(Now that the “24-hour rule” has passed on the death of Zarqawi, I feel comfortable in discussing his death, and what it may mean in the war on terror.)
When someone is an expert in a field, they tend to apply that expertise to other areas, even if it isn’t always a good fit. It’s human nature, to compare things to those we know most about, in the hopes of making sense of events.
I am no expert on World War II, but it is a bit of a hobby of mine, in particular the war against Japan. So it is to that subject that I make my analogies on the War On Terror, whenever I can make it fit without stretching too much.
The death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi reminds me of two key events during the Pacific war. The first was the Doolittle Raid.
Barely four months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States bombed the home islands of Japan. The 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers did almost no damage, but it was a great propaganda victory. The Japanese went nuts trying to figure out where the bombers came from, as Mitchells were Army Air Corps planes, land-based, and we had no bases anywhere near Japan.
What had happened was that the United States had done the unthinkable: we had loaded the big two-engine bombers on to an aircraft carrier, the USS Hornet, and sent it within 700 miles of the Japanese mainland. The planes were stripped of all guns and excess weight, and each only carried four small bombs, and even then not one of them made their designated landing areas in China.
The second comparison was the killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Yamamoto, the head of the Japanese Navy and the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, was on a tour of Japanese positions in March of 1943. US Navy code-breakers got ahold of his schedule, and a squadron of P-38 Lightning long-range fighters intercepted his flight. Yamamoto’s plane was shot down over the island of Bougainville, and Yamamoto was killed.
The Doolittle raid was of absolutely no tactical significance during the war. The damage to Japan was minimal. The real affect of the raid was purely psychological. It was seen as the first crumblings of Japan’s sense of invincibility, of the inviolability of their home islands. And in America, it was seen as a stunning victory, a sign that we could — and would — avenge the attack on Pearl Harbor and maybe — just maybe — win this war despite the crushing outset.
Admiral Yamamoto was a hero, a legend among the Japanese. He was one of the most revered leaders, second only to the divine and beloved Emperor. His death was such a shock that the Japanese government kept it a secret for a month.
The death of Zarqawi — so public, so irrefutable — could be a great blow to the terrorists in Iraq. For many, he was almost a folk hero, the swaggering, untouchable warrior. To see him snuffed out so casually, over and over and over again in the media, could very well give some pause, and make them reconsider.
The extent of this factor may never be truly known. One of the strengths of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq is its anonymity, of the enemy’s ability to simply fade into the civilian backdrop. The difference between a retired terrorist and an undercover terrorist is almost indistinguishable, until the undercover one decides to return to work. Zarqawi’s killing might convince a few of them to simply disappear back into the quiet civilian life.
On the other hand, those who were most frequently Zarqawi’s victims — the average civilian populace of Iraq — are seeing his death as a cause for celebration. He will no longer kidnap, torture, and behead people at will. He will not plan and order more bombings. Others may succeed him, but “the Prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq” is dead.
Yes, the “Prince” is dead. Others may succeed him, but there will not likely be anyone to take his place. He was a canny exploiter of the media, a master manipulator of the latest forms of public relations. He carefully sculpted his public persona as the mighty Islamic warrior (certain blooper reels notwithstanding), and that image was irreparably shattered (along with Zarqawi himself) by a couple of 500-lb. bombs the other day.
This does not mean that the fighting in Iraq is over. The deaths of seven terrorists is not that much, overall, when the total number of the enemy is taken into account. If anything, it could even lead to a brief surge in attacks, as Zarquawi’s followers desperately try to prove that they are not deterred by his death. But it is, indeed, a great victory.
Everyone notice how extremely angry Lee, astigafa and mak44 are on this thread? I can almost feel the spit flying out at me through their screens.
I have no doubt that they wanted Zarqawi dead. But like the folks at the New York Times, they didn’t want him to die now.
After months of saying that the Democrats bear no responsibility for anything that has happened in Iraq because they control nothing in Washington – now a good thing has happened and they can’t point to Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid as having played any part whatsoever in it.
