively weaker, you aren't winning.

But it gets worse. The Shia death squads that roam the streets even during the daylight hours do so with [bassistance[/b] of police forces, infiltrated by tribal and sectarian fundamentalists.

In Baghdad, homes have an average of 4 hours of electricity per day. Not only is that lower than pre-invasion, but alarmingly it is lower than a year ago.

Results of Poll Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
-Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
-Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
-Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67%

The Iraqi unemployment rate is over 30% nationally, over 70% in some regions, and Infaltion is at 20%, both figures worse than they were a year ago.

The number of Iraqi policemen killed is now averaging at about 10 per day, higher than a year ago, and recruitment into both Iraqi police and military has dropped alarmingly.


So how's that for figures? and based on those, would you say the US is 'winning' or 'losing'? Now of course they have not lost yet, nothing is decided and things could still turn around. But based on the numbers, the trend assuming things remain this way seems clear.




Then why are both the number of attacks and the relative effectiveness of the attacks increasing constantly? That doesn't sound like an insurgency whose capacity is being ;diminished', in fact it sounds like quite the opposite. Do you have any evidence that Insurgenct capacity is being 'diminished every day'?

I think it's a 'military victory' if you use the loosest of definitions. A 500 pound bomb on a single house? It's an assasination by air and not a military victory. Imagine the term 'military victory' real hard for a moment. Does one sortie with a 500 lb bomb delivered onto a house qualify? I think not.
Other than that obvious triviality courtesy of the dummied-up American public, I have to point this into an all to obvious direction. Vietnam. After that debacle a short generation ago, how can the American people truly post their hopes and beliefs and the future direction of a colossal war machine on one single over-hyped event? It's sad they fall for the same garbage time and time again. Something happened to the American people sometime between the fall of Saigon and the First Gulf War in 1991, and it had to have been in the form of some dumbing down variety, the extreme of course is being abducted by aliens and having implants placed in their brains so they can be controlled some time in the future. I blame garbage like WWF wrestling and the latest fad called reality shows. Feel exhilerated for a bit, keep sitting on the couch with the beer. It's no wonder the US government relied so heavily on flooding the inner city ghettos with crack cocaine and other mind-consuming drugs during the 80's and even today.
No this isn't a turning point in the war. That would entail a major shift, and that hasn't happened. People shouldn't pin their hopes on smoke and mirrors.

A coach gets fired for his team not winning; does that mean the players will suddenly win just because they got a new coach? How can one event change the course of such a huge war juggernaut? The Iraqi freedom fighters will miss Zarquawi as much as they would miss Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy i.e. someone they don't know and have never met blah blah... gotta go potty now

Questions for debate:

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

Perhaps. Certainly killing the leader od AQ in iraq is a major victory on a number of fronts
First it shows that out technological superiority can and will have a major impact on terrorists operation in the country. Certainly and the leader of Al Qaeda in Ira you would expect that this man was VERY well protected and taking him out will give pause to the others in his organization and ALL terrorist (insurgent if you like) organizations in Iraq.

Secondly this is a major moral victory for Iraq and the US. Yes AQ is a small part of the “insurgency” but in many ways their bold, vicious and often successful attacks made them far more important. They were feared and with good reason, well out of proportion to their size. IMO the “tips” given to US intel folks will rise and more of theses thugs, AQ and the others will be hunted down and eliminated.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?
No. IMO the US has been winning and will win.

It was a day filled with rare good news for Iraq's new prime minister: Not only did he announce the death of the country's most-feared terror leader, he also won approval for new ministers on security, charged with stopping the violence in Iraq.

With that rapid series of breakthroughs, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki firmly established his control, setting the stage for what he pledges will be a sharp crackdown to restore order. U.S. officials seemed overjoyed, keenly aware that their ability to trim the number of U.S. troops depends on his success.

The three posts that al-Maliki named Thursday are crucial to that effort - the defense minister to run the army, the interior minister to run the national police and the national security minister to advise the prime minister.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2803539.html

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

I think that it indicates more of a political victory than a military one. Zarqawi was important and by taking him out and as well as a few of his close friends is significant because maybe we took out the next figurehead as well for Al Qaeda in Iraq. But militarily, the attacks will most likely continue as long as there is a cash flow supporting the operations. I'm glad Zarqawi is dead but a few announcements about how the US has stopped the terrorist funders would be greeted by me with much more excitement.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

The news along with the announcement of new Defense and Interior ministers is encouraging. There hasn't been many good headlines to publish from Iraq in a while and this should help the situation for a short amount of time. There are a lot of things that need to be done in Iraq and the capture/killing of Zarqawi was a small part of that.

