Will This End The Insurgency?

Arab web sites reflected reverence and revulsion.
"Thank God this wayward infidel is dead," wrote Azizi on al Saha Web site at www.alsaha.com. "It's enough that he's an ally of Osama bin Laden, the sheikh of terror and terrorists. All true believers have been relieved of his evil."

Killed by a US Air Force bomb, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi leader of the group deceptively re-named “al-Qaeda in Iraq” was Iraq's most notorious insurgent. The Jordanian militant first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid insurgent group. Sceptics said his influence was exaggerated by the US.

In the run-up to the Iraq war in February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Zarqawi was an associate of Osama Bin Laden who had sought refuge in Iraq. He was in Baghdad according to Mr Powell and this was a proof Saddam Hussein was courting al-Qaeda, which, in turn, justified an attack on Iraq. Some analysts at the time contested the claim, pointing to Zarqawi's historical rivalry with Bin Laden.

Was Al-Zarqawi a Bin Laden ally or a rival?

Not long after his release under a general amnesty in 1999, he fled the country. Jordan tried him in absentia and sentenced him to death for allegedly plotting attacks on American and Israeli tourists. Western intelligence indicated Zarqawi had sought refuge in Europe.

German security forces uncovered a militant cell which claimed Zarqawi was its leader. Cell members told their German interrogators their group was "especially for Jordanians who did not want to join al-Qaeda."

According to the German intelligence report, this "conflicts with US furnished information. He is believed to have set up a training camp in the western Afghanistan city of Herat, near the border with Iran. It is during this period that Zarqawi is thought to have renewed his acquaintance with al-Qaeda.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks and the US invasion of Afghanistan, he is believed to have fled to Iraq after a US missile strike on his Afghan base. He was blamed for some of the first large insurgency attacks to shake Iraq following the US-invasion to overthrow Saddam.

It was also reported that Zarqawi was forced to step down as leader of his group. A leading Islamist who was behind the reports, Huthaifa Azzam, said some followers had been unhappy about Zarqawi's tactics and tendency to speak for the insurgency as a whole. But like so much else about Zarqawi's life, the real facts seem likely to remain shrouded in uncertainty.

The US offered a $25 million in gold bounty on Zarqawi the same sum they have offered for Bin Laden.

Both men rose to prominence as "Afghan Arabs" leading foreign fighters in the US funded and supplied struggle against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Zarqawi's youth was as a petty criminal in Jordan and is remembered by those who knew him as a simple, quick-tempered and barely literate gangster. He spent seven years in prison there, accused of conspiring to overthrow the monarchy and establish an Islamic caliphate.



[edit on 6/8/2006 by donwhite]

No, I think this will feed the insurgency in the long term. The more that America celebrates the death of this guy, the more importance they place upon his death, the more it encourages the disenfranchised to become like al-Zarqawi. The best way to play this it to announce it, then move on quickly, completely ignoring the death, treating it like a dog was run down in the street. Doing otherwise will just continue to feed the numbers willing to lay their life on the line to inflict damage on the west and develop an infamous following.

The more we relish in his death (alledged at this time) the bigger this bozo becomes. It won't stop the insurgency but it might slow it a very small bit. These types of people like him are nothing more than cowards that have only one option Fear. But if it turns out he's dead - I say a big "right on " . But all in all I do not see much of a slow down.

Al-Zarqawi was so extreme that he probably put people of the Resistance. He helped divide between Shiite and Sunni; and he caused more fury than he did distress in the West.
His actions helped prevent Westerners have any sympathy with the brave people resisting the occupation of their country. By cutting peoples heads of he made every decent person (Western or Iraqi) angry.
In many ways his actions in life had an more indirect ways of helping of the West than they had direct ways of resisting it. Just as in death he has once again helped Western policy but creating yet another propaganda victory.

It might weaken the extreme Sunni Islamist faction, but I doubt it's going to weaken the insurgency in general. If anything, by ridding them of a divisive extremist, it may actually strengthen them. Zarqawi's attacks on random civilians and obsession with fomenting an internal war between Sunni and Shiite alienated a lot of traditional Ba'athist Sunni types.

Still, I am happy to hear the man is dead.

Will this end the insurgency?

No, of course not. The Iraqi insurgents are hell bent on getting the foreigners out of their countries.

For them it is sacreligious for someone to occupy "their" land. There are others than he who was killed today.

I agree with those who think it will make little or no difference.

By some reports, the "terrorists" were outnumbered by the "insurgents" 8 to 1.

Zarqawi was in the former goup, but may have inspired many in the latter group. will his death slow the Jihadists (terrorists)? maybe a little. But they are the smaller group we're fighting.

Every day this war goes on and innocent citizens are killed, the insurgency grows.