Yesterday must have been a really bad day for astigafa, mak44, et al …
Independent analysis suggests that about 95 percent of those insults apply to you, actually.
Being that this “independent analysis” was likely performed by you and not someone who knows me, than it’s about as useful as a cow with two assholes.
Anything in your ridiculously foul-mouthed litany that wasn’t an opinion is completely wrong…and whatever was an opinion is just that, an opinion.
Then, you seem to take alot of your own opinions as fact, so I can appreciate where you went wrong with your “independent analysis”.
It’s easy to be hard, astigafa, but hard to be smart.
mak’s your typical internet flamer, all talk so long as he’s permanently hidden behind the shield of anonymity that the internet provides.
I’d be willing to bet that confronted with a Republican in public debate he would not only be infinitely more civil, but might even roll over in submission like an omega dog at the end of the argument.
It is completely untrue to say that the Democrats bear no responsibility for anything (negative) that has happened in Iraq. They are no less than absoultely critical to any success of the American opponents and insurgents in Iraq. This is not overstatement. The opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public — and the Dems with their allies the MSM, are engaged in demoralizing the American public 24/7 as their only means back to power.
Martin A. Knight
No anger here save with the usual Wizbang moronity of the Right.
So now Zarqawi is od’ed and we have no national V-I Day yet proclaimed because the l’il general is a wee bit more cautious than the day he “batmanned” onto the aircraft carrier to announce “Mission Accomplished.”
And what’s holding up V-I Day? Why it’s the MSM and the treasonus Democrats, tenaciously holding out for defeat.
It’s Viet Nam all over again. Everybody else is responsible for Bush’s bloody mess, and it’s come to a mess because the MSM is the puppet of the Terrorists and the Left has ordained that Iraq must end in defeat.
The bleatings by the usual cast of sheeple on this blog are beyond insanity.
I always relish the cries of Vietnam from the Dems…..you know, the party of LBJ….I seem to remember him being in some way connected to Vietnam….
Of course! That’s it. The Democrats took us to Vietnam! I almost forgot. And it was Nixon that got us out.
ted
You posted: “The opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public — and the Dems with their allies the MSM, are engaged in demoralizing the American public 24/7 as their only means back to power.”
That statement is not worth comment apart from the fact that it is recycled Viet Nam CRAP!
If I don’t answer anything in the near future….it’s because I’ve gone to bed. It’s 9:53 PM here in Taji, Iraq, and I’m tired. 0530 hrs comes early.
mak44…you claimed that I vomited the following: “Zark was no Yamamoto. But he did provide some hope to his misguided followers (Jack Murtha, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, et al). That hope is gone now.”
I would like to point out that the odds against even the chunkiest vomitus hitting those keys in that specific order to write that particular sentence are frankly astronomical!
Kinda like the odds ANY of the three morons I mentioned caring one damn about this country!! Astronomical!!
Zark IS dead…and the Left IS alternately claiming it is no big deal and missing him desperately!!
tough day for terrorists and Leftists (pardon the redundancy)
mak44, you claimed that Ted’s post: “You posted: “The opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public — and the Dems with their allies the MSM, are engaged in demoralizing the American public 24/7 as their only means back to power.” was: “recycled Viet Nam CRAP!”
Well, it IS “recycled”…because it IS happening again.
and it IS crap that the MSM and Dims are doing it now, just like it was CRAP that they did it THEN.
is that what you meant???
Because the fact is that “opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public“…that is indisputable.
and the FACT is that the major Dim mouthpieces (Kerry, Durbin, Murtha, Dean, et al) are havy contributors to the attempts to demoralize the American public.
and it IS a fact that the MSM does all it can to lend them credibility (where none exists)
David Earney
“Of course! That’s it. The Democrats took us to Vietnam! I almost forgot. And it was Nixon that got us out.”
