From CNN:
A painstaking, weeks-long intelligence operation, acting on tips from Iraqi civilians, led to the U.S. airstrike that killed “al Qaeda in Iraq” leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the military said Thursday.
The U.S.-led coalition’s most wanted man in Iraq was killed Wednesday in an Air Force attack on a safe house near Baquba, giving Iraq a chance to “turn the tide” in the fight against the nation’s insurgency, President Bush said.
“The ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders,” Bush said. “Zarqawi’s death is a severe blow to al Qaeda.”
“Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq,” Bush said. “Now Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again.”
U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell said Air Force F-16s dropped two 500-pound bombs on the house, killing five other people in addition to al-Zarqawi.
A key lieutenant, spiritual adviser Sheik Abd-al-Rahman, was identified as killed in the strike, Caldwell said, and a woman and a child also were among the dead.
Planning for the operation was “a very long, painstaking, deliberate exploitation of intelligence, information- gathering, human sources, electronic, signal intelligence that was done over a period of time—many, many weeks,” Caldwell said.
Also, Iraqi security and coalition forces conducted 17 simultaneous raids in Baghdad and its outskirts at the time of the al-Zarqawi attack, Caldwell said.
“A tremendous amount of information and intelligence was collected” from the raids, he said, “and is presently being exploited and utilized for further use. I mean, it was a treasure trove; no question.”
Following the attack on the safe house, Iraqi forces were the first on the scene, Caldwell said.
Al-Zarqawi’s body was taken to a secure location, visually identified by “scars and tattoos consistent with what had been reported and what we knew about him,” and by fingerprints, Caldwell said. “We have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was in the house. It was 100 percent identification.”
Even so, DNA testing will be conducted, he said.
Of course, not everyone is thrilled—or even particularly impressed. To some, any victory by the US in Iraq is almost by necessity anathema. Reading these people attempt to downplay the death of a truly evil man—the man who was leading the insurgency in Iraq not only against evil American imperialists and their coalition lapdogs out to steal Iraqi oil, but also against the over 80% of Iraqis who have supported the democratization efforts— solely as an excuse to piss in Bush’s Cheerios, suggests that they see the war as nothing more than another front in a partisan political battle. And that is truly disconcerting.
But then, try as they might to downplay Zarqawi’s death, the fact of the matter is, ever-increasing intel from Iraqi civilians and an Iraqi security force that is daily showing itself more and more capable suggests that Iraq is not the Vietnam analogue our press (along with many notable war opponents) has tried hard to turn it into. Which will only increase the shrieking to get US troops out of Iraq now, I fear [update: Jesus. As predictable as a Margaret Cho punchline (h/t Confederate Yankee)]—too many people, after all, have invested too much in a narrative of US failure and an Iraqi quagmire to give up that spin just because one prominent butcher is servicing his 72 virgins—but if the Bushies can ride out that onslaught, it will soon become clear, I think, that what we have accomplished in Iraq, namely, clearing the ground for an Arab nation to act as a showpiece for multi-ethnic democratic governance, could be the first really important strategic success in the overall GWOT.
Of course, just as the death of Usama bin Laden, when it comes, is not likely to mark the end of al Qaeda, the death of Zarqawi is unlikely to mark the end of the insurgency in Iraq—though it is my guess that if the earlier intercepted letters between al-Zawahiri and Zarqawi are authentic, al Qaeda will move its efforts elsewhere, giving Iraq an opportunity to solidify its nascent government and Constitution and stand, however tentatively, on its own two feet. Or to put it more bluntly, after the insurgency shoots what’s left of its load, I expect they’ll concede a defeat in the Iraqi theater that (ironically? moronically?) many Americans continue to deny.
That aside, it is up to the Iraqis now to use the opportunity of Zarqawi’s death and the information gathered from the coordinated raids—both of which developments likely augurs a lessening of long-term insurgency effectiveness in Iraq—to show the political and social will to finish the shaping and strengthening their incipient democracy.
And we should all be wishing them well.
****
update: Dr Sanity rounds up reaction from the anti-war camp; meanwhile, Glenn has additional links, including reaction from Counterterrorism blog’s Walid Phares and Bill Roggio. And PJM has an enormous roundup of news and reaction here, including an interview with Iraq the Model’s Omar conducted by Belmont Club’s Richard Fernandez.
See also, Bill Ardolino’s flashback piece on Michael Berg, who’ll be trotted out today like an anti-war show pony.
update 2: From a comment over at Club Atrios, we get some sense of who the real enemy is…
Was never quite sure why we didn’t go after him when we had the chance.
Oh, I don’t know–maybe because he’s imaginary ?
Forget Bin Laden–I want Goldstein next.
Cakesniffer | 06.08.06 – 10:23 am | #
Be careful, brother. Because if it’s me you’re talking about, I have a secret weapon on my side.
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURABIA!
(h/t Carin, who plumbs the depths of faux hipster blasé so you don’t have to)
Maybe I’m just overly optimistic, but I think there’s more to this than anyone seems to be noting. I base this on the 17 follow-on attacks. Here’s why.
There wasn’t enough time between the airstrikes that capped Zarqawi and the 17 infantry raids for the intel leading to those raids to have come from the raids. The reasons we didn’t go ahead and hit some or all of the 17 other sites previously were: to avoid burning a solid intel source, and to not risk tipping off Zarqawi.
I’m going to take it a bit further, and state that AQ-Iraq is finished. Those 17 raids were the roll-up of the bulk of his network. There’s probably—well, hopefully—not much left from an organizational, tactical, or planning standpoint. This event will free up the resources that we’ve been using on Zarqawi to target other insurgent groups.
There is simply no downside here.
That Mike dude churns out some hilarious satire! It is satire, right? I mean, nobody could possibly be that…nevermind.
Z-man to aid just as the bomb struck: Do you hear som
Yup. They’ve been impotent for a good long time. They can’t make advances, they can’t hold territory, they can’t derail the political process and a good lot of muslims are damned tired of watching these thugs blow up other muslims for Allah. They haven’t gained a damn thing.
All they’ve been able to do is spill blood and make threats they can’t keep. Terminating Zarkman is…well, another nail in the coffin, possibly the one that holds the lid down.
Me, I want to know whether he really was a one legged sonofabitch.
tw: research Someone get back to me with that.
Was never quite sure why we didn’t go after him when we had the chance.
