Iraq: Al-Zarqawi Rumored Killed

Stratfor ^ | November 20, 2005 | Staff

[Anti-Bubba182]

There are rumors circulating in the Middle East concerning the possible death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The rumors originated with the Elaph Arabic-language Web site, were picked up by the Jerusalem Post and now are alive in several venues.

What is known is that the United States attacked a location in Mosul in which eight individuals were reported killed and burned beyond recognition.[snip...

That al-Zarqawi would be in Mosul, far to the north of Baghdad, is plausible -- an almost constant series of U.S.-led offensives against insurgents in Anbar province have made places like Ar Ramadi, Al Fallujah, and Al Hadithah dangerous for high-value targets like the jihadist network leader. In addition, a fierce and desperate firefight would be characteristic of efforts by his entourage to defend al-Zarqawi. As it became apparent that capture was imminent, it is plausible that al-Zarqawi would choose suicide as an alternative.[snip]...

....[snip] ...[snip]. The last thing the United States is going to do at this point is claim al-Zarqawi's head, only to have to withdraw the claim when a tape by him surfaces. U.S. President George W. Bush can't afford that. Therefore we would not expect confirmation for a while.

The intelligence therefore is this: There are unconfirmed rumors from multiple sources in the Middle East that al-Zarqawi was killed in a raid by U.S. forces in Mosul. This report cannot be verified but it is not, in our view, quite as fantastic as some of the other rumors that have surfaced about his death and those of other jihadists in recent years. Given the timing, it is an intriguing report and we will be watching for other evidence.

[js1138]

...now that the Bush administration finally admitted there was never any facticity to your fantasy?

What do you mean by "finally"? At what point did the administration suggest this was likely?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

Even if we got Zarqawi the lsm would say "Yeah, but you still haven't gotten Bin Laden. Miserable Failure." And if we got Bin Laden, "Yeah, but what about Zarqawi? Miserable Failure."

[MurryMom]

Your fantasy also lacks the slightest semblance of any trace of facticity.

[MurryMom]

We haven't got either Zarqawi or Bin Laden after spending tens of billions of dollars, losing over 2100 American lives, and spreading countless rumors about imminent success in the GWOT.

So what kind of failure does that make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.? And what kind of gullible losers does it make of us if we swallow uncritically the Bush Administration's lates lines of BS re the GWOT?

[Great Caesars Ghost]

I am not uncritical. Oh no, not uncritical at all.

[IGOTMINE]

You will weep the day we bag bin Laden, won't you?

[Sam's Army]

Wow, the same 'Rats who are against the War on Terror and want to tie the military's hands at every turn are the same ones who assert they would fight it better.

Pick a side, pinko.

[MikefromOhio]

We haven't got either Zarqawi or Bin Laden after spending tens of billions of dollars, losing over 2100 American lives, and spreading countless rumors about imminent success in the GWOT.

Sure thing. But we HAVE gotten over 100,000 of their demented followers. How many died on 9/11? How many more would die if Al Qaeda was able to bring their fight to our shores AGAIN? I would normally say you have lost perspective, except you never had it.

So what kind of failure does that make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.? And what kind of gullible losers does it make of us if we swallow uncritically the Bush Administration's lates lines of BS re the GWOT?

What kind of failure? No more than you are. At least they were elected to something. As for the "lines of BS re the GWOT", you obviously have forgotten the fact that many hundreds of FReepers are either in the military, or work with the military and have FIRST HAND knowledge. All you have is whatever the DUmmies and the MSM tell your troll ass....

[JIM O]

Tell us your Your fantasy dear.

[MurryMom]

One reason I don't pay much attention to first hand knowledge about the GWOT from members of the U.S. military is that our guys and gals are out busting their butts every day, observing only a small slice of the total picture, while protecting their fannies from hostile enemy action. Even war correspondents who are chauffeured around the various parts of Iraq have only a limited perspective on the 3 or 4 or so Iraqi provinces (out of 15) where hostile action is regularly occurring.

From a Bush administration perspective on advantage of a permanent war is that it creates its own demand. The "War on Terrorism" is perfect for this because it can never be won. It just creats more terrorists.