I am well aware of LBJ’s Viet Nam error, but you cannot rely on your boobism to rewrite history, which probably explains your current failure to understand the Iraqi situation.
It was in fact, Nixon, who was the first as Veep, to advocate to Ike that the US should pick up the failed French standard after Dien Binh Phou in 1954 in order to stop the commies from taking over the world.
To credit Nixon for ending the Viet Nam War when in fact he doubled the American death toll w/ a solution he could have imposed on Jan 21, 1989, cut and run, is imbecilic.
You are just another armchair general in a new era willing to let gothers do the dying for your jingoistic purposes.
mak44,
“That statement is not worth comment apart from the fact that it is recycled Viet Nam CRAP!“
You are correct mak, it is recycled Vietnam crap, thanks for agreeing.
Our enemies, now and back then, realized the only way to beat the Americans was to turn the American public against the war. It happened then and it’s happening now.
Pardon, Justrand got to it before me.
Justrand
Your regurgitation is not debate-just the same lame crap that all the VN era armchair generals barfed up for years.
No doubt, Justrand, that it was the same thing that cost the French loss at Dien Binh Phou in 1954; the French military lost becuse of all the carping at home.
No anger here …
Heh heh heh …
… the l’il general is a wee bit more cautious than the day he “batmanned” onto the aircraft carrier to announce “Mission Accomplished.”
That’s another serious y’all on the Left have … you simply have no clue about military matters. If you did, you’d know that such “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banners are usually put up on battleships when they come back to port from a mission – which usually are for months on end.
The banner is actually for the benefit of the men and women waiting for their loved ones serving onboard to come ashore.
Who knew it would offend the Left so?
… it’s the MSM and the treasonus Democrats, tenaciously holding out for defeat.
Some may be of that opinion but not me … You guys don’t want a defeat. You just don’t want a victory until one of your own is in the White House.
Heralder
“Pardon, Justrand got to it before me”
So you are joining up in the Ass-ship of the drooling fool armchair generals of 2 eras w/ that crap that the dissenters “made us lose?”
You pseudo military strategists have endless excuses. Hitler had a similar lament about what caused Germany’s WWI loss. You militarist fools are all alike and you are always rewriting History because the outcomes do not meet up to your swagger.
“No doubt, Justrand, that it was the same thing that cost the French loss at Dien Binh Phou in 1954; the French military lost becuse of all the carping at home.“
No, the French lost at Dein Binh Phou because they are the French.
All joking aside, the French lost in Vietnam to the Vietnamese, The Americans lost in Vietnam to the Americans.
While you’re busy calling people armchair generals, perhaps you could tell me why you brought up Dein Binh Phou? That battle has no relevance to how the Americans lost a war that happend a decade later.
Martin A. Knight
Sorry, but your explanation for the “MA” banner on the carrier that day is pure invented BS.
Someone, I think it was Barlett, already admitted that it was a poor decision.
So your post is just more rewriting of history.
When Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in 1942 (exactly 64 years ago this week), the press did not question the death of this evil human being, the number two man in the SS. Even though the Germans killed thousands of Czechs in direct retribution, most people understood that his death was a significant victory in the War in Europe. It sent a clear message to the Germans that they would be held accountable for their killing spree, either by trial or by fire.
After Heydrich’s death, the first three “trial” death camps were constructed and put into operation at Treblinka, Sobibór, and Belzec. The project was named Operation Reinhard in Heydrich’s honor.
The fact that Himmler quickly replaced Heydrich with Ernst Kaltenbrunner and the Nazi Death Camps went into overdrive is irrelevant. Justice was served in the cases of Heydrich and Zarqawi.
“You pseudo military strategists have endless excuses. Hitler had a similar lament about what caused Germany’s WWI loss. You militarist fools are all alike and you are always rewriting History because the outcomes do not meet up to your swagger.“
Hitler wasn’t exactly in a prime position to be judging why he lost the war being that he killed himself right around the time it ended. Seeing history over the broad lense of time and looking an many events in a logical sequence is not the benefit he was afforded.