You can't measure the situation in Iraq by wins and loses, only by progress. There either is progress or there isn't. As long as there is progress and no regress than the situation will define itself.

It depends on how much power Zarqawi had. If thousands of troops were under his personal supervision, this could indicate a huge blow to insurgent forces. If he only controlled a small sect of terrorist, the overall effect is probably minimal.

Besides, for a culture that applauds maytrdom, Zarqawis death might inspire some grand counter-attack against US forces. This could hardly be blamed on the Bush administration, though.

As a symbol, he is destroyed. Lets hope this will demoralize insurgents. Of course, only time will tell what the real effect is.

No, Zarqawis death as a military effort was pretty minimal. As another user said (Truthmarch), we basically just bombed the crap out of him. I believe this war will only change with a revolutionary method for fighting enemies that blend in with allies. Finding the terrorists in the first place was the real hard part. It shows little expect that if we do find terrorists, we can really blow them up good.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

No. Zarqawi and his group rarely targeted the US, prefering to mount suuicide attacks against Irtaqis. The IED's that are killing US people are from others of the 14 major insurgency groups.


2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

We've lost. All that is left is the dying. This does not change that.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?




Nice dodge Leder, but what you’ve done is substitute one set of indeterminables —“wins” and “losses” (body counts, a bad guy killed or captured every two years?) with something equally indeterminable, that is “progress.”

Is killing Zarqawi progress? As an isolated event no. If we take two steps backwards and two forwards, then that’s neutral. Two backwards and one forward is regression. Two forward and one backwards is progress. The only problem is that we can’t measure this either.

What George WS. Bush and Tony Blair had to say today was interesting.

.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...6/20060608.html



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle753709.ece

Although the two statements are similar, I think Blair’s is a bit more subtle and nuanced, and I respect that. Then again, Bush’s public pronouncements have rarely been known for caution and nuance.

Non-nuanced statements are a gamble for Bush, just as they may have been for Ben Bernanke earlier in the week. If indeed, things improve in Iraq over the next six months, Bush’s poll numbers may go up. If they don’t improve, if this isn’t a “severe blow” to the insurgency, he’ll suffer the consequences.

As others have said, I am glad that someone who used religion as an excuse for vicious murders is dead.*

*Set in bold and size enlarged so that the moralizers on the issue won’t miss it..

That said, I would have preferred his capture and trial as a war criminal.

In summation, this whole thing is a coin toss. The impact of Zarqawi’s death is neither a cause for optimism or pessimism. We may be able to assess its impact six months down the road.

**************************************************************
As an aside, Nicholas Berg’s father, Michael Berg, saw it in a different light.



http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?n..._id=33380&rfi=6

I guess we’re just going to have to sic Ann Coulter on the elder Berg. She can dress him down like she did the 9/11 widows.

My prayers and sympathy go out to Michael Berg. However, watching his son being beheaded by Zarqawi (on video) has apparently driven him nuts. He's loco. Bonkers. etc. A shame. I feel horrible for the guy, but he's a living personification of the 'useful idiot.' I will pray for him, but he's obviously clueless and a lost soul. His continued presence on the planet enables the terrorists that want all of us typing-enabled Westerners dead dead dead.

That's a rather harsh/cruel judgment.

It seems there are any number of people willing to "play god" here.

Who gave you the right to determine the value Michael's Berg's "presence on the planet"?

And while I'm at it, who handed the keys of “heaven” and “hell” to Joe Biden? I personally think Zarqawi is dead. He’s neither in Biden’s “special place” or enjoying the virgins he envisioned—just dead.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/...qawi/index.html

Edited to add:

Oh, the irony of politics. I'm calling Biden on the carpet and using a quotation from him as my signature at the same time.

1) Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

I wouldn't call it a "turning point," but I will say that it provides an enormous psychological boost to our side. We shall see if such a boost leads to that "turning point."


2) Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

Hardly. The winner and loser here will be determined by who can hold out or last the longest [recalling again those sure and certain words re it not being those who can inflict the most, but those who can endure the most who will conquer].



Re Pappa Berg. All that need be said is that he need be reminded that, as always, it is the one pulling the trigger, or in this case, the one swinging the sword, who is responsible. Well, that, and also that Berg was not in the armed forces, wasn't otherwise ordered to be in Iraq, and so kind of hard to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for his death.

Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

It's only been a day since this happened, how can we possibly know? It might be, but I doubt it. It's a good thing overall but I don't think it's as important as people believe it to be. This reminds me of the movie Munich that was just done by Speilberg. Every time one terrorist is killed another is right there to take his place. I wouldn't be surprised if in another few months there's someone else just like Zarqawi. The next guy could be worse, who knows.

Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

Nope. It's a good thing, but I still don't believe we're "winning" the war. We may not be "losing" either, but I would say it's still not enough to change my view.



The whole scapegoat thing is just like the Munich thing to me. There may be no one right now, but we've left a void and someone will fill it for better or worse.

It is disingenuous to argue that Michael Berg is somehow crazy. His interview on CNN was rational, well-focused, and decisively more nuanced and well-spoken than any that our current President has ever given. That's a rather sad state of affairs. He may take some extra steps towards some more extreme comments, such as comparing Bush with al-Qaida, but he makes some very good points. Furthermore, he takes a position of disappointment towards the death of Zarqawi, which impressed me a lot. I too feel disheartened by Zarqawi's death (if only that a child was killed in the attack). It would have been far more democratic to obtain him and prosecute him. No matter the evil caused, people still need to be put on trial, if mostly to answer in a judicial setting for what they've done. But something tells me the Bush administration needed his death to tout some sort of victory. Hussein's trial isn't going as smooth as hoped, which makes it a lot less dramatic than it might have been.

Do I think Zarqawi's death will matter? No, if only that his religious views hold that dying for such cause is considered rather saintly. His followers probably maintain a similar ideological perspective. Zarqawi wouldn't have even been in Iraq were it not for the U.S. invasion (for lack of a better term). He was a Jordanian--if he had been Iraqi, I could possibly see how it might affect things more positively. By the way, I must not have been paying attention, but when did Zarqawi take over bin Laden's role as leader of al-Qaida? Or maybe I'm confused on the al-Qaida organizational chart.

On a mildly unrelated note, it is interesting to see how each cable news network is handling this revelation. Fox News, in particular, is playing it up as entertainment, going so far as to actually show video footage of the bombing take place followed with a big graphic "ZARQAWI DEAD". Creepy, especially knowing a child was killed. Is it also just me, or is it weird that we can show this bombing, with full knowledge people were killed, yet we find it offensive to show the beheading videos from al-Qaida? I realize there is a severe difference, and in no way condone their broadcast, but both are portrayals of real death. I find it equally distasteful to show this bombing footage.

1. Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

I'll go ahead and call this a military victory because American civilians are not authorized to blow up enemy strongholds in another country using military ordnance.

Maybe I'm not as much of a pacifist as I should be, but I believe this man had to go. Michael Berg, the father of Dave Berg, who was beheaded by Zarqawi (at least it was attributed to him), has a much nobler outlook on Zarqawi's death and what it won't do (bring back his dead son or end the conflict). I respect Mr. Berg a great deal for the stand he is taking, even though I do not possess the character he does to feel that way.

I am glad Zarqawi can no longer kill people, especially innocents. I am sorry that a child had to die when they killed him.

This can only indicate a turning point in the war if there are no longer angry people strapping bombs to their backs and looking to kill as many people, civilian or military, as they absolutely can. I suspect that there are still far too many whose sole purpose in life at this time is to do exactly that.

2. Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

No. While it is encouraging to know that this violent man is permanently out of the picture, we all know that there will continue to be those who take up the bloody banner of a god of vengeance.

And so it is in this country. How many joined the military to wreak vengeance on those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and found themselves in Iraq instead? Of course, it becomes moot when Iraqis, connected to the 9/11 attacks or not, are trying to kill you.

I am guessing that it will boost military morale and produce a bump in the popularity of the undeclared war for the Bush administration, but then things will settle back to normal, with the continual tallying of the dead and wounded. This is the type of conflict where it becomes increasingly difficult to define victory, let alone attain it.

First I probably have to make it clear that I believe Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was one of the worst, most ruthless and amoral human beings alive. No one is sorry to see him gone. But that is just the point: no one is sorry to see him gone, least of all the Iraqi insurgents or even al-Qaeda itself...

Does this military victory indicate a turning point in the war?

I have to ask how we're defining "victory" here. Let's look at a bit of the background. In June, 2002, according to NBC, US intelligence revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaeda had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq. The Pentagon drafted plans to attack the camp with missiles and air strikes and sent it to the White House, where the plan died in the National Security Council.