Oh, I don’t know–maybe because he’s imaginary?
Forget Bin Laden–I want Goldstein next.
Cakesniffer | 06.08.06 – 10:23 am | #
Those crazy Atrios commenters
Driven from another land of jihad, just as they feared?
So, where do you think the next host is going to be? Somalia? Could the warlord who took Mogadishu have been part of setting up a new safe-haven, a new Jihadistan, in a place the Americans were run out of?
Perhaps Sudan? But would any functioning government actually want to officially play host to these guys? Ain’t healthy.
Me money’s on Somalia.
Bear in mind that Zarqawi was killed in Diyala province far from his supposed base in Al Anbar province. There has been considerable speculation that he had been at loggerheads with the native Iraqi (Sunni) insurgency in Western Iraq and that he had been marginalized. This seems to point to a fairly large degree of disarray among the insurgent leadership. If we follow up aggressively (and the raids already mentioned are a good sign) I think we have a real chance of dealing a death blow to the insurgents.
Mr Goldstein, when I looked at your site meter, it said I was visitor number 4,733,257. I’d guess that the first gentleman you linked, Mike something or other, is about 4,733,114 behind you, or was, until you gave him his fifteen minutes of fame. (No one knows, because he’s too embarassed to install a site meter.) He’ll probably get more hits and more attention from the links you gave him.
When you are walking down the street, and you see a pile of dog excrement, you don’t need to rush out and give us the GPS coordinates.
Too bad they can’t identify the Iraqi hero that turned the slime ball. It would be impossibe because the american democratic underground (plastic face Peloshi, turbin Dubbin, Hanoi John, drunken Kennedy, sharky Schumer) would have him killed for turning their frindly terrorist in.
Ah, but there’s even more at stake here. If our efforts in Iraq bear fruit, in the form of a viable, more-or-less democratic polity in a hostile part of the world, the Vietnam paradigm will have been lost forever. “Another Vietnam” will be countered, time and again, with “Or, another Iraq”, and there will be, at the least, a rhetorical stand-off. Take away the threat of “Another Vietnam”, and what do these people have left?
I’m thinking the Atriot was referring to Emmanuel Goldstein…
[you might be right: hard to tell anymore, they seem to reference me so often these days. At any rate, I’ll fix the post to allow for that possibility.]
I just find it amusing that you can’t tell the Far Left anti-war nutcases from the Far Right white supremicist anti-war nutcases any more (this Mike guy is actually one of the latter).
TW: Why, yes, I give daily thanks that every group that I enjoy loathing – both Left and Right – have come out so strongly against the GWOT.
If somehow Z-man is right, and he’s in Heaven now, I hope Geroge Washington’s knife hits him right… in… the… fucking… nuts.
TW: Off too many places to go with that one.
woo-hoo
All together now..
Washington Washington
six foot eight, weighed a fucking ton
opponents beware , opponents beware
he’s coming, he’s coming, he’s coming…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9y5ayeeb4
Let’s see—if we had been fighting this war through the prism of media conventional wisdom—our forces would have been out of Iraq long ago (thanks to Murtha, Kos, etc) . . . and Iraqi citizens would still be threatened by Zarqawi and his thugs.
This is a great day for those who believe in leadership and staying the course.
Is it just me or does Atrios and Co. appear to hate Jeff more than say, the jihadists ? Because that is the impression I am getting.
I anxiously await Thirsty’s denunciation of the the Cakesniffer’s incitement to murder. But I don’t troll through those fetid blogswamps, so if Jeff, Carin, etc. could keep us posted on that story, along with the Rove indictment, I’d appreciate it.
Plus, I have your Michael Berg dementia from CNN.
Just saw the video from the jet that dropped the bombs.
It reminded me of an old SCTV skit where they end the skit with “May the lord take a likin’ to ya and blow ya up real good!”
I can’t believe anyone would think this would at least live up to the capture of Saddam.
I mean, wouldn’t.
Personally, I’m going to keep an eagle eye out for the first Big Media story on the latest atrocity in Iraq dispatch with concludes with something like this:
It only seems fair to provide some semblance of, you, know, fair and balanced after all.
Turing Word: art, as in, how great thou art.
Jeff,
Any ideas for “Overheard in an Iraqi farmhouse”?
So how’s Iowahawk taking all of this? Zarkman was his best running gag.
Hey, someone up top said this and it made me think of something:
This being the case, must not the left now admit that Clinton helped create a breeding ground for terrorists in Somalia, much as they claim that Bush has done in Iraq? The only difference, though, is that Bush realizes terrorists can’t be afforded any safe haven, no matter what the polls say.
*I can’t believe anyone would think this would at least live up to the capture of Saddam. *
Who said that ? My opinion is the capture of Sadaam was important and symbolic but had very little to do with winning the war against the insurgency. Zarq is the operation “mastermind” for Al Queda in Iraq. His death is a significant set back for Al Queda because there is no one with his lvl of “talent” that can run the AQ gang in Iraq.
What I’m complaining about is this is a victory in the war on terror and your lefty breathern are saying that Zarq was on the US payroll the whole time. Why not address those allegations, rather than focus on this absurd comparison to the capture of Sadaam Hussein.
Also, on another related note, I find it interesting that Zarq’s people gave him up one week after he’s ranting about a Sunni-Shia civil war- perhaps Iraqis are tired of fighting each other.
Well, that’s because it’s an October Surprise, just in June. And it’s no secret that you can’t pronounce “June” without first uttering “Joo”. So, it’s obvious, reichwinger.
Set your timers, how long before the media etc sieze on the dead woman and child to deflect praise for the military and administration and turn the story into an indictment of same.
Baghdad, Iraq (Reuters)
The US Air Force has been implicated in the cold blooded murder of an unknown woman and child when two 500 pound bombs were dropped on an farmhouse near Baquba. Also killed in the vicious, cold blooded murder of these innocents was some guy named Zarqawi. Updates to follow.
I believe you should turn info on “cakesniffer” over to the authorities as it’s comments sound like an implied threat.
This is the first i’ve heard of my “brethren.” Is this like a commenter on a blog or something?
He joined al-qaeda after the war, so who knows. Anymore I think its more accurate to refer to Al-qaeda as an ideology than a group. Something tells me the insurgency isn’t very organized, or dependent on any one person. Which is both good and bad for us.
Hasn’t he been talking about that for a while?