At the risk of partaking in armchair-generalism, Can you tell me why the Americans lost in Vietnam?
OK, I’m a little late but…
I here by invoke the Vietnam version of Godwin’s Law on MAK44!!
There are far more differences than similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, but you ignorant lefties always see EVERYTHING through the lens of Vietnam.
You are in serious need of a clue-by-4.
To be fair, mak44 wasn’t responsible for bringing up Vietnam as a comparison to Iraq.
Heralder
I made the reference to DBP in Viet Nam as a counterpoint to your repetition of the “why we lost VN” horseshit that you insist upon repeating. Namely, from your perspective, it’s always the politicians or the home-nationals who create the military defeat. Therefore, by your line of thought(?), it must have been the French politicians and treasonous people at home who defeated the French at DBP.
Yours is just more of the same crap in a vain attempt to explain military defeat because people like you have no perspective nor any knowledge of history.
Your repition of the Americans defeating the Americans in VN just reveals that you know absolutely nothing about that era of history, that BTW, began w/ duplidcity on someone’s part during WWII.
mak44, as Heralder pointed out: “the French lost at Dein Binh Phou because they are the French”
Just like the Russians couldn’t defeat Afghanistan because they are the Russians, the Iranians couldn’t defeat Iraq because they are the Iranians, etc…
We are, in fact, different.
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838)
Sheik Yur Bouty
There is little doubt that had you been at Haditha no fire would have been held.
The only reason that I referred to VN was because there is today more of the same BS carping about who is responsible for demoraliziong the troops in Iraq, or in that case, VN.
When Reality doesn’t square w/ your view, then it must be the damn MSM or the defeat-at=any cost Democrats at home or both taken in bythe insurgents bill of goods..
mak44
you are correct in one (exactly) thing: it was our ill-advised re-embrace of the French after WWII that led us to turn our back on Ho Chi Mihn…a staunch allie during WWII against the Japanese.
as for the Vietnam war itself, though, you only have to look at the Tet Offensive to get the truth as to why we “lost” (in quotes because we abandoned South Vietnam to a brutal fate because of our feckless Senate).
The Tet Offensive was such a massive DEFEAT for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese that they briefly considered SURRENDERING (read Giap’s memoirs)…until they realized the American and International Press was depicting it as a VICTORY for them.
From that point on Giap realized he could NOT lose, so long as the worldwide press was on his side. He knew that sooner or later the American people would grow sufficiently weary that they would watch as we betrayed South Vietnam. And instead of “a few hundred” dying in retribution (John Kerry estimate in numerous interviews at the time)…MILLIONS died.
The enemy within includes those actively working for our defeat, AND the “useful idiots” they exploit (which are you?)
Everyone notice how extremely angry Lee, astigafa and mak44 are on this thread? I can almost feel the spit flying out at me through their screens.
Yep, then they accuse us of adhering to politics based on hate. All the hate I see is coming from them.
The Democrats are the party of hatred and lies.
Heralder
Hey , hold your fire before you shoot. Your response was so f…..ng clever except it was about the wrong point.
If you go back & read you will see that I was referring to Hitler & his propaganda about why Germany lost WWI.
As to the VN loss; we lost because we were swimming against the tide of nationalism & history, the desire of the Viet Namese to be free of foreign domination, which initially was Fr. colonialism.
The situation emerged from US WWII duplicity in promising Ho Chi Minh that we would support VNese independence after WWII ended for his help in fighting the Japanese. At the end of the war, the US reneged & supported the return of VN to Fr colonial control. When the Fr were defeated in ’54 at DBP, it was the anti-commie fanatic VP Nixon who urged Ike to pick up the Fr standard because, if we didn’t stop the commies there, they’d be at our door, which of course is exactly what happened because the treasonus Left & the MSM ensured an American defeat & now we are fighting the commies off by the boatload as they invade the left coast. lol
We failed in VN because it was a war for national liberation and against US self-righteousness rooted in a history of duplicity, something that the fanatic anti-commies (read: conservatives) and armchair generals of that era couldn’t comprehend.
