Posted on 09/26/2007 3:58:05 AM PDT by BulletBobCo
NEW YORK (AP) -- Slain al Qaeda in Iraq chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a "diabolically brilliant" war tactician, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, likening him to Civil War generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant.
Zarqawi's successors are less talented, and less able to manage what may be a shift in Iraq away from sympathy for foreign-born fighters, Rice said in an interview. Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces more than a year ago. Since then, the al Qaeda in Iraq network he led has suffered setbacks but has proved a resilient threat.
"He was diabolically brilliant," Rice said of Zarqawi. "I think he was an outstanding organizer, I think he had a kind of strategic sense, and I don't think the follow-on leadership has been quite as good," Rice said in the interview with Fox news.
It is wrong to dismiss Zarqawi's killing as a temporary or insignificant victory in the long fight against terrorism, Rice continued.
"When you hear people say ... 'If you kill one of them, they'll just replace him with another leader,' remember that that's like saying, 'If you take out Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant, well, they'll just replace them with another leader.' " Rice said. "There are people who are better at this than others."
After the death of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi, "they started to make more mistakes."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Actually, Zarqawi was a puke and now he’s a dead puke.
Except that he's now pushing up daisies.
What despicable comments.
Shame on Rice.
He brilliantly led his troops into the American meat grinder, overseeing the killing of thousands upon thousands of terrorists far from America, all the while his wholesale slaughter of innocent Muslims has turned them against Al-Quada.
Brilliant tactics!
Rice is an idiot.
Incredible. She idolizes him.
No wonder she gives money to terrorists.
There was a time that Condi Rice was riding high in politics. I believe that time ended when she went to the State Department.
Glorifying a defeated enemy makes the victor that much more powerful/cunning/etc.
Right. Like making the comment that at least Hitler had the trains running on time.
If Zarqawi hadn't been successful at his position, he never would have become a household name. It was with the Jordanians assistance that we were able to track him. Every link in the chain that is obliterated weakens al Qaeda's stance in Iraq. Progress is being made.
I wouldn’t even want to hear that come out of any of my politicians mouths.
Why need to say it?
Hell, even the Germans recently sacked a known TV personality for taking a similar line.
German trains always ran on time. The comment was about Mussolini making Italian trains run on time, which was a new thing.
Although I understand possible criticism of Rice for bothering to make the statement, I don’t understand criticizing her logic. The individual leader can matter in conflict: Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Petraeus to name a few who are historically significant successful ones from our side.
I remember pro & anti Hitlery people saying she is “diabolically brilliant”. One thing they both have in common, each want to destroy America.
Was Rice carrying a bottle in a paper bag when she said this?
I don’t see a thing wrong with her comments.
Hitler, for instance, was a truly brilliant military and political strategist for almost 20 years right up to his idiotic decisions to invade the USSR and declare war on the USA.
Why is recognizing the fact that evil people are often competent somehow inadmissible?
If evil people were all incompetent the world would be a much safer place. But they aren’t.
It is just the way she has put it.
While no she is not really ‘praising him’, her choice of words are not paticuarly good.
There is no harm in admitting he was paticuarly successful in his objectives of killing as many innocent people as he could.
It’s something that didn’t need to be said - especially in the terms she put it.
If the world doesn’t know what a monster he is by now - they never will.
Whe Lee lost Stonewall Jackson he never regained the advantage.
Most who know about Lee and Jackson say that having Jackson would have made the difference at Gettysburg.
Jackson would have gone to the right !!!!
This makes the comment worth while.
Add that up and you get a war that is progressing (Due only to our well trained military) at a slower pace than it should.
Of course the cry is “What about civis!!!!!”. My answer hard to tell who is a civi when the enemy has no uniform.
Should we risk one American life because the Iraqi people can’t get their act together? Should JAGs be running this war safely in their air conditioned quarters only coming out to play once in a blue moon as an observer (When they know it's safe and well secured)?
Talking to field personnel (Security and even medical personnel) back from Iraq, the general consensus is JAGs are worse than insurgents because they are the ones that do the tying of the arm behind the back and are hell bent on impressing “human rights” groups etc... because they are not warriors just people who like to argue, get in the way and look oh so mighty self righteous (Among the chaos of war).
By the way, your are not guarding the guards and overseeing the process your killing the guards and dragging out this war by giving the enemy a powerful tool, FUD (To put it in an IBM way).
Is it any wonder why two lawyers who hate the military in the 90’s, increased military layers and decreased warriors?
layers = lawyers
Well many US generals said the same thing about Rommel or Von Runstedt in WW2. Doesn’t change the fact that they were scum.
He’d have grabbed the high ground on the first day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.