Man, I’m really feeling kind of let down by the left today. I have yet to see a single one of them harp on that fact that a woman and her child was killed in the attack; I’d have bet the rent that one of them would have solemnly intoned that, “while his death was surely warranted, did it have to come at the cost of civilian life?” It’s like they’re not even trying anymore. Did anyone at least question the timing?
Already done, Drew. If by authorities you mean my pal, George Fucking Washington.
dwa- they did question the timeing. In comments at Atrios, and on Huffington’s Post. They’ll always have that.
We’ll start hearing about the women and children before too long.
You know, it doesn’t work if you try fixing a typo AFTER you hit send?
Didnt they say it was someone from his inner circle? That doesn’t mean we give an insurgent 25 million does it?
Shut up, Actus.
Curses, he broke the code…
You bet we do, dolt. And we own his ass from here on out. He (they, actually) are now absolutely committed to the success of MNF Iraq’s mission. If they don’t cooperate, we drop the dime and they go buh-bye. The added bonus is that having ratted out a fellow muslim to the hated infidel, they are forever forsworn apostates by the lights of their faith. No martyrdom for you, habib. So, a nice fat carrot, and an eternal stick.
actus, some reports have it as “Jordainian officials, as well as locals near the safe house, informed the Police, who then relayed the info to the US forces. But its really been several months of intel that nailed his ass. Stop trying so hard to spin.
– Some of the Left-turds tryed that earlier with the “how many other houses and innocent citizens were killed getting Zaeqawi”.
– Answer: Nada. They’ll have to come up with something else, that bullshit won’t fly. theres an abundance of on the ground video showing that the safehouse they bombed was totally isolated, surrounded by a thick grove of tree’s. The Miltary really did it right this time, anticipating the usual leftnut screeds and lies.
– All the Dimbulb Senators are rushing to play “catch up” after spending the morning in a deep funk, and not wanting to look too anti-American this time around. Nowhere to hide on this one. Its a full metal jacket “clean” takedown for a change.
– Good luck moonbats…. fucking scumbags…
Jeff and Drew, I tend to agree with Jay Reding… consider that the Atriot in question referred to Zarqawi as “imaginary” before saying “I want Goldstein”. Not that this makes “cakesniffer” any more sane, but it might mean that he didn’t intend to threaten anyone.
Besides, why do you insist on ruining a great day like this for yourself by spending any of your time reading what those small-minded, self-absorbed brats have to say about it? They have nothing to add, other than to your blood pressure.
As Kos might put it: screw them.
Isn’t it strange that Washington weighed a ‘fucking ton’, and Zarqawi was hit with two 500lb ( 1 ton! ) bombs?
Two on the vine ?
Zarqawi and Rahman looked like bears and Washington has fucked the shit out of them?
..and that Women dug his snuff and his gallant stroll ?
via IraqPundit:
That video was posted exactly one month ago today – about the same time that Zarqawi arrived in Hibhib.
So what’s ‘threw a knife into heaven mean’?
I’m going to slap a State Department logo on that video and start posting it to Islamists’ websites – maybe they can figure it out.
Boom! Boom! Out go the lights.
Ah, yes, you’re probably right. But, you know, I just can’t tell with these moonbats. I suppose, though, that we could tie this up into the argument of intentionalism. What the author intended, doesn’t matter, right? It was how the interpreter read it. Sign, signifier, etc. You know the deal. I STAND BY MY MISUNDERSTANDING. It’s merely an alternate interpretation.
Actually Atrios was sort of subdued…. Must have soured his milk pretty badly for him to hunch down… Not a lot of places to hide on this one…His comment-taters tried a few half-hearted “Who the fuck cares”… but you can tell they’re in a funk, and their hearts aren’t in it… Bad day at Left-rock…..
– Lets all have one “Big Fat Greek Gloating Party”…Fuck you Zarqawi, and the Libturd supporters you rode in on….
Iraqi hero feels sad now.
Publishing trash like that about Washington is lower than whale shit, dude.
You are one sick dick. No more pennies in your tip jar.
2 500-lb. bombs equals a half-ton, Mau Mau. So expect another couple of non-metaphorical “bombs” in the next few days.
And he threw a knife into heaven to hit Zarqawi right… in… the… nuts. You know, just in case.
Disgusted —
Please tell me you’re joking. That Washington bit is absolutely brilliant, man! I wish I had come up with myself. Makes me feel all patriotic and such. And I’ve watched it, like, 20 times already.
Publishing trash like that about Washington is lower than whale shit, dude.
Well, as it so happens, he can fuck the shit out of whales, too.
And I bet George Washington (the original W) invented cocaine for just such an occasion as today.
Naw. I’ll bet that a lot of the regulars there including Duncan are at or in the process of trekking to Las Vegas for the YearlyKos shindig. It’s the place to be seen for some.
*This is the first i’ve heard of my “brethren.†Is this like a commenter on a blog or something?*
I’ll rephrase. Left wing whackjobs, like yourself.
*He joined al-qaeda after the war, so who knows.*
Um, the US military knows. It certainly knows more than you.
*Something tells me the insurgency isn’t very organized, or dependent on any one person. Which is both good and bad for us. *
In stark contrast to the comments made by the two terrorism experts, one of which has been tracking Zarq for years. You are talking out of your ass again.
Who needs facts when you have faith, right actus ?
good point – thanks for saving my metaphor
Actus really makes you think. Someone has to.
This virgin thing is over rated. I’d prefer 3 or 4 reallly good hookers, a kilo of coke and a perpetually stocked fridge with Beck’s. Just my idea of Paradise.
Of course if you are a Muslim, you have to have virgins. As any woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband is defiled and therefore must be killed, there certainly would not be any hookers in Paradise.
I hope those martyrs realize that they are not going to spend eternity fucking virgins in Paradise. It looks to me like they only get it 72 times…..sort of a new take on the old spy line, “Yeah, babe, I could <str>tell</str> fuck you, but then I’d have to kill you.”
– That “treasure trove” of intel, garnered from some 17 other raids carried on simulteaneous;y with the bombing of Zarqwai’s safehouse, and should lead to even more uncovering of Insurgent bomb making plants, etc.
Michael Berg was on Michael Medved’s show at noon.
