Friday, June 09, 2006

Zarqawi reaction

Blogger was down yesterday evening -- in fact, it just seems to have gone up again -- and so we haven't been able to do an update on the death of Zarqawi.

For the time being, let me provide you with a few good links:

-- Informed Comment (Juan Cole): "Zarqawi had been a significant leader of the Salafi Jihadi radical strain of Islamist volunteers in Iraq, and had succeeded in spreading his ideas to local Iraqis in places like Ramadi. He engaged in grandstanding when he renamed his group "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia," even though he had early been critical of al-Qaeda and had a long rivalry with it... Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don't expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon."

-- Firedoglake (Taylor Marsh): "Now we’ll get to see the truth about Murtha’s case regarding insurgents vs. al Qaeda types in Iraq. The reality is that it’s going to take a lot more than killing al-Zarqawi to change reality on the ground in Iraq. Good riddance to al-Zarqawi, especially what he did to Nick Berg. But his death comes so late in Bush’s preemptive war games it’s hard to appreciate it at all."

-- The Carpetbagger Report and Political Animal (Steve Benen): "Iraqi and U.S. officials agreed that his death would not necessarily stem the violence and insurgency — and as if to prove the point, an explosion ripped through a busy outdoor market in Baghdad just a few hours after Zarqawi's killing was announced. Still, when a dangerous terrorist can no longer wreak havoc, it's good news. One relevant angle to this story, however, that has not been emphasized (or even mentioned) by most news outlets today is that Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago, but Bush decided not to strike." (READ THIS!)

More soon.

Bookmark and Share