<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font><p>I
don't agree that killing this guy will mean nothing, but, if it does
happen, it will be grossly distorted in the political world in the US.
Republicans will, again, be demanding that the liberals convert to
Bushism, even as the retaliatory attacks are escalating in Iraq.
Liberals will decry that it will mean nothing. And, as usual, I will
reluctantly (partially) agree with the liberals. But, as usual, the
debate will have little to do with the actual significance of the event
- just the usual jockying for the political "pitcher-not-a-catcher"
position.</p><p>Agreed.
Anytime you can take out the leader of a criminal group, you can have
factions form among those remaining, and the potential for infighting (BTW, something that has yet to be exploited, the vast differences among Arabs and Muslims themselves). 3-4 smaller groups can be easier to deal with than one big one. Divide and conquer. So its a first step on a long road. </p><p>As for the politics, I try to tune that stuff out. </p><p> Zarqawi has to go as a symbol of the Islamist element
of the Iraqi insurgency. Seriously, the fact that we've been blaming
every horrific attack on him, <strong>while not being able to kill the guy</strong>,
has been a boon to terrorist recruiting and morale. Same with Bin
Laden, (remember him?)</p><p>I
can only imagine that's done for domestic political reasons, but
there's no doubt it makes his legend grow. One man takes on the Great
Satan. Excellent recriuting device. And it also exposes some of the
fundamental problems with battling Terrorism. What works FOR you at
home works AGAINST you abroad. </p><p>(Clarification: I've met several journalists and
former occupation officials recently, and all of them are convinced
that some high-profile attacks are being attributed to Zarqawi - like
immediately, even when they couldn't possibly have investigated, and
fail to change their declarations even after another Islamist group
takes credit. The general opinion is that the administration simply
wants people to think of the insurgency as a few groups when it is a
complex network of many groups</p><p>It
may be both, a complex network of groups under one umbrella. One reason
Al-Quaeda has proved so difficult to deal with is how loosely it is
tied together. But again, for Domestic political reasons, you want to
sell the American public one bad guy. The reality would freak them out.
But I doubt that the Military planners on the ground aren't aware of
the complexities. And they're the ones that are in a position to do
something about, unlike us. </p><p>Basically, it will mean little, as these guys that
have become celebrities for their ability to avoid capture have already
achieved their goals by doing so. It's too late to win that propaganda
battle, but we could at least stop losing. If only we had devoted the
resources of the Iraq war to killing Bin Laden...</p><p>I've
always wondered just how hard we've been trying. As long as he's out
there, we have to keep fighting, and to take him out might give us a
false sense of security. So maybe we want him out there to galvanize
the American public. </p>
<br />
[/quote]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Kevin2700/cakescopy.jpg
My brand spankin new site Bully Baby (http://bulldogcakes.tripod.com/index.html)
Do Siamese twins have to file seperate tax returns? Or do they file jointly?