Why did they kill Al Zarqawi?

I was told this morning that our military and Iraqi forces had been tracking him for weeks and knew without a doubt he was in that building last night. Wouldn't it have had greater impact to capture him and throw him in jail, then put him on trial for crimes against Iraq citizens, for justice? Isn't that what Democratic societies do?

Seems to me that would have been the way to go, since he's responsible for the deaths of so many Iraqis and they have a Democratic government now. He could have been used as an example. Instead, they blow him up, carefully, so we can have pictures.

eom

I daresay he was fairly well-guarded. Maybe if they caught him, it would have been impossible to keep him. To me it's an indication of ho limited our options in Iraq are.

government feared the repercussions of having to hold him in custody. Perhaps they thought that would prompt greater violence than simply killing him outright. I don't know. That's just one thought that comes to mind.

Killing is more readily and simoply contrived than caprure. Capture requires skilled men to move in on the ground, and every step risks a warning to the target of the operation, and the botching of the attempt. A strike from an aircraft is more certain of effect, and will not give the least hint of warning.

In death, he can be propped up much bigger than he ever could have been if captured and put on trial. People may have found out he wasn't as important as told. :shrug:

There will certainly now be some who feel called upon to "avenge" him, and one or more of them may prove more competent in fact then he was. If my view of the matter is true, that his effectiveness and influence was greatly over-rated, it will be hard to prop him up much in death, from the point of vuew of popular opinion in the U.S., anyway, because his absence will not make the slightest diffence in the casualty figures or the pattern of attacks in the chaos of Iraq.

Very interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1381460

It had slipped my mind, but was widely reported. It should be recalled the fellow was a Jordanian, and doubtless was accordingly prone to misjudging politics of Iraq.

It certainly opens the possibility that the intelligence received by the U.S. concerning him recently came from his own associates, who wished his eleimination for their own reasons, and saw the hammer of the ccupying power as the easiest means towards securing it. Things like that are very, very common in partisan campaigns.

right now for the bushies since his poll numbers are going down. Propaganda machine is on full steam ahead isn't it?

Al Maliki is grinning like the cat who ate the canary. Three weeks into his term, and this has helped him politically.

If that's indeed what happened -- who can believe a thing these liars say anymore.

and on the same day his cabinet is completed. Our military is crediting the Iraq forces for the legwork behind getting Zarqawi (all we did was drop the bombs) - whether true or not, it helps them seem more "with it".

i guess we'll just have to wait and see if he re-appears at some later time in a tape/video recording: boo!


dp

It makes us look like hypocrites. We need to lead by example, killing only makes us seem like an enemy and makes al-Zarqawi a martyr, bringing al-Zarqawi to justice means butt-******* all round. Why is Bush so fucking short-sighted?

That seems to contradict a report that US military was tipped-off about his location in Baqba, north-east of Baghdad, by the Iraqi gov't following intelligence provided by local Shi'a and Jordanian intelligence officers who have been searching in that area after a mass beheading.

It seems very unlikely that Zarqawi, or any competent terrorist leader, would stay in the same location for long.

The Guardian reported: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1792817,00.html

In recent weeks, Baquba has seen a surge in sectarian violence, including the discovery of 17 severed heads in fruit boxes. It is near the site of a sectarian killing last week in which masked gunmen murdered 21 Shias, including a dozen students.

(Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki said last night's operation was the second time in 10 days that Zarqawi had been targeted.

"Since a week or 10 days ago, there was intelligence information about the presence and movements of this big criminal," he told al-Arabiya television. "There was a previous attempt to kill him but it didn't succeed. Then we succeeded, thanks to God."

Today's announcement came six days after the terrorist leader appeared in a videotaped message, in which he claimed Iraqi Shia militants were raping women and killing Sunnis. He said the Sunni community must fight back.

the Iraqis already have a huge problem with Al Zarqawi's followers running around and killing innocent Iraqis to impose a fundamentalist regime. Having him sit in a cell would simply give his followers a goal of escape or extortion. There is also the fact that he was well protected. Assaulting defensive positions with troops would do little but allow him and his people to kill more Iraqis and possibly "go out" in a blaze of glory as a martyr to his cause.

Being killed by an aerial attack simplifies the logistics, solves the immediate problem, prevents a longer term problem and counts as a "win" for the good guys.

With him now dead there will be much less support of his factions. He was able to garner local support through his personal presence and charisma. That would continue if he was alive and in confinement. I do not believe his death will solve the entire problem but I do believe it will deal it a heavy blow.

I give'em (the Iraqis) a pat on the back. :)

Especially with bombs.

Rove bust and the rest of the GOPer's big troubles.

It is much safer for American troops to drop large bombs form the air then to send in ground troops to try to capture someone.