That they killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is without question, but you have to wonder why they had to do it in this manner. Why bomb a house when you occupy the territory the guy lives in. Why not just stake out the place and pick him up off the street one-day when he leaves so you can have him for questioning. If he's as important as they claim he was, wouldn't he have been more valuable alive than dead as a source of information?
If the terrorists are able to pick up anybody they want at random off the streets no matter how well protected they are and hold them for ransom, how come the U.S. military and Intelligence forces aren't capable of doing the same thing? They don't seem to have any hesitancy about using torture on low-level Iraqi soldiers to try to find out information, why not pick this guy up and try to find out the location of Osama or details of al-Qaeda's upcoming attacks?
What advantage is to be gained by killing one individual, and any civilians that happened to be in that building at the time? All they've successfully done is create another martyr who has died for the cause and created more victims to be held up as proof of American perfidy.
Haven't they learned anything from watching the Israeli attempts to cut off the head of the snake by targeting leaders? These groups are like a hydra; you cut off one limb and two more grow to replace it. You may cause a temporary lull in activities, if you're lucky, but the more likely reaction will be an increase in terrorist attacks.
In fact the first word out of Al-Qaeda has been that they are planning a series of reprisal attacks. General George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, responded by saying he expected them "to try to do what they said".
He continued by saying:
I think what you're going to see is an enhanced security operation here announced by the prime minister in Baghdad over the course of the coming week and a tightening of security in the Baghdad area. So ... it's expected, but I think we'll be prepared for it. But again, you can't stop terrorist attacks completely.
I thought the point had been to prevent that sort of thing from happening by getting rid of this guy. Isn't that what this all about, the whole war on terror, a matter of ending the attacks and keeping people safe? So why is it that not only when they do bump one of these guys off they not only expect the attacks to increase, but admit that they really can't do anything about them?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joe
Your arguments are a bit silly - you claim Z is too smart to leave notebooks and databases but then you claim we can grab him off the street - because he's dumb enough to run to the corner for a loaf of bread?
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Richard, I hate to tell you this, but so long as your mind lingers in the euro-trash of "cycle of violence" and "root causes of terror", you will never understand what is going on here.
Fist of all, your media needs to call a spade a spade. A terrorist is a terrorist. Period. None of this "militant" shit. Until the CBC, BBC, AP, Agencé Presse France, Deutsche Welle, CBS, ABC, NBC all work up the balls to say "a Palestinian terrorist ambush killed an Israeli Arab last night," for example, you will not understand what is going on.
There is no "cycle of violence." Wahhabi Moslems, and their various spoor, attack those whom it deems to be its enemies. If the enemies are unwilling to do what is necessary to end the terrorism, and most of the time, they are not, waving all sorts of Geneva Conventions around and crapping in their pants because they are afraid of the Arabs turning off an oil spigot or rioting in their streets, the terrorism will continue.
Mind you, I'm not talking about bombing anybody back to the Stone Age, tempting as it is. Castrating a few mukhtars and dropping them off naked as jaybirds is all it really takes to stop most of this terror. The head of the snake, Riyadh, needs to be destroyed, and the oil fields of Arabia occupied, but beyond that, there is not that much that need be done. If a bunch of Arabs dance in the streets when a terrorist succeeds, the helicopters need to go in and kill four or five hundred. They will not need to do that again.
Arabs are not stupid, and know where the humus goes in the pita.
All of what I suggest sounds terribly brutal, but it takes all of two weeks to accomplish, may cost twenty casualties all tolled, and will solve most of the problem.
Having done this, then you start to negotiate with the mukhtars how to help Arabs make money. Everybody in the third world knows how to do math real well except the truly retarded, and they all understand that $50 is more than $0 dollars...
Mini-capital loans would do wonders. There would be peace and business and money would be made. Happiness is another matter.
3 - gonzo marx
Richard sez...
*Not finishing the job properly in Afghanistan was the first mistake made by the American administration.*
Quoted for Truth
my main bitch at the strategy of Rumsfeld, et al....they have yet to finish ANYTHING they started...
after 9/11 , everyone in the world supported us, including folks like Russia and China...all were on-board for invading Afghanistan, taking out the Taliban and squashing al Qaeda
note the difference when it came to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, also note the task is STILL not finished in Afghanistan, things getting worse, not better...and bin Laden and Mullah Omar still on the loose
Omar being crucial, since ot the Islamic world, he bears the "cloak of Mohammed"...a rewligious artifact wiht the same legend and PR value that the "Spear of Longinus" woudl hold to sokme christians
now, we have the opposite extremist view of someone like Ruvy who sez..