Four months later, about the time the White House was selling its Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution to Congress, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe and the Pentagon again drew up a strike plan. The White House killed it again. According to Roger Cressy, "People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of pre-emption against terrorists."

Three months after the second fumble of the political football, in January 2003, police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up a third attack plan, and the NSC killed it yet again.

According to NBC's Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski:
While Zarqawi was responsible for some 700 deaths since the Bush administration let him slip through its fingers three times, the most touted terrorist in Iraq was no longer much of a threat three years on. Early last April, the London Times reported that Zarqawi may have been forced to surrender his leadership. Huthayfah Azzam (the son of Abdullah Azzam, Zarqawi’s former mentor) reported that Zarqawi was stripped of his political duties in mid-March.

Last summer, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, sent Zarqawi a letter (which was intercepted by the US) warning him to change his tactics. According to Azzam, he was also accused of "creating an independent group" in Iraq, "making political mistakes", and hijacking the Iraqi insurgency for his own cause. In November of last year, Zarqawi was denounced for the suicide bomb attacks he orchestrated against hotels in Amman. He was publicly disowned by members of his family and members of influential Arab tribes.

In January, Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq" joined five other insurgent groups to form the "Mujahidin Shura Council". Since then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" has stopped issuing its own statements. According to the Times article:
Hardly sounds like the "charismatic leader" some would have us swallow, eh? And, since April, things only seem to have gone downhill for him. Two days ago - the day Zarqawi was killed, in fact - the military news site, StrategyPage, reported that the relationship between Zarqawi and "mainline al-Qaeda" was continuing to deteriorate. They reported that "al Qaeda leaders have been trying to downplay anti-Iranian and anti-Shia rhetoric, and have been strongly discouraging attacks on civilians", but that Zarqawi had persisted in attacking the Shia-dominated government in Iraq, as well as attacking Iran in his recent messages, and that he had "almost totally distanced himself from the central leadership".

StrategyPage concludes:
Hours later, he was dead.

Today's London Times reports that Zarqawi was "betrayed by members of his own terrorist organisation" and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, said the $25 million bounty on his head would be paid. Quite a windfall for a bunch of Sunni insurgents!

This was not, as Bush and Blair have described it, a "blow to al-Qaeda". We did them a favor. As I stated at the top, no one is mourning the loss of Zarqawi - and that includes the leadership of al-Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, and the mullahs in Iran. This "victory" could mark a turning point, I suppose - but for whom?

Does this change your view on whether the US is winning or losing in Iraq?

Let's see... we let Zarqawi go three times for purely political reasons while he was a threat (and at the cost of many lives), waited until he was relatively harmless, then paid terrorists $25 million for the honor of doing their dirty work for them - to the delight of radical Islamists in Iran. Sounds like winning to me.

Wertz,

Although it is common knowledge that even OBL and the Al Qaeda hierarchy disapproved of Al Zarqawi's brutal tactics that does not make him any less of a menace.

The fact is that Al Zarqawi continued to operate and was one of the main instigators of Shia-Sunni sectarian violence. Al-Zarqawi urges Sunnis to take on Shiites



There has been a power struggle between Zarqawi and bin Laden. Zarqawi was arguably the most important Al Qaeda member, with more TV time and more news footage. It was Zarqawi and not bin Laden that was taking the fight to the enemy (us). Of course, he was a murderous brute and has alienated many "moderate" Muslims, including in his home country of Jordan.

Still, that does not relegate him to being a bit player. It has been widely reported that the jihadists in Iraq are predominately homegrown. Who the heck do you think is recruiting these people? I'll tell you one thing, it wasn't Osama bin Laden.

Zarqawi had a different vision for the future of Iraq and indeed the future of the world. One that was even worse, if that is imaginable, than the vision of Osama bin Laden.

Zarqawi had his own worldwide network. As you suggest, it would not surprise me if bin Laden had a hand in taking down Zarqawi, but that does not diminish the impact that his removal from the picture has. Bin Laden’s ruthless rival spreads tentacles of jihad across region



Zarqawi's tactics have created exactly the kind of social chaos that bin Laden's attacks on the US did not create. Zarqawi is arguably a much more valuable target than bin Laden.

As I have said before, I believe that history is shaped by individuals and Zarqawi's death removes one of the bloodiest individuals from the picture. His extreme tactics (even for terrorists) has created the political mess that exists in Iraq. Now the removal of one leader who advocates these extreme views and actions doesn't necessarily mean that things will be easier going forward, but it is certainly a huge victory.