The man is so morally confused as to be dangerous (he’s running for Congress in Delaware). If I recall one portion correctly, this exchange (after some ramblings from Berg about “reparative justice” – as in capturing Zarqawi and making him work in a children’s hospital) says it all:
Nope. The actual deal for paradise is that you get 72 handmaidens that are all virgins. Take one to bed a second time, she’s again a virgin. So you’re waited on hand and foot by 72 perpetually youthful and perpetually undefiled lovely girls who are perpetually and pleasantly astonished by your sexual prowess as their first timer.
AND – there’s a Quiznos on the ground floor.
Doesn’t get any better than that.
I saw those videos that the US presented of Zarqawi looking incompetent. But if the experts tell me that the US was wrong about that, then ok. I’ve also read about different people being insurgents for different reasons, which makes me think its not one organized thing. I suppose time will tell, like it does with the other corners we turn. I suppose time will tell whether Zarqawi is replaceable. And then we’ll leave iraq.
Actus, you are a pus-filled boil on the ass of humanity. The fact that you can’t even muster a ‘well done!’ leaves no doubt – and there was little before – where your true allegiances lie. Fuckwit.
My brother, over in Iraq as we speak, emailed me this about Zarq’s demise:
That about sums it up for me.
tachyonshuggy,
Oh, YEAH, actus makes us think all right! He makes us think most liberals are fact-allergic, emotion-driven, anti-American nutjobs. (But don’t DARE question their patriotism!!!)And then you come along and confirm the fact. Nice work.
And let’s all us right-thinking folk sit down with George, some good old AMERICAN beer (Sam Adams? Anchor Steam?), and celebrate Zarqawi taking the dirt nap!!!
Maybe. That schtick has been playing tepidly in the MSM and not getting much traction.
Remember when those merry pranksters Uday and Qusay bought it? A 15 yo was in the building and bought it also. Might have been one of their sons. Anyway, the left/MSM tried to taint the operation by declaring that the troops should have determined the kid was in there and gone to a Waco style standoff instead of an assault. It died quickly enough when the after action reports indicated that not only was the kid armed, but fired during the assault.
Dinner survival tip for “civilians” #27: Don’t sit next to a terrorist.
There is no substitute for victory.
Zarq knew it – and knew that as long as PBS, CNN, the Reality Based Community (TM) and the Democrat caucus was on his team, he still had a chance. That’s why his militarily insignificant murders continued right up to the moment he heard the whistle of the first JDAM.
The last three ministries in the Iraqi government have been filled. Seventeen other sites were raided in conjunction with zorching Zarqawi. Even a loosely organized insurgency has to have some organization and I would propose that seventeen missing links are going to be pretty hard to replace in spite of cheap cell phones and email.
Today was a battle won. The war continues until one side gives up.
DWA,
The Women and Kid were brought up this morning on a talk radio station here in Houston (KPRC 950). I came in the middle of it. The host was putting down those people who didn’t care about the dead kid or as one email he read his constant hand wringing. Luckly I arrive at my destination so didn’t listen to any more.
– Hope Zippernutz heard the JDAM just a second before it hit and KNEW…. would have loved to see the look on his shitbag face…..Wonder what the words for “Ohhhh shit! are in Arabic….
TW: ”above”….No need to look up there Mr Z…. thats not where your sick ass is headed…. we’ve got some special HOT virgins for you….. with lava lined twats, yesireeee….
So how is Zarqawi like a Catholic priest?
They’re both a lot more likeable with a bit less head…
Sick.
Jeff, I like optimism as much as the next fellow, but the second half of that sentence doesn’t seem to follow from the first. That’s too big of an “if…then” for me to wrap my head around. I initially supported the war thinking that the ouster of Saddam and creation of a viable democracy in a predominantly Muslim Middle East state would be a good thing; you know, that if the neoconservative hawks were good for one thing, it’d be prosecuting a military operation. My optimism gradually eroded as I learned more about the region, its history, the internicine conflict, &c. But this isn’t about me, it’s about how parochial the administration is: sure, having Bush stand before a photo of a dead insurgent leader will play well in the U.S., but Christ, how does he think that’s going to play in any predominantly Muslim Middle East state? It’s like he’s determined to lose the war on both fronts: 1) military and 2) “hearts and minds.” It’s this kind of propagandistic blunder that, sadly, makes me think the that you’re right about everything before the em-dash; and that everything after it the kind of wishful thinking I (increasingly) lack the faith to indulge in.
I don’t post on political blogs that often, so if I punt some matter of etiquette, you’ll have to excuse me. (Like, I think I’m only supposed to call you a “paste-eater” if my comment contains less than three sentences and/or a single coherent thought. Anyone who wants to chime in on this one is welcome to.)
Scott – reports from the street are seeing almost universal joy at the pictures of a dead Zarqawi. I don’t think its an over-reach to understand that the majority, in all three groups, are sick of the conflict. That they haven’t been so quick to act is more a testimony to the abject constant fear they live under. At the very least, this is a deep serious blow to al Qaeda, and will lead to a loosening up of peoples tendency to pass intell to the Ieaqi/American forces. That could eventually make it all but immpossible for al Qaeda to cary out daily operations in the region.
– But in the longer term scheme of things, expecting a true full stable peace between the three factions is a pretty bad bet. Multicultural countries just don’t get along together, much less one with three seperate groups. How that plays out is not clear. But at some point, fairly soon, I think we’ll become just an oversight force in Iraq, much like we are in Korea, with a rickety peace, punctuated with regional flareups at times. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Basic arithmatic in the ME.
Remember, kids: Islamonutters get virgins when they die. Jews and Christians get women who know what they’re doing. Very important distinction.
Am I correct in assuming that you have an actual factual basis for this insinuation? Because the fact that the (the Jordanian Sunni) Zarkman has been primarily killing (Shiite) Iraqi civilians is going to play just fine in (most of) Iraq.
And not only that, but the Zarkman’s, um, Jordanian hotel escapades that killed lots of Jordanians, were making him 1) lots of interesting enemies among nominal friends and 2) a public relations nightmare for AlQ.
But, of course, Bush blew it again… man, it never effin’ ends.
My word is change: it never changes either
Scott—I’m not sure it necessarily follows. Just my gut feeling from having followed the conflict through reporting outside mainstream sources.
Ultimately, it will be up to Iraq and the Iraqis to make the democracy work; but I think that after 3 elections, a Constitution, a coalitiona government, and an increasingly divided insurgency, it’s not too big a stretch to say that the corner has been turned.