*Castrating a few mukhtars and dropping them off naked as jaybirds is all it really takes to stop most of this terror. The head of the snake, Riyadh, needs to be destroyed, and the oil fields of Arabia occupied, but beyond that, there is not that much that need be done. If a bunch of Arabs dance in the streets when a terrorist succeeds, the helicopters need to go in and kill four or five hundred. They will not need to do that again.*
as long as either side takes this kind of "ends justify the means" approach, then there is no reachable answer to the problem that anyone has been able to articulate short of insanely barbaric solutions
what's the Answer? before we get there, we had better be damn certain fo the Questions first
Excelsior?
4 - Michael J. West
Ruvy, my friend, you had me until the phrase "waving all sorts of Geneva Conventions around" ...which in context sounds an awful lot like "If the enemies are unwilling to do anything to end terrorism, laws and ethical behaviors be damned...."
5 - Dave Nalle
Remember, Ruvy's from Israel where they have no compunctions about doing whatever it takes to get what they want no matter what depths they have to sink to.
Dave
6 - SonnyD
Richard: We should have stayed in Afghanistan and made a showcase democratic, law abiding, peaceful nation for all the world to see. Agreed.
If we were going to invade Iraq, we should have handled it a lot differently. Agreed. And we can't cut and run and leave the new government with a civil war to handle before they are capable. Agreed.
But it looks like you missed the boat on the whole al-Zarqawi thing. Just because we have 120,000 or so people in the country, does not mean that any of them were within 100 miles of that safe house when his position was finally pin-pointed. In fact, wouldn't it be smarter to keep all military out of the area? Otherwise the meeting might never have taken place. Keeping track of the movements of the man called his spiritual advisor could not have been easy. They sure couldn't follow him around with a few truck loads of Marines waiting to attack, could they? So, finally they had him in an isolated house without a lot of innocent by-standers around and no chance of hitting the wrong building and they called in the planes. Sounds like a plan to me.
Then, there is the whole civilian thing. Well, al-Zarqawi was a civilian, wasn't he? We aren't fighting an organized military. And if he is in a meeting with just a few other people, you can bet your bippy they are al Al-Qaeda, women included. They know the danger of being in the presense of a man who is being hunted. If they choose to have their children there instead of sending them to a relative's house for the day, that's their choise.
7 - JustOneMan
Ruvy..I couldnt agree more! You cannot fight terror with "the Geneva Conventions and the UN" rule book...the fact is terrorist respect one thing power...to many "arm chair" generals on the left think that we can be rationale with these scumbags and apply social work programs to solve the problem...when you have cancer you cut and burn it out there is no such thing as a peaceful cooexistence...
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo,
Count the dead in Iraq - not the American dead, the Arab dead. Count the dead in Israel - not the Jews, but the Arabs.
YOUR method, the Christian gentleman trying to determine the "right" way to do things, has redsulted in a lot of Arabs dead. Either because of slow attrition and missile attacks, as in Israel, or from freustration with being unable to actually find the enemy, so slaughtering villages instead.
MY methods are fast, brutal - and humane. I'm interested in breaking the enemy's will to fight. An Arab population scared shitless to attack Israelis after burying 500 dead from an Israeli helicopter attack on Arabs dancing in the Gaza or Ramallah streets after a terror attack would not resort to terror again. Instead of three or four or five thousand Arabs dead, killed three or four a day in a war of attrition, you would have that 500 killed at once - and no more.
I don't know about you, but when I took math 40 years ago, 500 was a lot less than 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000. Maybe a new math has come in along with the political correctness...
Mr. Nalle - nota bene - I didn't talk about saving Jewish lives or American lives. I talked about saving Arab lives. That's how low I stoop.