The greatest threat to the stability of Iraq (IMO) is not the Sunni minority insurgency, it's the Shiite militia. They're operating under the umbrella of the official government, and with the support of the United States, and they're rampaging and killing unchecked.

Religious extremists are dangerous, there's no two ways about it.

The best possible thing that could happen to Iraq would be widespread amnesia, followed by an extended period of rebuilding. The majority of Iraqis, before the invasion, did not discriminate against members of another sect. They considered themselves muslims, and the religious differences were discussed and aired out by theologians, not armed gunmen in the streets.

mr peel
I agree it [Zarqawi’s death] will make little or no difference. Reports say the "terrorists" were outnumbered by the "insurgents" 8 to 1. Zarqawi was a terrorist, but may have inspired many insurgents. His death will slow the Jihadists terrorists a little. But they are the smaller group we're fighting. Every day this war goes on the insurgency grows. [Edited by Don W]

It is odd that you say it is the insurgents “we are fighting.” Two years ago it was reported most people in Iraq were inspired to fight only because of the foreign occupation. The so-called Coalition Forces, which is to say, the United States and the coalition of the willing. Which is why I advocated then and I advocate now the Coalition Forces remove themselves from Iraq as fast as they can get plane tickets out. The argument is we “owe” the Iraqis not to cut and run. The truth is we want a government amenable to American oversight.

America’s rulers are willing to stay as long as 1) we need to for our interests, and 2) they can keep the American public bumfuzzled. I have lived through this “we owe” mis-statement of reality before. It was called Vietnam. We know the condition in Iraq today. My question is, how much better off will Iraq be if we stay? We stayed in Vietnam 6 years after the public voted for us to leave it.

posted by WyrdeOne
IMO, the greatest threat to the stability of Iraq is not the Sunni insurgency, it's the Shiite militia. They're operating with the support of the United States, and they're rampaging and killing unchecked. The best possible thing that could happen to Iraq would be widespread amnesia, followed by an extended period of rebuilding. [Edited by Don W]

Yes, W/O, maybe if we laced the Iraqi public water system with several tons of '___', we could have peace? Short of that chemical miracle, it looks as if everyone in our government is saying this [killing of Zarqawi] is definitely not the end of the war. We must keep on fighting and killing! That is our mantra. Fight and Kill.

The majority of Iraqis, before the invasion, did not discriminate against members of another sect. They considered themselves Muslims, and the religious differences were discussed and aired out by theologians, not armed gunmen in the streets.

Whatever good will existed in Iraq 2003, we squandered it. Whether it will ever return is problematical. I am not aware of anything the US is doing to help restore religious tolerance. That would surprise me as I have never heard Geo W called a religiously “tolerant” man. Or tolerant on any topic. I’m afraid we are creating another Israeli versus Palestinian kind of quagmire.



[edit on 6/8/2006 by donwhite]

This WILL free up resources committed to his capture or killing to perform other tasks.
It WILL increase respect for Americans in country.
Spin whatever conspiracy fantasy you want, this is a win for Bush.

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
No, I think this will feed the insurgency in the long term. The more that America celebrates the death of this guy, the more importance they place upon his death, the more it encourages the disenfranchised to become like al-Zarqawi. The best way to play this it to announce it, then move on quickly, completely ignoring the death, treating it like a dog was run down in the street. Doing otherwise will just continue to feed the numbers willing to lay their life on the line to inflict damage on the west and develop an infamous following.

So when kill one of ours it's a win for them and when we kill one of theirs it a win for them.

Right..

Look by any measure, this was big, swift kick in the junk for AQ and anti-democratic forces in Iraq. He was the face of AQ in Iraq and represented a psychological rallying point for AQ and the insurgency. He ability to elude America embolden and inspired the terrorist. But now we’ve shown that no one in Iraq is beyond the reach of America power.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Number23]

Originally posted by Number23
So when kill one of ours it's a win for them and when we kill one of theirs it a win for them.

Right..

Look by any measure, this was big, swift kick in the junk for AQ and anti-democratic forces in Iraq. He was the face of AQ in Iraq and represented a psychological rallying point for AQ and the insurgency. He ability to elude America embolden and inspired the terrorist. But now we’ve shown that no one in Iraq is beyond the reach of America power.
[edit on 9-6-2006 by Number23]

Though I want to agree with you, #23, and I do think that this would be quite a kick in the kajones for AQ, I think for a while this is going to fuel some fires. If we would catch (and notice I didn't say kill) OBL, we would make much more of a statement. I have read since 9-11 in may articles though, that they can throw someone into a killed "comrade's" place very quickly.

The reason I don't want to see OBL killed immediately is so we can try him in Int'l Court and see if he would maybe shame himself to the degree that other terrorists can see their leader, and have a little more to think about. When we just kill these people quickly they're going to try to reach martyr status quickly.