Zarqawi had been pushing for a civil war in Iraq against the majority Shi’ites. He wasn’t particularly popular. And if you read some of the Iraq blogs today, you’ll see just how exactly this is playing outside of a decreasing number of hardline Sunnis and Baathists.
In terms of perception, which I agree is important, I posted some poll numbers a month or so back that showed that it was Americans who were less sanguine about Iraq’s democratic chances than were Iraqis.
It was a startling poll, and spoke, I think, to the power of our media to frame the conflict.
Fortunately, I have many active and former-duty soldiers who post here, and I’m in touch with people inside Iraq, so my perception of how things are going inside Iraq is different than that of many in the US who get their news strictly from mainstream sources.
As someone who is an interested in language and its pragmatic effects as your are, I thing you’d find those poll results truly startling.
Which is just a long way of saying I think the audience Bush needs to play to is a domestic and Western one.
But I appreciate the comment. And I encourage everyone here to show Scott some respect; he has shown himself to be different than many of the kneejerk anti-war folks who routinely show up here to tell me how stupid I am. Just before they wish me dead.
Scott, you’re a bright guy, but I suggest that you’re projecting. Let me digress for a bit and see if I can make my point indirectly.
I’m a white Southerner, born the same year Israel was founded. I’m also a Texan, and because Texas was for a long time one of the “go to” places for oil production there are many of us who had contact with the Middle East longer ago than you might think. My father described the problems in Iran and predicted everything but Khomeini’s name… in 1955. I’d met, and spoken to, Arabs and Muslims long before I ever met a Jew.
And because that was added to the blood libel and the other longstanding myths, up until 1967 you could have heard, in common conversation, instances of anti-Semitism among my neighbors and relatives (and from me!) that we would now expect only in a mosque in Gaza. Southerners weren’t just prejudiced against blacks!
What changed that was the 1967 war, and to a lesser extent the Yom Kippur war that followed. It took me, personally, a long time to figure out that one of the reasons Jews were despised was precisely because they didn’t fight back. Red-state culture still retains ghosts of the old “honor” system. A person who won’t defend himself isn’t considered worth defending, and may be attacked; the running dog gets bit. A person who defends himself gets respect, even if he has to ask for help from stronger friends. Jews became respectable, and later admirable, because they had shown that they wouldn’t take crap from people.
You would be disturbed if one of the people you respected or regarded as important were killed, and you’d think less of the killer. You project that reaction on others, so that you expect that Arabs will see Zarqawi as a fellow Arab and be unhappy that “one of us” got offed by the Crusaders. It’s one of the elements of identity politics that Jeff rails about, whether you realize you’re expressing it or not.
For me the reaction is much more mixed. If I know that A and B are enemies, and B manages to do away with A, it increases my respect for B (without necessarily increasing, or decreasing, my liking; the axes aren’t parallel.) If, on the other hand, B cringes away from A I sneer and consider B a poltroon, not worthy of respect. You may sneer at that as being more primitive than your sophisticated attitudes; f* you very much.
And what I’d like to suggest is that my Southern, Red-state culture is closer in many ways to that of the Arabs than your urban, pacifist, highly sophisticated one. Do not suspect me of simplisme; the Arab cultures are deep, wide, and complex, and I realize that; there are people within them who are fully as urbanized and sophisticated as you are. But, on the average, they are still respecters of strength and followers of winners, like me and my redneck neighbors. Zarqawi didn’t like Americans, and tried to hurt them whenever possible. In the system I, and they, understand, that automatically gives Americans the right to respond forcefully; in fact, failing to do so decreases respect. Consider, in that light, Osama discussing weak and strong horses.
This is why so many of the Left are always so bitterly disappointed by “the Arab Street”. They expect Arabs to engage in identity politics the way they do, to see the defeat of Arabs as being somehow an insult to themselves. It rarely happens. What does happen is that the one who defers is considered weak, to be avoided, and the one who pushes ahead is considered strong, to be admired and emulated, regardless of which ethnic identity group either party belongs to.
There is a proverb we should be pushing: “When you’re strong, you can be generous to enemies. When you’re weak, all you can do is kill them.” Do you find that distasteful? It’s the foundation stone of Western policy toward conflict. It was only later that we discovered that old enemies make good friends, and we wouldn’t have managed it without the first attitude. You wouldn’t expect an illiterate peasant to do differential equations, regardless of native intelligence. Don’t project attitudes that are the result of centuries of experience on people who haven’t had the experience.
Regards,
Ric
Funny Ric….In spite of all those “centuries of experience”, the Left doggedly refuses to learn the lesson of the futility of appeasement. In itself, that wouldn’t be a problem. They’re welcome to their march too doom, if thats what they choose. Some of us would rather not hop in the gas chamhers, sadder but wiser when its too damn late.
DOGPILE ON SCOTT!!!1!1!!!!1!
For any propaganda to be effective you need to denigrate your enemies and exalt your own side.
Putting Zarqawi all over the evening news does nothing to help exalt the man. Uday and Qusay did not incite the Muslims to violence. Saddam’s capture did not incite the Muslims to violence. The last umpteen terrorists that Israel has sent to hell have not incited the Muslims to violence; the mechanisms for violence were already there, the crazy imams were already there, the funding was already there, the homicidal males were already there.
If jihadists wanted to create martyrs of themselves, they could do so in human waves. They want to stay alive as much as anyone else, and so showing visible proof of both death AND failure will still hurt them.
A dead Zarqawi has not helped the “insurgency” reactionaries. A dead Zarqawi all over the TV will not help the insurgency.
I respect your honest opinion, but killing terrorists IS our goal, because it is effective. Being honest about that does not hurt us.
Hey, if he doesn’t mind being cast as hell for consorting with one of America’s worst enemies, he’ll fit right in.
Good to have you, Scott. Want some paste?
In accordance with the weak horse/strong horse dynamic that Ric explained quite nicely, it’s going to garner respect. Zarqawi is now a loser in the eyes of a people who have been conditioned for ages to stand behind and/or in fear of the strong horse.
You’d think Haditha would be a rallying point for Islamic outrage, and yet the only front page story at al-Jazeera that is critical of the US is the one with the headling proclaiming that the US has failed in Somalia.
The same lack of outrage can be found at Arabic News, as well as Arab News, though the latter has a more interesting editorial on Zarqawi’s demise.