9 - gonzo marx
Ruvy..we part ways here, as for me you are quite willing to step over a line i will not cross
ever see "Trial at Nuremburg"? it was taken from the actual transcripts...Spencer Tracy plays the lead judge of the Tribunal and before reading the rulings on other judges during the Reich makes a very excellent Observation which sums up the difference between Civilization and barbarism..i highly reccommend watching it sometime
the gist is that the Test of a person or a Nation's principles and ideals is not when it is easy, but when it is hardest...that is when the true character is shown, when it's hard...when it hurts to do so
i'm not saying there is no problem, and i'm not saying it doesn't need to be confronted
i'm just saying it is not the way of the America i grew up in, or live in, to stoop to that barbarism which you suggest
i did a bit on ends versus means, my first article on BC...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
10 - troll
Ruvy - I suspect that your (terror based) approach would harden the resolve of the 'enemy' and demoralize our troops by turning them into criminals
troll
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo, we indeed part ways here.
"i'm just saying it is not the way of the America i grew up in, or live in, to stoop to that barbarism which you suggest"
Maybe you would like to explain the fire bombing of Dresden by the Americans while they carefully did not interfere with the murder of Jews at Auschwitz? Explain how that is not barbarism - on both counts.
I can see the logic of having used atom bombs on the Japanese to end the Pacific war. It saved about 1,000,000 American casualties and untold millions of Japanese. It was the ends justifying the means, which was opening the atomic Pandora's box.
You're having trouble with a very uncomfortable fact here, Gonzo. Sometimes, you have to be very brutal for a short period of time, in order to bring in a peace over the long run.
You ignore the point that I've made in order not to disturb the well ordered concepts of virtue you seek to adhere to. Your adherence to treaties that your enemy laughs at costs your enemy more lives than breaking that treaty and breaking his will to fight concomittantly.
By breaking his will to fight, you end the conflict.
12 - gonzo marx
Ruvy...you made an easily understood error in thinking that i have some principle against self defense...i don't...i do think that defending yourself, as an individual and as a Nation is an inherent Right
but there is a large difference between defending yourself, or your Nation, and what you have suggested
as for Dresden...that is a debate for scholars of History with a greater command of the Facts than i have, same with Hiroshima
neither are on par with taking a civilian, castrating him and then dropping him back in his town as an abject lesson
that is terrorism, and i , personally, stand against it..in ANY form
it is one thing to strike back directly against a foe, and another when collateral damage occurs in a War...a far cry from the cold, deliberate targetting of non-military targets to incite fear into a foe indirectly
as for "breaking his will to fight" might i suggest you try and find some of the film footage of O Sensei, the creator of akido...he was quite capable of breaking an opponents will by only using the opponents own force against him until that Foe surrendered...a poor Analogy, i know...
but fitting on many levels
Excelsior?
13 - handyguy
Guantanamo shames us all. It makes a mockery of justice and democracy...supposedly what we are defending.
I came upon this article by James Traub from the January 2001 issue of the NY Times magazine. It's quite fascinating in light of what has followed. Keep in mind, this is 8 months prior to 9/11 and a week before the first W inauguration.
The Bush Years: W.'s World
14 - JustOneMan
"justice and democracy"...gee I am not sure if MUSLIM terrorists understand those rules...how naive...handy...we are defending innocent people and Americans...wake up....do you think we can still prosecute these low lifes and pond scum in a court of law...
I'd rather they rot in camp Gitmo than kill innocent Iraqis, Afganys and Americans trying to earn a living, put food on their table and improve their way of life...
In addition how can you be taken seriously when you quote James Traub from the NYTs!!!! Might as well quote "6 Down" from the crossword puzzle....
15 - JustOneMan
"justice and democracy"...gee I am not sure if MUSLIM terrorists understand those rules...how naive...handy...we are defending innocent people and Americans...wake up....do you think we can still prosecute these low lifes and pond scum in a court of law...
I'd rather they rot in camp Gitmo than kill innocent Iraqis, Afganys and Americans trying to earn a living, put food on their table and improve their way of life...
In addition how can you be taken seriously when you quote James Traub from the NYTs!!!! Might as well quote "6 Down" from the crossword puzzle....
16 - handyguy
Dozens if not hundreds of those prisoners have already been released, after being held for no good reason. Few if any have been charged, yet they continue to be held indefinitely. If you are willing to take the government's word, without proof, that these men are dangerous, but that their crimes are too secret for us mere civilians to understand, then I question which of us is more naive.
Charge them, try them, or let them go.
17 - JustOneMan
Hey Handy...you dont make sense...on one hand you say that "Dozens if not hundreds of those prisoners have already been released" which validates that there is a process...
Do you expect the military to have open court hearings on Court TV...handy that aint no way to win a war!
