November 18, 2005

WAS THAT REALLY HIS BEST SHOT? (via Luciferous):

Sign of al Qaeda Desperation: Zarqawi Sends Top Aide to Die (Richard Miniter, Nov 18, 2005, Human Events)

Though the American media is slow to report it, U.S. forces are relentlessly destroying Zarqawi’s senior leadership. A November 2 air strike killed two senior al Qaeda operatives in Iraq: Abu Zahra, the so-called Emir of Husaybah, ran all insurgent operations in that Iraqi city, and Asadallah, Zarqawi’s key recruiter. U.S. forces have now confirmed the identities of both dead terrorists.

On October 23, U.S. forces captured Abu Hassan, the head of al-Zarqawi’s media cell. Hassan was responsible for producing video tapes of insurgent attacks to give to al-Jazeera and other television networks. Hassan even produced forged police and press passes to allow insurgents to case targets and film the devastation following insurgent attacks.

Following these air strikes and captures, Zarqawi ordered the Amman attacks. Was it a sign of desperation? Was he trying to regain the initiative from weeks of reverses?

Another sign of desperation: Consider who Zarqawi sent to run the Amman operation, Mrs. Al-Rishawi’s husband. He also a member of Zarqawi’s inner circle. He is now dead. Why did Zarqawi send a top officer to die? He has already lost so many. It suggests that either he’s running short of suicide bombers (typically Saudi recruits) or he’s running short of people he trusts. Either way, it’s a sign of desperation.


Look at how soft the targets are that he's stuck going after--a Muslim wedding in a Jordanian hotel?

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 18, 2005 10:24 PM
Comments

And when he finally blows himself up, think how nonplussed we'll be (Egad! We never thought to defend against THAT!).

Posted by: HT at November 18, 2005 10:31 PM

Sure seems convenient that a senior Palestinian figure was killed during the attacks, huh? Seems reasonable to figure that the Jordan attack had to do with AQ trying to establish & solidify its position in the Palestinian territories...

Posted by: b at November 18, 2005 10:46 PM

There was a high level meeting of intelligence experts from around the region at the hotel, wasn't there?

How is that a soft target?

Posted by: Pepys at November 18, 2005 11:47 PM

They probably weren't guests at that wedding, Pep.

Posted by: joe shropshire at November 18, 2005 11:52 PM

somewhere around 17 PA figures were killed in the attack. the wedding guests were just the icing on the cake.

Posted by: jackal at November 19, 2005 12:39 AM

If Z-man has been watching the MSM foam over the Murtha kerfuffel, he might think that he was close to victory.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 19, 2005 2:10 AM

Zarqawi should try to bomb a country club in the US, particularly that restricted one in MD. He could really get some Dems behind him on that.

Posted by: ratbert at November 19, 2005 8:15 AM

Why were there three hotels? That PA or Intelligence angle is nonsense.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 8:17 AM

so your saying the 17 PA officials killed weren't killed ?

Posted by: jackal at November 19, 2005 10:33 AM

Let me remind everyone: Al Qaeda's strategy is to bait the US into bombing mosques and weddings, in order to drive ordinary Muslims into Al Qaeda's arms.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at November 19, 2005 10:33 AM

oj: Sure thing. A total coincidence. Absolutely. One of Zarqawi's top aides was sent to personally lead an attack on a wedding party, that just happened to wipe out a bunch of PA officials. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Posted by: b at November 19, 2005 10:41 AM

When the hit the WTC they got John O'Neill. They weren't aiming at him.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 12:30 PM

jackal:

I doubt they were, but if so it was coincidental to three strikes against American hotels.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 12:31 PM

let's assume that the reports of the PA deaths are accurate, let's also assume that the reports of Al Quesidilla setting up shop in Gaza are true. does this strike anyone as a familiar pattern ? think back to what seemingly unremarkable event preceded 9/11...think a bit more...that's right, the hit in Afghanistan on the one warlord that had been effective against the taliban. look for zarqawi to make a big play in israel, as a desperate attempt to ignite a regional conflict.

Posted by: jackal at November 19, 2005 1:26 PM

No. In Afghanistan they successfully whacked a guy who threatened them.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 1:56 PM

"Why did Zarqawi send a top officer to die? He has already lost so many. It suggests that either he’s running short of suicide bombers (typically Saudi recruits) or he’s running short of people he trusts."

Or choice 3: this mission was important enough to send a top officer whom he trusts. Granted 1 & 2 come in as well.

But your analysis is CIA worthy, oj. You "know" that Zarqawi is desperate enough to eat the seed corn, if you will, and unable to make strategic decisions, and you're ignoring evidence that may suggest otherwise. I concede that the PA story could be merely innuendo, but the incompetence of the MSM makes it tough to tell...

Posted by: b at November 19, 2005 2:10 PM

b:

We've an overwhelming urge to credit those who scare us with superpowers, as we did the USSR for too long.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 2:14 PM

Who said anything about superpowers? I am sure he's a desperate man, looking over his shoulder every second of every day.

You want terrorist training camps & hideouts? Can't do it in Iraq anymore. Syria probably will be a tad...reluctant..for a little while, given the pressure they're feeling. But Hamas & Islamic Jihad have had their own little fiefdoms for decades. Coming to "understandings" with one or the other (or both) only makes sense. And certainly both of them have cause to hit the PA. Your complete dismissal of the Massoud analogy just doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: b at November 19, 2005 2:31 PM

Who was the Massoud in the three hotels?

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 2:37 PM

don't know who would qualify as the PA equivalent of Massoud, analogies only go so far. but taking out 17 top level personnel of a particular faction (if that is what happened) certainly qualifies as a "decapitating" operation.

my guess is that AQ will sneak a nuke into the PA areas and light it off there, which would be the ultimate irony, re taking out the PA as acceptable (or even desirable) collateral damage.

Posted by: jackal at November 19, 2005 2:59 PM

It's not.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 3:13 PM

When was the first time you ever heard of Massoud?

Posted by: b at November 19, 2005 5:31 PM

1988. Robert Kaplan wrote about him in the Atlantic. The equivalent in Palestine would be killing Abbas, not a couple flunkies who were in an American hotel at the wrong time.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 6:54 PM

Assad would be the equivalent of mullah omar. masoud was head of a faction, not of the country.
time will tell what is going on in gaza, but my twitching nose tells me it is a well set trap for AQ and the PA. we won't have to wait too long to find out what is up there.

Posted by: jackal at November 19, 2005 8:07 PM

Yes, they're evil geniuses--soon their interstellar death ray will be turned upon us, Mr. Bond.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 8:42 PM

Zarqawi doesn't have to be a genius to know enough about Jordan and the PA to have pulled something like this off.

Posted by: Pepys at November 20, 2005 3:36 AM

Yes, it's easy to bomb hotels.

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2005 6:25 AM
« ONLY DEMOCRATS WOULD CUT AND RUN FROM A VICTORY: | Main | LUCKILY, AID IS BEYOND THEM »