al-Zarqawi Killed: "After narrow escapes, death came swiftly for militant"

[Malevolence]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed earlier this morning. I'd like to know...what happens now in the power vacuum created by the elimination of a person so high up in the al-Qaeda power structure? I can think of two distinct possibilities:

1) Someone immediately sleps in from the sidelines to replace him, as al-Qaeda has a rather limitless force of fundamentalist militants.

or

2) The structure collapses into a three-way-war between the US and a semi-civil conflict between paramilitary groups, blowing each other and US troops up at the same time.

This whole "your leader is dead" thing helped, yes. But now what?

For a full-text articole, go here.

[Chez Daja]

Wow, I'm surprised I had heard this earlier today.

/Shame mode.

To be completely honest, I'm not sure what would happen, but I have some opinions I'd like to share.

If scenario one, was to occur, that hopefully there wouldn't be much choas or anarchy, as there would with scenario 2. With both, it's obvious loads of people are going to die -- to be honest with you, I'm not sure if a new leader would make some claim for a bow of vengence for the death of the former leader, but who knows.

Scenario 2 could be just as bad as one, if we're talking logically, here. There's still going to be anarchy, but nobody would be making the orders. Both ways are going to be feirce, at least in my opinion.

I should hope that the massive rave on Al-Qaeda will die down, even ever so slightly. A terrorist group as such, will probably only get stronger, and more angry now their leader is dead.

[Tiffany]

I believe that there will be fighting amongst the ranks in order to see who takes over. I don't think that something like the Al Quida is going to go away, just because their leader was killed. However they figure out the process, they'll find a new leader.

It'd be nice in theory to have the entire network crumble because of this, however I'm too cynical to think that it'll happen. To me, it'd seem that now they're going to retaliate even more to avenge the death of their leader.

[maxpower]

I would guess that becase the al-Qaeda seems to be well structured that someone will quickly take Zarqawi's place. However since they are in a war and many of their top officials have been either captured or killed a type of anarchy could happen in which those that are higher up in the social structure will battle for his position. I am pretty sure that just taking out al-Zarqawi will not stop the militants.

However he did seem to be a good leader and a smart guy so this does seem to be good news for those in charge of the United States army.

[Sasquatch]

Maxpower is right -- there's not really anybody left that's got the qualifications to replace Zarqawi. Not only have we taken out most of the top officers, but Zarqawi was a great leader for Al-Queda and it would be difficult to replace him anyway. This was definitely a major victory, and I think it's another step on the way to controlling Al-Queda and pushing terrorism out of Iraq for the first time in the past nearly forty years.

[Pete]

I personally think Al Qaeda will further crumble now. I'm sure violence will rise, as the other terrorists will be without a leader, acting on their own, but you know what, their rage will be the end of them. Half of them are so pissed off right now that they're probably planning on running out and trying to shoot as many soldiers as possible, as opposed to planning a huge calculated attack.

Why?

Simple. The majority of Al Qaeda aren't that smart. Sure, you may have your "masterminds," but who is strapping themselves to a bomb here? Certainly not the Zarqawi-types.
One of the major brains is dead, assumingly along with some of his top liutenants, which more or less leaves some of the smarter members around, but a LOT of stupid radical members who would just as much rather fire blindly into a convoy as opposed to calculate a plan.

Another possibility is that home-grown Iraqi militants begin to rise and take political power, seeing as nobody is there to stop them from doing so. Though I think that Zarqawi's death is obviously a HUGE stepping stone for US relations in Iraq, as Zarqawi put a lot of pressure onto local leaders and clerics not to befriend and to aid the American troops there. Hopefully these clerics will be more willing to help and to provide assistance now.


All we need now is to do the same to bin laden... except killing him with a bomb would be far too swift of a death. Grease the bastard in pork and dog saliva and run him nice and slowly through a deli slicer...alive; starting with his face then feed the meat to pigs, dogs and whatever else muslim's can't touch.

[James D.]

It really doesnt matter.

The terrorists are fighting because they believe it is their religions goal. They have home field advantage.

The Americans, despite a few humanitarians and good people, have paid soldiers, a lot of whom are only in because they couldnt cut college due to a lack of funds or lack of intelligence. They are in a land they dont know, and arent fully supported back home.

As long as this is true, monkeys could run the organizations and do what they intend to.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by James

The Americans, despite a few humanitarians and good people, have paid soldiers, a lot of whom are only in because they couldnt cut college due to a lack of funds or lack of intelligence. They are in a land they dont know, and arent fully supported back home.