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo, you still have seemed to have missed the point by a country mile. The castration example is drawn upon what the Russians did in Lebanon 24 years ago when two Russians were kidnapped by a clan there. The castrated mukhtar was delivered to the village with a demand that the Russian be released in 24 hours - or all the men in the village would be castrated. Within 24 hours the kidnapped Russians were returned unharmed. Russians were not again harassed in Lebanon. A castrato choir of one was enough for the Lebanese.
Here is the point that seems to have escaped all your rhetoric.
NOBODY DIED!
Side note to Troll. I would not recommend a plan that had not been tested and tried, and that had worked.
My goal is simple - to end a conflict quickly by scaring the living shit out of those who would fight. Al Qaeda propaganda concentrates on praising shahada - martyrdom. Kill Arabs and you validate the propaganda. THAT is the problem with Haditha or bombing a wedding to kill terrorists.
By cotrast, having to LIVE castrated is absolute torture - a torture inflicted very sparingly to increase its efficacy. After all, you can't screw any virgins in paradise with no balls...
Killing Arabs, if done at all, would not be a matter of vengeance. It would be a matter of business - to teach them not to celebrate the death of those killed in terror. But again, such acts cannot be done all the time, and the act has to be done with viciousness and speed. The value decreases with frequecy as the propaganda praising shahada becomes more and more validated.
I'm sorry if my comments seem amoral to you. Jewish rules of war - yes there are such things - require that we call upon the enemy upon our land (and I remind you that Israel is our land) to convert to G-d and follow His laws in peace, surrender and give them a chance to do so, or, if they refuse to do so, kill all the residents of the town, that they will not be a snare to our people. If the conflict takes place on territory that is not our land, then the same rules apply, except that only the men get killed and the women and children are taken as captives. BUT the captives have to be treated with respect and given the chance to mourn their dead.
I've said elsewhere that about 90% of the Qur'an is Jewish law and rabbinic rulings as Mohammed understood them and sought to apply them to his own poeople. Jihad is how Mohammed understood the Book of Joshua and the rules in the Torah I just recited to you.
The Geneva Convention is nice, but reality is that you non-Jews have been barbaric bastards when waging war. The Geneva Convention is obeyed more in the breach than in reality.
But notice, Gonzo, I have not advocated applying OUR rules of war. No Jews have advocated that. And I do not trust non-Jews to follow the conventions they sign. And they haven't.
19 - gonzo marx
Ruvy..
last i'll say on this, your statement is your own, and the consequences for making it lie upon your shoulders
you miss my point...i'll not asink to the level of a beast to fight a beast..i will stand on two legs even in the face of death...i have done so, and proudly bear the scars
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
20 - JustOneMan
Ruvy.....
"There he goes again" RR
You keep building a case against you and your "dual citizenshup" perps! In addition, maybe we should be reporting you to the Anti-Defamation League for these gems..
"you non-Jews have been barbaric bastards when waging war."
"And I do not trust non-Jews to follow the conventions they sign. And they haven't."
So Ruvy, please explain,does the Israeli army have a couple of platoons of "non-jews" to do all their dirty work...they must according to you!
AND MOST OF ALL YOU SHOULD BE KISSIN THE ASS OF ALL THE "NON JEW" BARBARIANS WHO DESTROYED THAT GERMAN MAD MAN...(REMEMBER HITLER???) AND LIBERATED EUROPE AND LETS ME REMIND YOU HAVE SEEMED TO FORGOTTEN....AND FREED ALL THOSE "NON CHRISTIANS" IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS."
Please lets stop with the selective memory and revision of history!
21 - JustOneMan
Hey Gonzo...
"There he goes again" RR
The number of times you mention your hmmmm a..."inserv"....seems to be on the rise....
22 - gonzo marx
JoM...now yer inferring shit i didn't type..please quote yer reference...it ain't there, you are assuming rather than reading what was actually typed
typical for this Incarnation for you
try harder
Excelsior?
23 - JustOneMan
" will stand on two legs even in the face of death...i have done so, and proudly bear the scars"
Must be the war injury you refernce or maybe its the "fog of war"
Tell me about your scars?
24 - troll
jom - military service is not the only way to defend integrity and be scarred in the process...
wake up
troll
25 - JustOneMan
So what are we talking about when we reference the "will stand on two legs even in the face of death"...street fighting...a duel at 20 paces?
Explain....