It turned al-Qaeda from a small group of violent fundamentalists into a social movement. It lets the executive eliminate civil rights and better suppress dissadents and the have-nots in an increasingly more inequitable society. It also let Bush transfer wealth and income from the middle class and below to the ultra-rich and mega-corporations, which was the goal of his administration from the outset.

Terrorism is a matter for the police. Maybe special forces troops could be used to eliminate individual terrorists on the basis of reliable information. Afghanistan has been the most expensive FAILED manhunt in history. Where's Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the 20 odd key al Qaeda members that Ashcroft and Mueller trotted out right after 911?

What did our invasion of Afghanistan accomplish? It's a narco-state run by war/drug/tribal lords like it was before the Taliban. Karzai cannot leave Kabul. Meanwhile, the US is running counter-insurgency operations that harms 9 times more civilians than insurgents.

The 'war on terrorism' is seen by the rest of the world is a grab for global dominance, torture, murder, maiming, destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people and the creation of a police state in the US.

Mike, I hope you don't mind my unloading my biased point of view on you. Yes, I realize and understand that your view of a small part of the war zone is far better than mine. My perspective represents one official U.S. taxpayer who resents the lies that got us into this war and expects better results from pulling out as quickly as practical than from pursuing BushCo's tactics of endless war.

[JIM O]

our guys and gals are out busting their butts every day, observing only a small slice of the total picture, while protecting their fannies from hostile enemy action

In other words our guys in the field are uninformed and you as you sit at home are all knowing.

[MikefromOhio]

It just creats more terrorists.

liberals ALWAYS expose themselves. There is A REASON why attacks have been down across the board for the past 2 years. Why? Because the Saudis and Syrians and Jordanians that were making most of the attacks are dead and the others in their countries aren't stupid. Take your tripe back to DU.

[dirtboy]

It turned al-Qaeda from a small group of violent fundamentalists into a social movement.

Uh, yeah, sure, MM.

Al Qaeda was last seen bravely attacking a wedding reception in Jordan. Which sunk them even lower in the eyes of many in the Middle East. They have been revealed to be about a radical philosophy which can rationalize killing the very people they are pretending to want to help.

AQ's days are numbered. And the Iraq War was a primary catalyst for that.

[dirtboy]

Terrorism is a matter for the police.

Your beau Bill Clinton tried that for eight years.

All we got for it was 9-11.

[dighton]

One reason I don't pay much attention to first hand knowledge about the GWOT from members of the U.S. military . . .

A sterling example of why you're preserved here as poster girl for the left.

[Sam's Army]

"Terrorism is a matter for the police."

Yeah, the police did a bang-up job with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the 1st WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, etc etc.

[steveyp]

You can visit Qadaffi's uranium enrichment centrifuges in Oak Ridge, TN. It's just off highway 40.

Syrian troops and secret police were chased out of Lebanon because of US and Iraqi and Lebanese courage.

Egypt has broached the term Democracy, with a future payoff if the people show courage and responsiblity (see Lebanon).

Iraq elects a parliament in three weeks.

Afghanistan is no longer stoning women to death in their soccer stadiums.

If you want to actually do something about terrorism regimes must be changed. Having a strongman to keep the Isalmocrazies at bay has not worked (see: NYC911). To affect change something new had to be tried. Our brave men and women in the armed forces have taken the fight to the roots of terrorism: they bring hope and a chance for liberty.

If these two things can take root in the middle east we will have more allies in our fight against the terrorist and we will ultimately prevail.

If the people there cannot rise up to the challenges now before them, if they prefer to see their sons and daughters continue to kill themselves and innocents as murdering bombers-- then we try something else. But that something else will likely be more barbaric and horrific than what we are doing now-- that is unless America has lost its will and ability to kill more wholesale than our enemies. Our country creates fertile minds because we are free, and to threaten that freedom is to only enrage us and make us think of new ways to kill the enemy.

The Middle East is being given a chance because freedom and liberty have not been tried there. I think it is noble and great for this nation to try, and if it takes root we will be safer because of it.

[Sam's Army]

Ah, yes--how the left pines for the good 'ol days again for women's rights under the Taliban...