When defeat became inevitable, because we didn’t understand history, the armchair generas’ cant became “Americans made America lose the war.”
.
mak44,
made the reference to DBP in Viet Nam as a counterpoint to your repetition of the “why we lost VN” horseshit that you insist upon repeating. Namely, from your perspective, it’s always the politicians or the home-nationals who create the military defeat. Therefore, by your line of thought(?), it must have been the French politicians and treasonous people at home who defeated the French at DBP.
As far as my insistance on repeating it, I’ve only said it once, one comment does not repetition make.
I’ve only compared two wars and in very limited fashion, Iraq and Vietnam. How is it that you then think I give that as reasoning for the loss of every war? To what do you attribute this conclusion that you’ve jumped to? Certainly not logic.
Yours is just more of the same crap in a vain attempt to explain military defeat because people like you have no perspective nor any knowledge of history.
My differing take on the matter does not in fact, mean I have no knowledge of history or no perspective, it means that my conclusion is different then yours; which apparently means I’m wrong in your eyes. I feel obligated to tell you that if you think everyone who disagrees with you on a particular subject therefore has no knowledge of the subject…it just may be you.
I didn’t come here to compare credentials, IQs, or for verbal target practice; I came here to debate. If I removed accusations and personal attacks from every one of your recent posts on this subject there would be almost no substance.
Justrand
That is a history rewrite, pure horseshit.
Heralder
My reference to “repition” was not to say that you were harping over and over again, but rather a reference in general to the Right’s continual repition of that canard about what cost the US its victory. You are but one of the voices “repeating” that claim.
mak44,
I’m falling a bit behind in the posting here, keep in mind that my posts that fall directly after yours are usually in reference to a post previous.
“If you go back & read you will see that I was referring to Hitler & his propaganda about why Germany lost WWI.“
I know what you were referring to. I took your mention of this as proof that that many people claim a loss due to internal strife when it is not the case, was I correct?
As far as your asked for explanation as to why America lost in Vietnam, I think it is a good assemssment and correct, but not the entire answer. My answer would have been more in line with what Justrand said, thus I won’t repeat it as we seem to be leap frogging each other.
Wars can and have been lost soley on morale.
Heralder
re: “I know what you were referring to. I took your mention of this as proof that that many people claim a loss due to internal strife when it is not the case, was I correct?”
What I was referencing was the Hitler notion that Germany lost WWI because the German military was stabbed in the back. Glory was lost to Germany because of what the politicians did in regard to the prosecution of the war. In other words, “Germans defeated Germany.”
That hue & cry had a lot of appeal to the German population during the 1920’s.
The same garbage was used by armchair generals of the Right following the loss of Viet Nam.
By this line of reasoning(?), defeat does not result from anything save treachery or foolishness on someone’s part other than the fools who intiated the policy of war.
Unfortunately, it is all too similar to the line being passed out now about Iraq: that it is the MSM playing fool to the Terrorists & the Democrats seeking Bush’s defeat. If this is meant to be a serious discussion of the situation in Iraq, it is preposterous.
mak44
Hitler’s LIE was obvious. Germany lost WWI due to one basic fact: America’s into the war (thus breaking a long brutal stalemate)
The TRUTH about Vietnam is also obvious. We fought a defensive war because the American people and political climate would not allow us to invade North Vietnam. As I mentioned before, even THAT strategy had some potential, except that after the Tet Offensive horseshit the press started realizing just how effective they could be in sapping what will remained in America. Then, of course, good ole John “Gehghis Kahn” Kerry comes along and provides the last bit of “proof” of how AWFUL we were…and shortly thereafter we cut & ran. To leave the South Vietnamese utterly defenseless…and weaponless.