I think we’re finally coming to a point where the Middle East is realizing that our kindness is not weakness.
Nah, I don’t want to dogpile on Scott. He’s a very reasonable fellow, so far.
Yes, it’s a mostly Muslim Middle East, but if you can get Sunnis to agree with Kurds and Sufi and Shia, and then add the blacks in Africa all together, then you would have something huge. Problem is, they can’t seem to get along with each other, much less us. AlQueda has generated more “collateral damage” in some places then the dreaded infidels. That’s not real good PR. And Zarkman wasn’t even Iraqi! It’s one thing when Iraqi kills Iraqi, when a Jordanian does the incitement, well, it’s not quite the same.
The Sunni kept the Kurd and Shia down during Saddam’s reign, and the insurgents want that to keep happening. How long before Shia Iran steps in to help their brethren? With us in the way, it might be a while, without us, probably not so long. How long will the Shia (who are the MAJORITY) allow the insurgency to continue? How much longer and FOR WHAT will the Sunnis continue to die?
Roadside bombs have not advanced to the point that they can detect religious preference.
But you see, that’s the point both you and Scott miss: that’s not what they choose consciously. Let’s see if I can illustrate…
Scott sees Bush in front of a poster of Zarqawi and thinks, “He’s killed a guy and brags about it. Eeeeuw.” Which is fine. It’s kind. It’s anti-violent, and anybody who thinks violence is desirable as such—rather than a vulgar necessity that sometimes comes up—is a loon. It’s the attitude all his friends and neighbors would have. It’s wrong, but wrong in a way that would do him credit if he didn’t take the next step.
What he does then is to project that attitude. He assumes that members of another culture will react the same way. After all, he’s a human being, and they’re human beings, so they should see it just like he does, hmm? Then he adds to that the notion of solidarity. If the guy in the poster had been one of the people from Scott’s peer group, a professor or a writer of some kind, his reaction (right after “eeeuuw!”) would have been anger. How dare they do that to one of my folks! So he expects that Arabs seeing a picture of a dead Zarqawi will react the same way—disgust at the crassness of it all, anger at “one of us” getting offed by foreigners.
And all of the proposals they offer are informed by the same attitude. That’s why they always fail. Worse, the people we’re dealing with are, in fact, people, human beings, and they’re as smart as we are—it’s just that the cultural attitudes Scott evinces are as foreign to them as the mating practices of octopuses. They’re still operating on the older paradigm, “the strong oppress the weak in proportion to their relative strengths.” Their imperative is that of Nathan Bedford Forrest. The enemy yields; that means that’s a weak point. Attack! Keep up the skeer! So Scott yields, expecting the other to yield a bit in return; that’s the cultural paradigm he lives by, and he’s astonished and offended when it doesn’t happen. Bush pushes, and Scott expects fear and defiance, because that’s how he’d react. He’s puzzled as Hell when Bush gets respect and cooperation, and because it Does Not Compute (by his postulates) he tries to find another explanation.
Scott and his like-minded associates need to move to the South and take up tractor repair as a profession. If he could learn the proper etiquette for a fight in a honky-tonk in Meridian, Mississippi, he’d be a long way up in understanding what’s going on. Failing that, he ought to be looking for interpreters. Us rednecks understand this shit from years of experience, and we can give pointers—we are, after all, at least notionally on the same side.
Regards,
Ric
Scott,
I’ve enjoyed some of your earlier posts and certainly your civility. But clearly you’ve missed the news footage of the cheers from mostly Iraqi journalists in the Baghdad newsroom where Zarqawi’s death was announced by an Iraqi official; you also must have missed the clip of Iraqi police dancing in the street. But I’m sure that footage isn’t running on CNN or the networks.
Ric as usual made some excellent points. I would like to offer one comment, somewhat in your defense. With all due respect, it’s possible the rarified air in the academy makes its denizens think they can transcend experience.
tw: forward; as in, even forward thinkers need a rearview mirror.
Vividly illustrated again, Ric! Not sure it’s gonna fly though. In my experience, left literati see “OTHERING” as worse than “killing”.
tw: probably
need more oxygen in the ivory towers
“Othering” is what they’re left with if they don’t project.
I once had a front row seat in an etiquette class at Jumping Eagle’s bar in White Clay, Nebraska. Made me wish I was in some other place.
tw: ran
yep, fast
Serious criticisms deserve a serious response…and it’s about two nightcaps too late for me to produce one. So I’ll be back come morning.
However, I want to make one quick point to Ric about the dangers of psychologizing your interlocutors:
You mean I ought to move back to the South, where I spent most of my life? I’ve never been in a fight in Meridian, but I’ve been sucker-punched by a couple of good ol’ drunks in Bunkie, Louisiana after a long day on the Muddy Mile. In other words, about 90% of the assumptions you made about my character are inaccurate. (Also, I should note that I don’t think I’ve heard any of my kin in Macon–a small town about an hour north of Meridian–say “honky tonk.” I know that’s just an example, and that your general point may hold, but I find it amusing that of all the towns you could’ve picked, you chose the last major one I drove through every time I made the trek from Baton Rouge to Macon.)
But as I said earlier, I’ll have a more substantial response to Ric and everyone else up in the morning.
Sweet. A two-day dog-pile! Is it Christmas or did I just wake up in Tijuana? Or was it Castro Street?
TW: Drink…as in magickal beer.
That first schmuck you linked, at mcomike.com, really has nothing to commend him.
I might just be tired, but I’ve recently found myself shrinking the list of people whose opinions are even worth recognizing. Not that it will or even should bother him, but he ain’t on the list.
“But this isn’t about me, it’s about how parochial the administration is: sure, having Bush stand before a photo of a dead insurgent leader will play well in the U.S., but Christ, how does he think that’s going to play in any predominantly Muslim Middle East state?”
Neo-conservatism is an opportunity for them to get their house in order. If something such as that plays bad, then it is indicative their irrationality and hostility, and not something we can placate.
If we need to hide the elimination of terrorists (especially those as vile as Zarkawi) from the greater Muslim world, then they’re one step closer to being being our enemies as well.
“And because that was added to the blood libel and the other longstanding myths, up until 1967 you could have heard, in common conversation, instances of anti-Semitism among my neighbors and relatives (and from me!) that we would now expect only in a mosque in Gaza. Southerners weren’t just prejudiced against blacks!”
