Death of a useful demon: By Joe Conason

[kpete]

Death of a useful demon
Zarqawi's death is good news. But for the White House, which used him to falsely link Saddam and al-Qaida, it's too late.
By Joe Conason
June 9, 2006 |

The first day following the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was much like the days that preceded his elimination. Bombings in Baghdad killed at least 40 people, illustrating what military and intelligence experts already know: The al-Qaida affiliate led by the late and unlamented terrorist represents only a fraction of the Iraqi insurgency.

That may be why President Bush welcomed the elimination of Zarqawi with unusually measured, low-key language, rather than the hyperbole that might once have been expected from the White House. Exhibiting pictures of the Jordanian thug's corpse may bolster American credibility among Iraqis, many of whom had regarded him as a propaganda creation until now; but as the president noted, the violence is certain to continue without him.

Still, with the Bush administration so starved for optimistic news from the war front as Election Day approaches, Republicans will surely be tempted to inflate this incident's significance. As the Note, an ABC News Web site, suggested in a column headlined "June Surprise," the immediate aftermath of Zarqawi's demise "could not be better politically even if General Rove had directed the operation. You are watching the rollout of a serious PR plan." The ABC political unit further indicated that the White House anticipates not only a "bounce" for Bush but a chance to rehabilitate the unpopular war as well.

But the Republicans would be wise to follow the president's lead, because the likelihood of lasting political benefit from Zarqawi's removal is small. By building up the terrorist leader, the administration has increased the expectations regarding the effect of his elimination, just as it did with Saddam Hussein. And those unrealistic expectations are sure to be disappointed. That is why Bush and other administration figures are now correctly trying, a bit tardily, to reduce those expectations.

more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/06/09/zarqawi/

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Kick for Joe Conason.

You too, kpete! :hi:

[izzie]

2. I really do not think this guys death means a lot.

Guerrilla wars are just not the same as what we think of in WW2 with land battles etc. Funny we just do not seem to learn fast on these types of wars. I think some book was written on it a thousand years ago about a weak army winning over a rich army but so far we just do not seem to know how to do it and since we are always going to have the weak trying to go after the strong you are going to have stuff like we are in now. Those small weak armies do not need a large inter force building great bombs and that is our style. It is just sort of history that the other sides win when they have the numbers. I can not think of any one who really wishes to face it. I am also not sure I would want my {resident to face it, that we can not win after we are their. It is why we have to stay out in the first place.