When you lose ZERO battles throughout the entire course of a war, and leave the battlefield without the other side surrendering, then you have ABANDONED the fight, not LOST it.
Now the Left is trying to get us to abandon the fight again. Last time it was the South Vietnamese who suffered…this time it will be US.
but they do not care.
mak44,
I can see where you’re coming from more clearly now and it makes perfect sense, I however am inclined to disagree on certain points. In light of this I would like to do some more research into the issue, maybe I can learn something new.
Meanwhile, today in Iraq, while no one has lost a war yet, there is plenty of media bias. When we can expect with almost certainty that whomever our enemy is will be reading what is said and monitoring our reaction and exploiting weaknesses trumpeted by the media, it begins to seem counterproductive. Now we’re dealing with an enemy who specializes in victory by crushing their target’s morale and will to fight, is it any wonder that people are sensitive to just that happening to us?
Can you see no liberal bias in the media?
Why is it that I get the feeling that if old mak-i-e 44 2/3 was in charge of the policy in the US everyone would have to have a permament pucker of the mouth?
Justrand
VN was lost because as Giap said, “When American combat forces were committed, it was a myth that we could not fight and win because they were so powerful. … [We survived] because of our courage and determination, together with wisdom, tactics and intelligence…”
And because they were fighting for their homelnd.
Presumably you would have had the US invade the North at the expense of god knows how many more tens of thousands of American lives. Or as some of the Right armchair generals advocated, we could have turned VN into glass.
And for what? The moronic “Domino Theory” that never occurred? To save the West Coast from a commie invasion?
Had the Right & fools like a Michael Ledeen or a Richard Perle been in charge from the beginning of the Cold War, this planet would be a nuclear cinder.
Justrand
The LIE was obvious to all but the German people.
Heralder
“Can you see no liberal bias in the media?”
Curious, I see no liberal bias in the media to speak of. I see people like Richard Engel & Michael Ware, for example, doing their best to cover a situation where their lives are as much in danger as are those of American forces.
Frankly, there’s a lot that isn’t in the news media due to the corporate takeover & consequent dumbing down of news content. I see former investigative giants like Bob Woodward who now volunteer to be used as a rolls of WH butt wipes.
But, to speak of “liberal media bias” is lame. Unfortunately for people on the Right, I think Stephen Colbert hit it just about right at the WH Correspondents’ Dinner with, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
.
mak44
after Tet the Viet Cong was vastly diminished as a fighting force. The mere THREAT of an invasion of North Vietnam would have forced Giap to withdraw his forces to DEFEND his country. No such defense was ever necessary, and thus 100% of his forces could be committed southward.
The strategy, on our part, was senseless. But the complicity on the part of the worldwide and American media, and, after Nixon was elected, the Democrat Party, was despicable.
As for the media bias today…puhleeze. Try looking objectively (if you can) at the LA Times or New York Times.
Look first at which stories they cover…and which they do NOT (or minimize).
Next look at HOW they cover them. Which stories get covered well beyond what seems like a reasonable amount of time…and often with no compelling reason (i.e. something new) to do so. and look at which stories get short-shrift…and often when there IS a compelling reason to look deeper.
Examples of the liberal bias in the media abound. try looking at this objectively…if you can
Justrand
If there were a liberal media bias, the grounds for investigating this administration are so overwhelming that the Republicans in Congress could never gotten awawy w/ abandoning their Constitutional oversight function.
I still defer to Stephen Colbert.
Wow mak44, you make a lot of assumptions about me without knowing a single thing about me.
Like the well-established fact that I was against the war for the reasons it was started. Like the well-established fact that I still think we came here for the wrong reasons.
However, we are here, and we’ve done what we’ve done, and the only thing left is to finish the work, so that our boys can go home, and the Iraqis can stand up on their own.
You see, the difference between your position and mine is principle. I want to see the betterment of the Iraqi people’s lives for the long haul. You want to see the emergence of a civil war by withdrawing and abandoning these people to the care of extremeism.