1 If that bastard is captured that will enable the upcoming elections in Iraq to happen much more smoother and allow our troops to slowly come back home. It won't end the insurgency or whatever those stupid terrorists call it, but it should take a serious blow to their leadership.

2 Chad: you're reading my mind. I think the initial, visceral reaction is to put a bullet between his eyes. But history has shown us that captured terrorists -- even the most committed -- are much more valuable alive than dead. First, they often will give up key information, but terrorist leaders have often given instructions to their members to give up the cause. I find this latter scenario highly unlikely for Zarqawi (or any "religious terrorist") but he could be instrumental in our pursuit of bin Laden. Also, I believe his leadership will be missed and his followers will be disheartened if he's caught. The hardcore among them will press on, but the fence sitters may submit to the evils of democracy. Finally, I won't be at all surprised if this is part of some psy-op, intended to discover what the insurgents are instructed to do upon news of Zarqawi's capture -- which would mean that we're hot on his trail.

3 That is an interesting statement Leopold, and one that could very well be accurate. I've consistently chided the U.S. military/government in their effort to persuade the public as being elementary at best. There are cases of misdirection, however they have been so few and far between for reason unknown to me. If this news was in fact a misdirection though, what could they expect terrorists in his network to do in order to kill or capture them?

4 There is a current fear of "swarming" -- where we would see dozens of attacks, uncoordinated, but all with a very short time span of some given call to action. There was a lot of talk about this type of situation when we went into Afghanistan; our military was concerned that if bin Laden were announced killed or captured, his minions would have some massive contingency plan that we wouldn't be able to handle. My guess is that someone wanted to see if Zarqawi's people had something similar. (if it was in fact part of some psy-op)

5 Yes, there would be an intial wave of attacks that are not as coordinated as before, however would the attacks be clumsy enough so they would get caught? I cannot imagine a misdirection that would lead to more bloodshed unless there was an foreseeable goal in the capture/killing of terrorists and not innocent Iraqis or U.S. soldiers. In terms of both logistics and misdirection, this move does not make sense unless the U.S./Iraqi forces believe this would force terrorists out of their holes and onto the streets where they could easily get killed/captured without the loss of life of the innocents.

6 If this were the strategery, everyone would be on high alert, and known/suspected hideouts would be heavily targeted and all our positions heavily reinforced. I have no knowledge that this is why the anouncement was made, but it's possible.

7 Agreed. I'm just trying to think through what reasons the U.S. would be involved in a report such as this if it were not accurate. I tend to be more believing that the Iraqi media would put out a bogus report such as this one for propoganda reasons than the U.S. With elections less than one month away, it would be nice to know the person responsible for killing hundreds of Iraqis is in custody and presumably could not cause a terrorist attack on election day.

8 We actually planted a false story at CNN, in which we said that the raid of Fallujah had begun. This was three weeks prior to the actual attack, and we got all kinds of logistical data that helped that operation go smoothly. I was actually really happy that our military was engaged in these types of operations.

9 I think you may all be a little bit right. But Chad, I want the gun. :-) Cindy