"they are more interested in dividing Americans at home with their angry, insensitive, fiery rhetoric"

Ummm. Is anyone's irony-meter not redlining right now?

Ann Coulter is a Democrat now?

Matt, you D*mn well that most all pundits and experts are in agreement that Zarqawi’s force was small compared to the total number of insurgent fighters in Iraq.

There is no doubt that Zaqawi was particularly brutal, but his influence has diminished ever since the Jordan hotel bombing.

The news that Zaqawi was ratted out by a captured associate is disappointing. I was hoping that an agreement between the new Iraqi government and a Sunni faction lead to the intelligence. I guess the release of 600 Sunni thugs earlier this week was just pay-off to form the government, and not a larger agreement to come together.

Well, lets look at this rationally, shall we?

I have seen reports that attribute 10% of the continued violence to Al-Queda in Iraq. Assuming this is correct, Zarqawi would thus be in charge (nominally, at least) of this 10%. Since AQ is a cellular organization designed to recover from losses in leadership, it is unlikely that it will simply pull up and leave Iraq. Still, the loss of Zarqawi will probably have some positive (to us) effect on AQ's organization, capabilities, and morale. Lets assume a 50% reduction in their capabilities. Therefore, with Zarqawi's death, we can expect a 5% reduction in overall violence. A great step, but not the end to violence or even a significant reduction in violence.

Of course, this is probably a temporary reduction, as new leadership will probably emerge that will repair the AQ organization. Hopefully not, but a cellular organization such as this is tailor made for such 'regeneration'.

Finally, I'm curious: all you bushbots have repeatedly said that Al-Queda is media-savvy, and in fact tailors its actions to get on TV. Do you think it helps or hurts us to 'talk-up' Zarqawi? In my mind, the more TV time we give to this dead loser, the more we encourage some live loser to try and take his place and be the next martyr. So shouldn't you all follow the Dems lead and talk down the significance of this maniac?

Yet another gross example of the Bushian Republicans politicizing this event, using Zarqawi's killing as an opportunity to slander democrats.

We all knew this was coming - yawn.

Democrats haven't learned that national security is not a political issue

Again--unless Bush makes national security the centerpiece of his political campaign. Then it's a political issue.

American's aren't any safer, but the Iraqis are. American's will be safer when Zawahari and bin Laden are no more. That will happen as soon as we reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. Peace

steve,

Your 10% statistic (I wonder how that was determined?) fails to consider that Zarquawi was responsible for the most high profile bombing and killings in Iraq. For example:

1. He was responsible for the bombing of UN headquarters that led to the withdrawl of the UN from Iraq.
2. He was responsible for terrorist activities that caused several aid organizations to pull their people and assets from Iraq.
3. He was responsible for the assasinations and bombings that led several Arab countries to close their embassies and leave Iraq.
4.It was with the blessing of OBL that he was able to attract foreign Jehaddis to Iraq for suicide bombings.

His death and the 17 raids that took place at the same time, produced intelligence that led to 36 additional raids on terrorist. Fact of the matter is we won't know exactly to what extent all of this has crippled Al Queda, but we do know it didn't help them.

In the meantime, it is much more likely now that the government in Iraq has named a Minister for Defense and a Minister for the Interior, that there is an better opportunity to stop the terroritst attacks.

It simply amazes me that all of you lefties can only see negative no matter what the news. It really must suck to be you.

Suggestion: Eliminate the caffine, up the dose of your anti-depressant, turn off the news, go outside and get some fresh air.

The true extent of Zarqawi's network will never be known because it was comprised of cells: However to say that removing Zarqawi from the equation was "meaningless" or "insignificant is simply wishful thinking on the part of the moonbats.

Those cells are isolated FROM EACH OTHER, meaning that Zarqawi & crew directed them, funded them, and resupplied them. W/O the upper leadership of al Qaeda they quickly become ineffective and wither away. More importantly the US Special found a ton of documents in that safe house AND rolled up 17 other safe houses at the same time, all of Zarqawi's deputies whom they had been shadowing in hopes said deputies would lead them to Zarqawi. Any materials seized there will be used to roll up more of his organization.

Dead Men Tell No Tales, but Live Prisoners Can Be Downright Talkative. These strikes will have a domino effect, one terrorist squealing on another, until a large part of the al Qaeda network will either be rolled up or running for its collective life. It will be months before any new leaders sent to Iraq will be able to resume operations and probably not even by next year.

Crippling Zarqawi's network will free up resources to go after the remaining terrorist groups in Iraq. Furthermore they'll be thinking long and hard about continuing the resistance because if Zarqawi could be taken out by the Americans they aren't any more bulletproof than him - less in some senses of the word.

He ws given up because his uppers were unhappy with his radical stance on killing Iraqi's. Count on his replacement targeting US Troops instead. Also, he only had control of about 10% of Iraqs insurgents.

10%-12% of the total insurgency is foreign, yes. However we don't really know how many local insurgents were under Zarqawi's control. He had to have considerable local support to evade the US for so long (all those safe houses didn't materialize out of thin air!). It could be that as much as 50% of the insurgency was aligned with him in some way. Remember: Someone has to keep the supply of weapons and money flowing into Iraq for the insurgents as a whole.

In any event even if Zarqawi's faction was small it was also responsible for most of the more horrific atrocities committed by the insurgents. His final "safe" house was located 5km from Basra; in recent weeks beheadings and insurgent attacks had skyrocketed in the region. It looks now like he was trying to move his base of operations to the south where he could expand the insurgency out of the Sunni Triangle.

Orion -

"His final "safe" house was located 5km from Basra; in recent weeks beheadings and insurgent attacks had skyrocketed in the region. It looks now like he was trying to move his base of operations to the south where he could expand the insurgency out of the Sunni Triangle."

No, you're completely lost. His final safe house was located 5km from Baquba. Although it also begins with a "B", Orion, it is in the heart of the Sunni triangle far far to the north Basra.

If you really want to know why Basra and the south in general has experienced so much violent unrest lately, read this excellent article

In recent months, Shi'a fundamentalists have become more bold in taking control of large areas of Iraq, have heavily infiltrated what exists of the police and security forces, and are consolidating control from within the nascent government. This is why you have seen an upswing in the violence in Basra and across the rest of Iraq in recent months, as Shi'a methodically eliminate their Sunni rivals. These forces are dedicated to the esablishment of an Islamic Republic in Iraq closely allied with Iran.

Make no mistakes about it: the goal of the Shi'a fundamentalist insurgents is the estblishment of a theocracy in Iraq. Zarqawi can be blamed for a lot heinous acts, but as a Sunni fighter he didn't have anything to do with the rising tide of Shi'a fundamentalist control in the south and in other areas of Iraq.

No one knows how this will all shake out, but the signs don't look good. The horrifying question we may need to ask: did the US spend $500 billion, 2,500 soldiers' lives, and 30-100k Iraqi civilians' lives (and counting on all fronts) to turn Iraq from a western-oriented secular dictatorship into an Islamic Theocracy closely allied with Iran?