Reminds me of a story my father once told me about the time he had car trouble in the Deep South in the 1960s. He and his friend woke up in the middle of the night to a burning cross outside their hotel room. The friend took off the next morning, and my father never forgave him for leaving him there with his car.
Scott, I’m from East Texas, the part of Texas that’s more similar to Mississippi than it is to Lubbock. “Honky-tonk” is a correct idiom there, but, as the movie Easy Rider demonstrates, there are a bunch of people around who think big belt buckles and cactus begin at the Sabine, so I rarely use my home area as an example. I’ve never been punched out in Bunkie, or in Macon, Mississippi. Macon, Georgia, now…
And yeah, I could have left out the snark to good advantage, but, then, generally so could you and some of your allies. I’m not psychoanalyzing anybody. I’m reporting an observation, like a scientist taking notes.
I’ll be interested in your response. It’ll be this afternoon before I can reply to it—I have animals to feed and a day on the job ahead of me, and I’m already at a late start. See you later.
Regards,
Ric
“And BABY DUCKS, B.D.! BABY DUCKS!”
I don’t remember saying they KNEW where they were marching, just that the results of their wrong headed read on human nature will not sweeten thier tea, particularly in a region of the world where strong horse/weak horse is like breathing in, and breathing out. And in that misfortune, I’m not at all obligated to join them.
I think the disconnect in Scott’s thinking may be that the power of the victimization cult, once you go outside the borders of Western Civilization™, isn’t all that great.
The grievances we hear about from the Middle East are communicated through Western media, by people who place great store in the power of being depicted as Th Victim™. I’m just not convinced that’s an accurate portrayal of the mindset of most people in the Muslim world.
Well, the Iraqis are dancing in the streets. More than anything, it reminds me of this. How does that play?
Mocking Zarqawi and reveling in his death is not just acceptable but laudable. To the extent we or the Iraqis treat him with respect, we legitimize him. Ask the widows and orphans of those he murdered in the name of suppressing freedom and democracy how much respect he deserves.
I’m enjoying the fact Zarqawi isn’t able to kill/oppress innocents anymore, and that his death will serve as an example to others who would do likewise. And I’ll go on savoring that indefinitely.
Jeff, you’re certainly correct to think that there’s a PR problem at home, and that there were people celebrating in the streets yesterday. But those people were Iraqis, and while they may be tiring of the latest Sunni/Shi’ite conflict, I’m not sure people outside Iraq are. I’m not sure the people who poured and continue to pour into Iraq are. I see your point: the more quickly Iraqi resolve is strengthened, the more quickly the corner can be turned (if it hasn’t, as you suggest, already been). But I’m less sanguine about the effect this will have on Al-Qaeda in Iraqâ€â€both direct and indirect–as well as its effect on Al-Qaeda’s global terror network. I’m responding to this offline–ironically, from an “internet café” where I’m meeting with studentsâ€â€so I can’t link to the articles I’ve read about the role of the Internet in what’s quickly becoming a global jihad. Al-Qaeda’s a remarkably acephalous (no pun intended) organization, one in which top-down, hierarchical leadership barely matters. It’s not like the quick dissolution of the German’s will to fight after news of Hitler’s death spread so much as the favored tactic of the New Left in the ‘60s: i.e. it’s largely a matter of symbolic politics. Individual Iraqis may rejoice, but global jihadists are already silk-screening the picture of al-Zarqawi’s calm, peaceful countenance above phrases like “For Us and For Allah.” (The serenity on his face may work in his favor. Of course he’s peaceful in death; he died defending Allah’s will &c.
Now I don’t know anyone on active duty in Iraq, but I know a number of people in Afghanistan, so my perspective on Iraq’s necessarily colored by Islamic opinion from outside its borders. From what I’ve been told, almost everyone caught sneaking across the borders supports the insurgents and their ideological project. I see this as a problem, and one that will only worsen the more viable martyrs we provide them. Contra Ric, who thinks I’m projecting here, I know that I’m speaking to the working of the jihadist cult of the martyr, and that Bush’s press conference pretty much guarantees his immediate apotheosis. I think I understand your larger point: the more successful we are at winning Iraqi hearts and minds, the sooner we can pull our troops out and the sooner the situation can stabilize. I buy the former, but I see the latter as an entirely different matter; we may be behaving in ways that will allow us to leave more quickly, but we’re not accomplishing the original neoconservative goal: a stable democracy in the Middle East. I think we’re creating a country ripe for imported “internicine” conflicts. I suspect this may be my general pessimism about the fragile Iraqi coalition holding together. (Yes, I know there were strides in terms of appointments today, but I’m still conflicted about the possibility for long term stability.)
Ric, I addressed the problem with you psychologizing my reaction last night, but I did so geographically, so my rebuttal makes no more sense than your initial point. Where I’m from has little to do with my assessment of the situation in Iraq. My point isn’t that I’d think less of someone who killed a respected leader in my community; my point is that Bush’s presentation of al-Zarqawi plays into the economy of martyrdom which, ideally, we should be trying to bankrupt. Yes, in some placesâ€â€including Iraqâ€â€it’s lost and/or is losing currency; but Iraq’s borders aren’t secure, and if the American forces pull out, they’ll be even less so. Bush was careful to play up the role of Iraqi forces in taking out al-Zarqawi, but do you think they could have done so without American support? Do you think they could maintain what control they have over the borders without American support? My point isn’t that we should try to appease would-be terrorists, but that we shouldn’t be producing their propaganda for them.
Now, I’m not sure I follow your Red State/respect-for-Israel analogy, in large part because even if you’re correctâ€â€even if the Jews were despised before the Yom Kippur War for not defending themselvesâ€â€now they’re despised for doing so too aggressively. Not that this is here nor there concerning Bush’s press conference and how it will play in the Middle East. Bush wasn’t showing strength standing before the serene face of the deceased al-Zarqawi, he was gloating from half a world away. Notice the difference between the insurgent videos in which strength is shown: the captive pleads for his or her life; the terrorist praises Allah; the captive’s pushed to the floor, held down and is beheaded. That is a show of strength, of resolve; not a man in a dapper suit standing before a framed photo of a martyr. (I could almost turn this argument back on you and say that you’re importing your idea of what constitutes a “show of strength” onto a culture which would reject it out-of-hand.)
