Friday, June 16, 2006

Status: Post Zarqawi

Buried in the depths of the AP was this three paragraph story about the status of raids conducted, as a result of information obtained from the files of Zarqawi.

American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.

That's one paragraph and I do not want to spoil the ending by posting the last two.

Getting Zarqawi not only eliminated him from the equation, it exposed much information that has been wisely used to push the throttle down, a little further. Still, there are those that say we are losing and that Zarqawi's death means little. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean the end of the war, there are still forces that seek to destroy.

But little by little, the terrorists are starting to weaken. The evidence is in the documents captured from Zarqawi. It's been slow going, but that's what happens when you fight a politically correct war.


UPDATE: 9:30PM

When I linked that last link above this morning, it led to an AP story like this one. But if you click on the link now, it leads to the shoe bomber in the mosque article. Such is the world of the AP, that's the chance I take when I link directly to the AP.

The interesting thing to note is the nature of the article that the link was switched to. The positive story was switched to a negative one. The first link was to a three paragraph story that told of successes after the death of Zarqawi. The second, one that was obviously negative.

Now, I have no trouble with negative news, when there is some to report. That's the nature of life. There's good news and bad news. You win a few and you lose a few. But my complaint with the MSM, is that they focus too much on the negative. That, in my opinion, is the nature of the business.

15 comments:

Always On Watch said...

I heard a bit about this on FNC last night. Now, I admit that I don't listen much to the other news channels, but the few I've been able to watch make no mention of this important information.

I'll check the WaPo later today to see if there's any mention. Maybe the Washington Times as well.

gandalf said...

we should not fight this war in a politically correct manner, I see no reason to constrain our forces
when the enemy have no such constraints, we should give them large doses of thier own medicine

A.C. said...

Agree with Gandalf. Saddam's MO since the Gulf War was to "Vietnamize" any war with America, which he's managed to do.

We should use the Zarqawi death and the resultant captured docs to steam roll while the steamrolling is good.

Always On Watch said...

LA,
Have you seen Mustang's most recent posting. Brilliant!

ms. miami said...

so, have we not evolved a bit from hammurabi?

Mustang said...

The object of any armed conflict is to win. One does not win a war by being socially acceptable. By definition, war is horrendous. It is not anything like it is portrayed in films. The War on Terror is no less a conflict than either world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. The primary difference is that in previous wars, our enemy demonstrated the courage to meet us on the field of battle.

Now it is true that there have been instances in all wars where civilian casualties resulted from terrible accidents, and there have been literally hundreds of incidents in which civilians were specifically targeted. For example, the Soviets decimated entire non-Russian villages, Germans tried to eliminate the entire Jewish race, and North Koreans and Viet Cong targeted villagers in retribution for aligning themselves with UN or American forces.

In contrast to the foregoing, the Islamic "insurgents" are almost entirely focused on blowing up innocent Iraqis. They do not have the guts to face our warriors on the field of battle.

But make no mistake: We cannot win the war on terror if we intend to hold hands and dance a minuet with Islamofascists. I should also add that we did not start this war, but we had better damn well win it.

LASunsett said...

Ms Miami,

so, have we not evolved a bit from hammurabi?

Your comment suggests that we should turn the other cheek. In most instances of life, on the personal level, I would agree with you. On little things, yes, an eye for an eye, is not the philosophy, I would actively promote.

But as Mustang has said, we did not start this. This is not a little thing. These people will not stop, unless we meet force, with like force. Turning the other cheek will only embolden them more and tey understand nothing less than destruction. It is the Islamofascists that have devolved, not us.

ms. miami said...

These people will not stop, unless we meet force, with like force

well, this is an assumption. i know that my government is too proud to consider other options at this point.

of course, it took the british the better part of a century to sit down and talk to the i.r.a. (who, of course, by this time had a well-developed political arm)

morality aside. there are practical issues. it is exceedingly rare for a conventional force to actually beat an insurgency/guerill-tactic war. to my knowledge, it's only happened once (burma).

at this rate, we're set for a decades-long conflict a la israel or columbia. great...

LASunsett said...

Ms Miami,

The British treated the IRA like a law enforcement problem. You cannot win a war, with that strategy.

But let's say you are right on the Israeli situation. Maybe force with like force will, in this case, not be successful. But unleashing the guns would. Hitting them hard would. Like I have said before, you go to war to win, or you do not go.

The problem with the situation in Iraq is, from day one the critics in the UN, the Democratic Party, and the leftist hack organizations have pressured the Administration to fight a limited and politically correct war. They have yielded and that is part of the reason we have the problems there, to this day.

If all people would abide by your "turn the other cheek" philosophy, the world would be a better place, but jihadists do not. Therefore, the only thing they understand is when they are nailed and nailed hard.

Your brand of pacifism does not matter to Islamofascists. It never has, it never will.

ms. miami said...

lasunsett- well, i believe that muslim fundamentalists are more nuanced a group than you make out. plus, they're only successful when supported by larger "swing" segments of society.

i'm not sure about the 'nailing and nailing hard' bit, but if the american public (who were never sold on the idea of an all-out war in the first place) don't get behind it, i think that the efficacy of such a plan is rather moot.

LASunsett said...

Ms Miami,

i believe that muslim fundamentalists are more nuanced a group than you make out. plus, they're only successful when supported by larger "swing" segments of society.

Can you elaborate a bit more on that statement? I want to make sure I understand your point more thoroughly, before I reply.

ms. miami said...

lasunsett- as with most radicalized groups, i think that there is a very small core bent on 'see things my way or die.'

the rest, however, probably just want a better life and better opportunities and would be quite open to a political/diplomatic solution if one were available (thus far, the political paths available to them have been too shaky to garner enough crossover).

you can see this same process when studying the evolution of the i.r.a., the black panthers, etc.

once viable alternatives to reaching at least a critical mass of one's goals are available, this "swing" group tends to de-radicalize and the hard-core group becomes marginalized.

LASunsett said...

Ms Miami,

as with most radicalized groups, i think that there is a very small core bent on 'see things my way or die.'

And how many do you estimate are of this persuasion?

ms. miami said...

lasunsett- i can't say that i've studied this particular problem in enough depth to answer that question. however, historically these hard-core members have only been a small minority within such groups.

my hunch is that, given the right circumstances, the majority of the active (& passive) supporters of these current insurgency groups would happily change their tune.

all of this, however, doesn't diminish the amount of damage that can be done by even the smallest of radical groups.

LASunsett said...

Ms Miami,

There is an estimated 1 billion Muslims, worldwide. I have read that some experts estimate the radicals at one percent. Sounds small? If this is accurate, that means there are ten million of them. How many militaries have ten million troops?

I really do not believe that they care much about talking peace. Ten million can do a lot of damage, if they have the resources to do so.