You couldn't be more wrong. American soldiers are some of the best trained in the world. Most soldiers can (and do) go through college, they just don't have their mommy and daddy pay for it all for them. College money is only one of the many, many reasons young Americans enlist. A lack of funds doesn't have anything to do with it, and a lack of intelligence certainly doesn't. I'd like to see you pass an EOCA course or PLDC, or hell even make it through the physical and mental strain of Basic Training and AIT. We're fully trained, and now experienced, for the type of warfare and combat we're facing. We don't have the support of the media, but we don't give a damn about them anyway. Most of the semi-intelligent Americans have realized that they can still support the troops without supporting the cause for the war. The ones that haven't realized that are the ones still calling us "baby killers". United States soldiers have all the homeland support they need.

[James D.]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You couldn't be more wrong. American soldiers are some of the best trained in the world. Most soldiers can (and do) go through college, they just don't have their mommy and daddy pay for it all for them. College money is only one of the many, many reasons young Americans enlist. A lack of funds doesn't have anything to do with it, and a lack of intelligence certainly doesn't. I'd like to see you pass an EOCA course or PLDC, or hell even make it through the physical and mental strain of Basic Training and AIT. We're fully trained, and now experienced, for the type of warfare and combat we're facing. We don't have the support of the media, but we don't give a damn about them anyway. Most of the semi-intelligent Americans have realized that they can still support the troops without supporting the cause for the war. The ones that haven't realized that are the ones still calling us "baby killers". United States soldiers have all the homeland support they need.

Sounds a lot like the Vietnam War. Or how the British troops were trained for the Revoultionary War. The training doesnt mean anything when you dont believe in what you are fighting for. You could argue that training can overcome that, I guess, but thats wrong. Our training and technology is really on the ball with catching Usama, right?

[maxpower]

Originally Posted by James

Sounds a lot like the Vietnam War. Or how the British troops were trained for the Revoultionary War. The training doesnt mean anything when you dont believe in what you are fighting for. You could argue that training can overcome that, I guess, but thats wrong. Our training and technology is really on the ball with catching Usama, right?

Looking at the two sides in this war, I don't believe any of these comparisons are correct. Unlike Vietnam in which the whole country was communist, most people in Iraq are not all Militant Islam. In fact the Islamic religion is stated to be a religion of peace. So instead of fighting the whole country the United States army is only fighting a group of people who are trying to push an agenda. Most of that group also seems to be under-educated and over-zealous which is why they are willing to blow themselves to smithereens.

Also unlike the Revolutionary war in which both sides had a similar level of technology to use in battle, the United States has far superior weapons and funding. The British would have won the Revolutionary war if they were able to use jet airplanes, nucelar bombs, and night vision while the Americans were equiped with rifles and straped to bombs.

Perhaps Al-Qaeda does have many members which are willing to die for their cause but how many members do they have which can plan a military strike, or captain an airplane? Training can make an intense difference in how the war is fought and who wins. Trying to say it can not is like suggesting that my basketball team can beat the Dallas Mavericks because I believe that I can win and really want to.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by James

Sounds a lot like the Vietnam War.

No, it doesn't. Not at all. The numbers of casualties in Vietnam and OIF are incomparable. And American troops still have a lot of support from Stateside and in theater.

The training doesnt mean anything when you dont believe in what you are fighting for. You could argue that training can overcome that, I guess, but thats wrong.

That's wrong? No. American soldiers know what we're fighting for, and we believe in it. I won't even describe it to you, because you wouldn't understand it. Most of us would rather be back home than in the asscrack of the earth, but when we're there, we put what we have into protecting each other. And like maxpower said, believing that "training doesn't mean anything when you don't believe in what we're fighting for" would be like believing a group of average people can beat a professional sports team if they want to win bad enough.

Our training and technology is really on the ball with catching Usama, right?

It was on the ball with catching Saddam, catching or killing most of his advisors and officers, and killing al-Zarqawi. What kind of a threat is Osama? He's hiding in a cave in Pakistan somewhere, and we're more worried about the guy in Iraq planning attacks and financing terrorism. Well, up until yesterday, anyway, when the bastard got what was coming to him.

[James D.]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

And like maxpower said, believing that "training doesn't mean anything when you don't believe in what we're fighting for" would be like believing a group of average people can beat a professional sports team if they want to win bad enough.

America was a bunch of average people against the British, which would be a metaphorical professional sports team. And besides, a sports game goes on for a couple minutes, but in the grand scheme, its who wants to win badly enough.

How many Americans are going to strap a bomb to themselves and go into a known terrorist stronghold and blow the place up? None. Last time I checked, the Muslim countries have a lot of rebels that hate the Americans due to our helping of Israel. This has been going on for decades, longer than you and I have been alive.

Killing Zarqawi means that the terrorists lose a valuable leader. But to believe someone will not step up to take is place is doubting the extent to which the Muslim people want to win. If women and children are willing to engage in suicide bombing, you could kill thirty Zarqawis and not slow them down.