Quick note:
In the future, you’re welcome to address me and my arguments alone, without reference to those made by people I don’t know and therefore won’t defend.
Finally, I think Jeff’ll tell you that I’m the last person who’d appeal, consciously or otherwise, to an identitarian position. If I’m keyed to recognize anything, it’s the slightest hint of self-aggrandizing identitarianism in my words. I do, however, find quite a bit of it in yours: you’re evincing solidarity with the insurgent mindset based not on ideology or class but on some essential, mysterious cultural heritage. Yours, however, is even more strained than that of the typical identitarian because it doesn’t even presuppose an imagined cultural continuity (whereas the identitarian, to cite Walter Benn Michael’s example from Our America, latches onto something like “the soul of black folk”). I say this to clarify, not attack; my position isn’t informed by an imagined identification with people fundamentally unlike me, yours is. Even if you’re correct, that is, even if the equivalence you posit holds, your argument depends upon that imagined identification and you’ve used it to discredit, or at least undermine, my position. It’s no different, structurally, from the argument that “Only African-Americans can understand this issue because only we have our heritage.”
Vercingetorix, the reason Uday, Qusay and Saddam didn’t incite jihadists to violence was because they were, respectively, the hated leader and hated henchmen of the secular, Baathist regime. The difference between that and a prominent, martyred figure in the jihadist movement is marked. Also, I’m not opposed to punishing those who so richly deserve itâ€â€my initial support for the war was predicated on this ideaâ€â€but I don’t buy the idea that a dead Iraqi terrorist leader of a diffuse global network will necessarily be effective in the long run, and if that death becomes fodder for its propaganda mill, it could actually backfire. I’m not sure the administration understands its enemy or how best to fight the propaganda war; they seem to believe that if they trumpet their intent loudly enough‗We want to bring freedom and democracy. We want to bring freedom and democracy. We want to bring freedom and democracy.”â€â€those statements will suddenly be accepted by their audience. Bush’s occasional pissiness with the media about how they’re not focusing on what Bush says, either himself or by proxy, says that he’s more concerned with them understanding why he’s doing what he’s doing, and that, conversely, he’s not worried about the possibility that those statements won’t be effectiveâ€â€only that they won’t be heard.
McGehee:
As stated above, I’m not sure why you think I appealed and/or belong to a cult of victimization. Who, exactly, did I think was being victimized and who did I suggest was the victimizer? Your comment seems to suffer from a disconnect between what I said and, well, I don’t know, what you think my secret motivations for saying it are? Was it all the talk of propaganda? Was it my pessimism? I don’t see it. That said, I think these kind of reflexive responses undermine the ability of political discourse to transcend the shouting stage and become something, you know, genuinely discursive.
TallDave, I’m as happy as the next guy that a confirmed monster won’t be able to terrorize Iraqi civilians and American forces. But I’m not sure that his death will serve as an example to others who would do likewise. He’s the, what, ninth or tenth Al Qaeda second-in-command we’ve arrested and/or killed in the past four years?
Alright, these are all the responses I saw when I left for this internet-less internet café at 10:15 a.m. I’ll post this then check back for subsequent replies later on this afternoon.
Cripes, the only other place in the world I had seen one of those was at Yavoriv Training Area, Ukraine…
Completely irrelevant and parenthetical, but if you’re still reading this, Scott: I clicked over to your blog Acephalous and very much liked the Derrida-as-Magneto bit. That was wicked funny.
Although if you’re looking to limn a markedly French philosopher, shouldn’t you have gone with the Toad? (The problem is, now I’m seeing other parallels here – Nightcrawler as Kierkegaard, maybe? Charles Xavier as Kant? And what of Wolverine – Nietzsche, or is that too obvious?)
Master Tang, I’d have gone for the easy froggie/toad thing, but the fact of the matter is, I’ve taken two courses with Derrida…and in that panel Magneto is a dead ringer for Derrida. Or vice versa.
I suppose this is what makes me a strange beast on a conservative blogâ€â€outside of Jeff, I’m probably one of the only people who has studied with the postmodernists he criticizes. I mock the people most conservatives do, but I do so from a position of knowledge…and with no regard for my own reputation. You see, I used to be really, really stupid. Not because I was a liberal, mind youâ€â€I’m still one of thoseâ€â€but I was young and easily manipulated by complete and utter bullshit. However, I don’t include Derrida in that category; he was a careful, diligent scholar who never spoke spontaneously. Sure, you can disagree with him, but you can’t complain he’s sloppy in the way that, say, his myriad disciples are. If you read Derrida, you learn to appreciate the suppleness and seriousness of his thought…even when you think he’s absolutely and entirely wrong. (As Jeff and I do.)
He’s got a bad reputation, but he was a serious thinker. Unfortunately, most of the people who were influenced by him aren’t. All of which is a long, long way of saying: I don’t think one should condemn a thinker without seriously engaging with him or her.
As for Wolverine, well, I think that title has to go to Russell or one of the analytic luminaries. After all, they were the folks who sliced and diced the metaphysical noodling which preceded them, no?
Scott wrote:
This begs the question: Which came first: Bush’s “pissiness” with the press, or the press’ loathing all things Bush? It’s pretty common knowledge that greater than 85% of the Washington press corps are solidly Democratic; all one has to do is watch a Press Secretary briefing or two and that becomes crystal clear, and it has been demonstrated now for what is becoming the sixth straight year. The reporting on the rest of the “news” shows by the major networks reveals the same thing. The major dailies are often worse, like the Dallas Morning Pravda.
The press knows a thing or two about propaganda (I’m starting to believe that’s all they know), and they’ve been pretty much on the anti-Bush bandwagon since he was sworn in, and on the anti-American bandwagon since, oh, 1968 or so.
Something to add to the mix here. From MSNBC/WaPo, “Al-Zarqawi’s death could shake al-Qaida: Loss of Iraq’s top terrorist may further weaken bin Laden’s grip on jihadists.”
A bit I was able to excerpt (some parts of the page are rendering strangely):
. Me, I wouldn’t put my money on ‘nationalist insurgents’ who don’t represent the will of the nation they are acting as ‘nationalist insurgents’ against.
YMMV.
“â€â€even if the Jews were despised before the Yom Kippur War for not defending themselvesâ€â€now they’re despised for doing so too aggressively.”
They’re despised for something a bit more basic than that.