Zarqawi's Death: Asset or Liability?

I promised not to start war and political debates here but this one just can't be resisted. But don't worry, I promise I'll behave on this one!

Yes, it's great that this pile of python puss has been elimated. But now we have a question of whether this will just strengthen the insurgency with maryrdom or hopefully weaken them?

And that's really what I'm opening the debate for here. I'll throw a few shots here and there, but keep in mind, I have reservations now about what's going on over there too.

So let's hear it!    

asset.  targeted assasinations work, even if people step into their place. eventually al-qaeda will be driven from iraq, just like the PLO was driven from Lebanon.  These groups continue without their leaders, but usually become more splintered and directionless after these killings --- internal stuff like sucession battles helps.

Did you say Wood or Waugh?

James Lee wrote: Did you say Wood or Waugh?

Obviously you MISREAD that! Sorry Evelyn, I want my money back!
    

Of course the death of Zarqawi will stop the insurgency in Iraq. It's bound to. Bush & Blair say so.

Just like the capture of Saddam did.

And the fall of Baghdad.

And the first Iraqi elections.

And the appointment of an Iraqi Prime Minister & Cabinet.

And - ?

Blacksword wrote: The death of a prominant inspirational figure like Zaqawi will lead to loss of direction.

To an extent, perhaps - there is however, a school of thought maintaining that Zaqawi's support had actually been waning for some time, ironically due to the level of his extremism. The drop in support for the man could have affected support for AlQaeda on the whole, as he was such a prominent leader.

That said, I have stated elsewhere that however I may feel about the death of such a man (who was proud of the level of atrocities for which he was responsible), the result of this "targeted assassination" will probably be to spawn more fanatics, only too willing to kill (and die) in memory of yet another martyr - in short, I have mixed feelings on the matter.
    

Jim Garten wrote: Blacksword wrote: The death of a prominant inspirational figure like Zaqawi will lead to loss of direction. To an extent, perhaps - there is however, a school of thought maintaining that Zaqawi's support had actually been waning for some time, ironically due to the level of his extremism. The drop in support for the man could have affected support for AlQaeda on the whole, as he was such a prominent leader. That said, I have stated elsewhere that however I may feel about the death of such a man (who was proud of the level of atrocities for which he was responsible), the result of this "targeted assassination" will probably be to spawn more fanatics, only too willing to kill (and die) in memory of yet another martyr - in short, I have mixed feelings on the matter.

There was said to be a rift between Zaqawi and Bin Laden over his 'approach' Zaqawi is rumoured to have done a lot of the dirty work himself, i.e, beheading of hostages etc.

I'm inclined to think that capture may, in some instances be better with characters like this, but even in prison he could become a martyr.


    

NetsNJFan wrote: Blacksword wrote: It's basically a good thing. The resolve of the insurgency will ultimately remaon intact, and martydom will be evident to some degree. However, for once I agree with NetsNJfan. The death of a prominant inspirational figure like Zaqawi will lead to loss of direction. This doesn't really aid any global 'war on terror' but could go some way to making Iraq more governable. IMO..   YAY! [IMG]height=17 alt=Tongue src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>Hahahhaa.We have extreme difference of opinion in foreign policy, but I am glad we can come together and condemn Zarquawi as the douchebag he really was.

I knew we had some common ground other than music..


      

marktheshark wrote: Aren't you 2 sweet! Yeah, I pretty much agree across the board here. He's gone and now history, let's move on and get this crap over with George!

Well, if me and Nets can agree on something, sorting out Iraq should be a doddle!
     
Didn't Zaqawi have a $25,000,000 bounty on his head? Who gets that?

marktheshark wrote: Blacksword wrote: marktheshark wrote: Aren't you 2 sweet! Yeah, I pretty much agree across the board here. He's gone and now history, let's move on and get this crap over with George!        Well, if me and Nets can agree on something, sorting out Iraq should be a doddle!       Didn't Zaqawi have a $25,000,000 bounty on his head? Who gets that? I think it's some insider they had that gave them the tip. This guy set it up to meet with him and led them to him. Now you see, this is what I've been driving home all along. It is this type of old fashioned covert human intell is what we need in this war. We've been relying too much on electronic surveillance. I know this means dealing with shady characters and it is dirty business, but it can work. We need to get back to the 50's and 60's type intell work my old man used to oversee.

Do you think Saddams regime could have been overthrown, through clandestine means, and if so could we have avoided war?

I've always thought that we could have gone about regime change - assuming the arguments for this were sound - by using special forces, covert intell etc.

I've often wondered why we didn't deal with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Were the logistics not in place, or were there political reasons why we needed him to remain in power at that time?