Wertz

Sounds more like spin to me.

First of all (and I noted TedN5 made the same point) how does it follow 'we let Zarqawi go three times for purely political reasons'? How exactly did 'we' let him go?

Zarqawi was not operating in western held territory. Northern Iraq was a free for all, controlled by various armed factions, during the time to which you are alluding, and Zarqawi's where abouts were never known with any great accuracy so he was no more easy to hit then than he was now.
Your MSNBC article claims US intelligence knew Zarqawi was at at Kirma, in Northern Iraq. It states this as though it were a fact.... but then it also goes on to state... ...as if this were also a fact... yet to my kowledge no such attack ever took place which leads me to assume that either the intel was faulty... or there was more going on behind the scenes than MSNBC can account for.

The argument you (and TedN5) are apparently proposing... seems to echo this......and strikes me as being a funny sort of point of view since it seems to me that 'simply' killing Zarqawai with a cruise missile (to stop attacks that never happened) is a far lesser achievement than deposing Saddam Hussein AND killing Zarqawi.

Why so much anger at the removal of Saddam Hussein? Nobody 'let Zarqawi go' and no one but Zarqawi is responsible for the murders he committed.


Second. On the basis of your Times Online article you write 'paid terrorists $25 million for the honor of doing their dirty work for them'...

But upon reading the Times Online article I find the following explanation of who turned in Zarqawi and why...

So... how do you get from 'wanting to join the political process' to 'doing their dirty work for them'?

Is building democracy akin to doing dirty work? ...or are you just reading between the lines?

I don't question that Zarqawi was responsible for many atrocities in Iraq and beyond, Amlord, nor do I doubt that he once commanded a bit more sway among some jihadists in the region - both of which peaked around the time the article you cite appeared seven months ago. That's why it is so tragic that the US didn't get rid of him in 2002 when we had the chance. O Clinton! O Somalia!

But his influence has definitely been on the wane and, as you submit, he has increasingly become a thorn in the side of practically everyone, from Osama bin Laden on down. Since January, when "al-Qaeda in Iraq" ceased to even exist, his decline has been precipitous. By last November, he may have "outstripped his mentor", but over the past six to eight months, he had again become a "relatively minor figure in the al-Qaeda hierarchy" and on the world stage. As I said, no one was sad to see him go - and it is unsurprising that he was turned in by the very insurgents that he "commanded" (terrorists who will apparently be profiting handsomely from his death). In short, Zarqawi was becoming increasingly bad for the jihadist cause and had to go. What a bonus that he went with a $25 million reward for those who will continue slaughtering members of the US military and Iraqi civilians, eh?

I don't mean to minimize Zarqawi's heinousness, but neither should his influence be overdramatized (as it has been in the US for years). He was never the sort of charismatic leader that could recruit innocents from a vacuum. He was merely exploiting a situation created by others. He may once have been instrumental in drawing some "insurgents" from outside Iraq (as the Times article you cite states), but he was hardly responsible for the "homegrown" insurgency (who, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies account for 90 to 96% of the insurgents in Iraq). And, in that respect, it is easy to answer your main question:
I know exactly who has been most responsible for the enormously successful recruitment efforts responsible for up to 200,000 Iraqi insurgents and so, I suspect, do you. His name is George W Bush.


EDITED TO ADD REPLY TO MOIF:


By not pursuing the Pentagon's plans to take him out. Three times.


The article further states, as I mentioned above, that "in January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the [Kirma] camp in Iraq." The attack was thwarted - though not, of course, by the US.


The "political process" does not necessarily imply Democracy on the March with a suitably stirring soundtrack. It could well mean the political process from which Zarqawi was removed in March: the political process of the insurgents, of the Mujahidin Shura Council. Whether the individuals responsible for facilitating the assassination of Zarqawi - and we may never know who they really are - are interested in putting down their IEDs and dipping their fingers in ink is irrelevant. The fact remains that bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Mujahidin Shura Council, and the Sunni insurgents all wanted to be rid of Zarqawi. It is their dirty work that we've just done. And something tells me that the $25 million bounty will not be going to build hospitals, schools, and roads.

I agree with much of what you posted and so does Justin Raimondo, the Libertarian who supports the website Antiwar.com. He too quotes the Strategypage.com prediction. (See Zarqawi: The Man and the Myth ).

