Faultline

Update: Zarqawi's true demise revealed!

__________________

leejo

Nice!

Lucky Shot

I agree that there are a ton of hypotheticals and one man's death will not end the war. Zarqawi was a key cog in the terrorist chain and is a man that will be very difficult to replace. It reminds me of Robert E. Lee's comments about Stonewall Jackson casualty during the Civil War... "He has lost his left arm; and I have lost my right arm." It didn't end the war, but Lee never found someone else to fill Jackson's shoes.

Lucky Shot

leejo

I just read A Good Day's Work: Why Zarqawi's death matters.

Good stuff.

With regard to comparing the Iraqi insurgency with the Israel/Palestinian situation, I think it's pretty obvious that they are very different situations. For example, Palestinians are replacing their fallen Palestinian leaders, not seeking to recruit new leadership from other countries. With Zarqawi gone, this group doesn't merely need to find a new leader, they need to find a new recruiter-in-chief.

But simply from an operational perspective, every time a senior member of the team must be replaced by a more junior or less well-known member, we achieve a degradation in their operational security. This is apparently what killed Zarqawi, and it poses a significant threat to his successor.

No, this is all very good news.

CingularDuality

You guys heard that Zarqawi survived the bombing and was conscious when US troops found him?

If nothing else, it's got to be a terrible morale boost for American troops to know that the last thing Zarqawi saw before he died was a warrior wearing the uniform of a United States Soldier.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFatKidDeath

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 — The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Meanwhile.......on Mars:

Senior Bush administration officials reject the idea that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and state with unwavering confidence that the broad American strategy in Iraq remains on course.

Insurgent Bombs Directed at G.I.’s Increase in Iraq - New York Times

And from an "undisclosed location" -

CNN.com - Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says - May 31, 2005

Lucky Shot

The US Casualty count has dropped the last several months in Iraq. I can't say I buy into the concept that the insurgents are more effective without Zarqawi...

April 2006...76 Deaths
May... 69
June... 61
July... 44
August 24

Average deaths per day has dropped from 2.73 to 1.47.

With the Iraqi forces taking over, it's becoming Arab killing, not Americans, but other Arabs in these roadside bomb incidents. I appreciate your desire for failure, but I don't think that the numbers bear you out. They may have greater volume of roadside bombs directed at the US, but it's not resulting in greater casualties.

Lucky Shot

TheFatKidDeath

It's not my desire for failure but one for the facts.

Thankfully, less American soliders have died, but that's little comfort to the wounded -

"The increased attacks have taken their toll. While the number of Americans killed in action per month has declined slightly — to 38 killed in action in July, from 42 in January, in part reflecting improvements in armor and other defenses — the number of Americans wounded has soared, to 518 in July from 287 in January. Explosive devices accounted for slightly more than half the deaths."

And the majority of the bombs were aimed at US forces:

"An analysis of the 1,666 bombs that exploded in July shows that 70 percent were directed against the American-led military force, according to a spokesman for the military command in Baghdad."

"Taken together, the new assessments by the military and the intelligence community provide evidence that violence in Iraq is at its highest level yet."

"In addition to bombs, attacks with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and small-caliber weapons against American and Iraqi military forces have also increased, according to American military officials. But the number of roadside bombs — or improvised explosive devices as they are known by the military — is an especially important indicator of enemy activity. Bomb attacks are the largest killer of American troops."


The same outlook is even worse for Iraqis -

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/wo...st/16iraq.html

Iraq is getting worse not better - the insurgency is gaining strength, not, as our Vice President said a year ago, in it's "last throes".

Lucky Shot

Comparing numbers... June, the US had 61 fatalities total in Iraq. This includes Roadside Bombs, Mortar, Grenade and rifle fire. Wisconsin proudly announced that it suffered only 62 traffic related fatalities for the 6th lowest total in the state's history since WWII. Of course, Wisconsin doesn't currently suffer from an armed insurgency like Iraq does AND we are including all categories of fatalities for the US in Iraq.

Traffic deaths in June down in comparison to last year - Department of Transportation

So for All of the increased efforts by the Iraqi's, there are fewer fatalities for US troops of any sort than that in Rural Wisconsin suffers from pure traffic fatalities. Again, the insurgents are attacking Iraqi's, not the US. Should we compare casualty percentages per war as I am pretty certain we will find this has been the safest war in the US history.

I don't feel that the volume of IED's are the single best indicator of enemy activity, especially based on their diminishing effectiveness.

Lucky Shot

Apophis

Just as a comment:

What the New York Times prints in it's newspaper does not define the future for our military in Iraq. It is THEIR opinion and not THE outlook for US forces, if that makes any sense. The NY Times has an interest in seeing Iraq fail as it would better serve its political purposes in the future.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

Evo<^|SiNz|^>

Lucky, I'm sorry but that is a completely unfair comparison. Take the total population of Wisconsin and compare it with the population of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Almost certainly the percentage of U.S. soldiers killed would be higher than
the percentage of people killed in car accidents in Wisconsin.

Why even say something like that?

__________________



"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton, Jr.

Rincewind

Wisconsin's 2000 population: 5,363,675

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

Lucky Shot

For perspective. You could also argue that it's an unfair comparison as Iraq is more dangerous. I am willing to guess that finding a similar sized population in the US and it will suffer 1 - 2 deaths a day to any number of reasons including natural and unnatural causes.

Lucky Shot

Steeler

Equivocate equivocate equivocate. Things are bad in Iraq. Deal with it. Don't piss on the Army's boots and tell them it's raining.

__________________

TheFatKidDeath

"The bomb statistics — compiled by American military authorities in Baghdad and made available at the request of The New York Times — are part of a growing body of data and intelligence analysis about the violence in Iraq that has produced somber public assessments from military commanders, administration officials and lawmakers on Capitol Hill."


How is it the New York Times opinion if the information was complied by American military authories in Iraq? Is it THEIR opinion that attacks have increased?

Please explain.

And on the contrary, it is THE outlook of the US military in Iraq. The US military is the one who gave the assessment, not the New York Times! If you have a problem with the data and intelligence it seems to me that you should be questioning the US military who complied the data and not the newspaper who is reporting the story.