I'm somewhat tentative about referring to Musab al Zarqawi as al Qaeda's Jeb Stuart, because I don't want to be misunderstood as suggesting that the two are comparable in every respect. The two commanders were alike in the sense that they were important second fiddles, but there's no comparison in terms of their ethics and morality. The difference is quite uncomplicated: Jeb Stuart, while arguably a defender of slavery, never blew up or sawed the heads off innocent noncombatants. And his military successes can rightly be called that, rather than the sort of piddling incessant vandalism that has undermined as much as advanced Zarqawi's co-called "cause." But the two are alike, in spite of what "terrorism expert", Richard Clarke, says, because they were both irreplaceable in the hierarchy of their respective armies, and their deaths will be seen to have marked a turning point.

Nonetheless, Richard Clarke, ABC News' terrorism expert, managed to dribble a small offering of icewater in support of his cause:

"Unfortunately for the loved ones of troops over in Iraq, this is not going to mean a big difference."

Clarke said the modest size of the terrorist leader's organization and his minimal involvement in the daily bomb attacks on coalition forces made that claim unlikely....

"Al Qaeda in Iraq was probably the smallest of the 14 major insurgent groups."

”Zarqawi didn’t have a number two. I can’t think of any single person who would succeed Zarqawi…In terms of effectiveness, there was no single leader in Iraq who could match his ruthlessness and his determination … it’s the most significant victory in the fight against terrorism. He was certainly the most active terrorist in Iraq. More than that, he was using Iraq to mount operations in the neighborhood, for instance the Jordan attacks (last year) were by his group…He had an extensive network overseas, in Europe and in the Middle East, and he was expanding this network.”

Update: A commenter on TigerHawk thinks the more apt comparison might be with Stonewall Jackson. I considered that, and he might well be right. I was biased against that by the fact that Stonewall was killed by friendly fire, but the incident was much earlier than the death of Jeb Stuart, and I think these are still early days in the Long War on Terror.

I'm also sympathetic to Mark's objections on WoC (most of which I noted in the post), but think this is still a very significant event.

Posted by: Demosophist at 08:10 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.