Thursday, June 08, 2006
# Posted 8:48 AM by Patrick Porter
Why has the USA bothered to kill the mythic, artificially inflated figure of Zarqarwi, who they used to frighten us like small children? If he was such a useful hate-figure to demonise, why have they eliminated him?
Incidentally, why did a bunch of extremists plan to attack Canada, when we know that jihadists only bomb countries who are occupying Iraq? That is, apart from Morocco, Somalia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Egypt, Turkey, Kenya, or France.
UPDATE: Apologies, I was getting too excited, and inadvertently confused two diarists from the Daily Kos. Accordingly, I've removed the section that unfairly criticises the Daily Kos folk. (6) opinions -- Add your opinion
This is a silly post. You are quoting two different Kos diarists. The first one you linked ("Great Catch") made perfect sense with the exception of the cynical Haditha comment. The point about Bin Laden was a response to Fox News' idiocy about "the nail in the coffin of Al Qaeda." The Hoax diary one was just some fool conjecturing. They aren't the same person. They are completely different diarists.
I'll agree with liberalhawk. This is a great day for Iraq, not only because Zarqawi is dead, but because Maliki finally approved a Defense and Interior Minister. For once the Iraqi government has momentum.
whats more odd, elrod, is that some are already trying to counter spin this. I checked Yglesias, figuring hed be celebrating. But no, hes reminding us how we thought things would get better when Saddam was capture. Well, thats a point, but werent we told at the time that Saddam had no operation role in the insurgency? Is Matt claiming the same for Zarqo?
If demonising an artificially inflated enemy is politically useful, surely it is also useful to kill him and celebrate his death, no?Post a Comment
Less cynically, it is one thing to use inaccurate, hyperbolic, or misleading rhetoric for political advantage, as by hyping and inflating individual enemies to make it seem like our fight is just with evil terrorist murderers, but it takes another level of irresponsibility to build policy, strategy, and tactics to fit the rhetoric, at the sacrifice of legitimate objectives like killing terrorist leaders. To its credit, this administration is somewhat less likely to do the latter than the former (although the latter is not unheard of, even when dealing with Zarqawi).
Also, regardless of what some lefties say, Zarqawi may not have been hyped solely out of political calculation. There probably was also some genuine confusion about what the insurgency is and how it works.