MSNBC is reporting that there is confirmnation that an airstrike has gotten Zarqawi for sure. Fingerprints were used, as well as an examination of his face is the word. (After an airstrike? hmm.) Word is that his location was tracked by a combination of tips from locals and the Jordanians being able to get clues from the famous desert video.
This is excellent news, indeed. Surely it's no silver bullet. The jihadists will continue (and the jihadists, of course, are not the only source of viiolence) and tragically this comes after the jihadists have had too much success in their strategy of sparking sectarian violence.
But it's not to be downplayed, either. In a war of images and propaganda, you can't say enough for striking a blow against someone who had made himself so prominent, a veritable poster-boy for the jihadist cause. This is the kind of thing that can sharply shift momentum over to the good guys for a good long while -- it's something to build on, to be sure.
And, while there's no doubt that someone will step forward to take Zarqawi's place, it's likely that, as has been the case with al Queda, the people who step up are often from the B Team. If nothing else it's hard to imagine that the new guy won't be less imaginative, less committed, when it comes to the raw level of brutality. It's been said by many that Zarqawi was basically a sociopath who enjoyed killing and found in this war and this movement a way to justify doing what he enjoyed. He just liked being bathed in blood. What are the chances his replacement will be as talented in the pure promulgation of evil?
It's interesting that in their rush to get out a message that defends the organization the initial message seems to suggest internal betrayal. On the one hand, of course, it's a way of defending the organization and Zarqawi's memory, since it explains how such a catastrophe could have befallen them. (They didn't make a mistake, they were sold out.) On the other hand, it's a huge risk, since those who remain, if they believe it, may tear the organization apart, looking for their very own "Fifth Man."
I'm still wondering about the nature of this airstrike if a computer was recovered, but that's almost as important as the people they got.
As I type this, NBC's Mike Boettcher breathlessly reports that the "reaction isn't good" because there's just been a bombing in response to this. Imus asks the obvious question: how do we know the bombing is a response to Zarqawi? and Boettcher is obviously caught up completely although to his credit after a beat he replies, "you're right, we don't know."
Boettcher then speculates that bin Laden will probably try to appoint an Iraqi to take Zarqawi's place.
That's a hell of an assumption. Zarqawi had only recently pledged loyalty to bin Laden, and the precise shape of their relationship has never been exactly clear. I don't think anyone can assume that bin Laden will simply "appoint" Zarqawi's successor. Boettcher also reports that there is no obvious successor since there's been a great deal of success in taking out his lieutenants lately.
Not that you'd have any way of knowing that from watching NBC.
Update: Major General Caldwell has just said, in this morning's briefing to the press, contrary to what NBC has been reporting all morning long from every bureau, DOD, Baghdad, White House, that in fact they knew that Zarqawi was in the house when the strike was launched, that he was the target of the attack. NBC has been reporting that they tracked Zarqawi's "spiritual adviser" and number two to the house and, realizing there was a leadership meeting, took their shot because Rachman (the number two) was himself a target and also because they thought there were odds Zarqawi might there. Caldwell corrects this, saying they knew Zarqawi was in the house.
I am somewhat disappointed that, five years after 9/11 and al Queda being brought to the public's attention, more than ten years after the first attack on the World Trade Center and the "Blind Sheikh's" being brought to the public's attention, not one of the NBC reporters, a number of whom are quite good, is able to explain to Imus what role a "spiritual advisor" plays to an Islamist terrorist group. In point of fact, before any objective can go on a target list for a group that claims to use violence for religious ends, someone with pretensions to religious authority has to proclaim that the target is Islamically legitimate. This is the role the Blind Sheikh critically played over a number of years, first in Egypt, then here in the United States.
If your argument is that you are acting in the name of religion, you can't act willy-nilly. Someone with religious credentials of some sort has to stand behind your actions.
This book does a fairly good job of explaining the process. But it is so central to the workings of these terrorist groups that I really am somewhat stunned to see such experienced, really fine reporters as Mike Boettcher and Jim Miklaszewski floundering on the question.
Boettcher caught up short by Imus, having started on the quagmire template http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/imuscut.boettcher.ram (6:15am)
It's odd to hear Imus taking up anything but his own quagmire line.
Boettcher blamed a technical difficulty, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Ron Hardin | June 08, 2006 at 05:52 PM