Wertz, thanks for elaborating on the opportunities that the US had to eliminate Zarqawi early on. I alluded to this in an earlier post in this forum. The war party used Zarqawi as propaganda to support the invasion and built him into a mythical figure afterward to obscure the real insurgency it had done so much to create and had failed to plan for.

It's fascinating to me how the right-wing propaganda machine CAN NOT and WILL NOT allow the ignoble end of one of the world's worst terrorists to be anything but a justification for the war.

I don't think anyone has expressed a sentiment that killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is anything but a necessary evil if Iraq has any hope of ever becoming more than the bloody horror it currently is. You cannot minimize how evil and dangerous this terrorist was. He was responsible for the slaughter of thousands, not just in Iraq, but also in other countries where he inspired terrorists in London, Madrid and probably the cell in Toronto. Killing al-Zarqawi is a major blow to global terrorism and a significant victory for law-abiding people and governments.

That said, I refuse to let the armchair generals, sunshine soldiers and talking heads of Faux News TELL ME how happy I should be. I reject the self-absorbed idiots like Bill O' Reilly who suggest I'm not a good American if I don't celebrate the death of al-Zarqawi.

... the saddest exposition comes from Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded by Zarqawi. Here's what Mr. Berg said on "FOX & Friends" this morning.

MICHAEL BERG, FATHER OF NICHOLAS BERG: I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of the hundreds of thousands of people. George Bush is the one that destabilized it, so that Zarqawi could get in.

Talking Points" has said this before, but it's worth repeating. There are a number of Americans, you just heard them, who want their country defeated in Iraq and who do not want to fight the war on terror at all.

Now these people believe the Bush administration and the Republicans in general are the terrorists, and America has brought the war upon itself.

In a free country, there's nothing you can do about that line of thought, except expose it, and condemn it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198862,00.html

Expose it? Condemn it? What slimy rock did this slug crawl from under? I was under the impression that Americans have the right to free speech. Who gets to decide how Michael Berg should react? I believe Michael Berg should be allowed to decide for himself how to grieve for his son.

What we're seeing here is something really ugly about the Right. We saw it with Cindy Sheehan. We saw it with Ann Coulter's slimy smearing of the four New Jersey 9/11 widows and we're seeing it with Bill O' Reilly going after Michael Berg. Your personal tragedies will earn our sympathy only as long as it doesn't detract with our glorious President, our stalwart Republican Congress and our noble war on terror.

Hah! All the faux outrage from people like Nighttimer - it's simply amusing.

The Left is just as bad, if not worse, when it comes to slandering and smearing - so get off the high horse, Nighttimer.

1. It may be. Along with Zarqawi's death - there were 18 raids conducted that have supposedly yielded a treasure trove of intel about enemy activities in Iraq.

2. By all standards of war save one - we are winning. That one standard involves people such as Nighttimer, Wertz, Daffy, and pretty much most of the Left (I can just imagine their cries of defeatism if they'd live during WWII). Manipulation of those on the Left to undermine the war effort is a hallmark of the enemies of the US and has been since Vietnam and the days of Colonel Bui Tin and Jane Fonda - as per the Al-Qaeda strategy of using the media to undermine support.

Such moral outrage would be a lot less ambiguous if it was presented with some evidence of things promenent mebers on the left have said which come even close to Coulter or O'Reilly's remarks.

Oh and by the way, even if that WAS true, is that the justification you give for their comments? 'The left does it too'?



Wow that's... that quite the mouthful.

Lets start at the beginning. 'By all standards of war save one, we are winning'. Its funny, I keep hearing people say that, and then I keep asking them for some evidence/ Funny how none ever follows.

On the other hand I posted on this thread a page ago quite an extensive list of statistics which would appear to demonstrate the exact opposite of what you just said. Care to deal in facts here?

Secondly, I supose its only a matter of time before the 'the left are traitors because they don't blindly follow Bush' arguments came out. I expected them from somebody else, not you jleavy, but whoever they come from, they are just as contemptable and not even remotely worthy of dignified response.

And now we see the "minimizing" of the impact of this event begining to occur. Of course the message released today by Zawahiri tends to refute this claim:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/...i.ap/index.html



This new videotape was released today, but was probably made at the end of May before Zarqawi was killed. Nevertheless, calling someone the "prophet of Islam" hardly seems like the kind of statement one would release if Al Queda was "distancing" themselves from him...much less being relieved we "did them a favor" by killing him.