UPDATE: The following is a previous post that I have expanded for OpEdNews.com:

All the major news outlets are abuzz with the news of Zarqawi's death. Regardless of how one feels about the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there is little question that Zarqawi was a danger to our troops and needed to be stopped. However, headline proclamations of having killed "the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq" are disingenuous at best. At minimum, they serve to betray the tragic lack of understanding at both the local and governmental level of the kind of threat we are facing on the ground.

From the very inception of the War on Terror, this administration has attempted, both rhetorically and strategically, to present Al-Qaeda as a unified terrorist organization with a handful of supposed puppet-masters. Unfortunately, this assessment is tragically false. Global terrorist networks are fundamentally different in both structure and strategy than any previous threat to international state security. Unlike traditional warfare where power emerges from a single locus, Al-Qaeda is a radically individualized movement full of mini-leaders, self-starting cells, and zealous lone gunmen. The killing of any localized "leader" does nothing whatsoever to affect the actual power base any more than the ousting of Hussein did to staunch the threat posed by Iraq.

Despite rhetorical proclamations to the contrary, this administration has remained entrenched from the beginning in a pre-9-11 mindset. This tragic inability to think outside the box is perhaps the single most significant reason why Bush is losing a war of his own creation. The bottom line is that we are not dealing with a foreign government, nor are we tackling a guerilla movement centered around a charismatic individual. Were this to be the case, it would certainly be a reasonable strategy to target the enemy's power locus (their government or leadership) as the entity responsible for directing the country's assets against you.

However, what this administration seems to have a difficult time grasping is that terrorism functions as an essentially populist movement where power derives from the bottom, not the top. There is no single government or leadership that will cause the beast to come crashing down but rather hundreds or maybe thousands of tiny, quasi-governments capable of acting with complete autonomy. Within such a network, Zarqawi no more represents the power behind Al-Qaeda than any other zealous individual motivated to strike against U.S. interests.

I believe it is infinitely more likely is that Zarqawi's death will further inflame anti-Americanism across the entire region. Within the specific subsection of terrorists motivated by Zarqawi's leadership, his death will only serve to create a localized power vacuum. In the face of his absence, it is far more probable that several individuals will vie to fill the void through independent operations, each more vicious than the last, in order to prove their merit. Absent Zarqawi's leadership, whatever form of "command" he had over his followers has now been abruptly splintered and the U.S. will likely face a more diffuse and erratic level of aggression.

Were this administration to finally get serious about fighting this war, rather than playing the role of cowboy in a "dead or alive" posse, they would confront the ideology to which terrorists claim allegiance rather than the individual, armed expression of that ideology. In this way, perhaps the administration could cease inserting itself as a causal factor into the very problem is claims to be solving.

The folks at Americablog are pondering the immediate effects if Zarqawi’s death turns out to be true.

If Zarqawi is such a big deal, then it's great that we got him. But I can't help but feel a nagging "so what" in my gut, at least as it concerns the situation in Iraq. In a month, I fear things are going to be just as bad as ever, and the public will quickly forget the "victory" over Zarqawi just as the capture of Saddam didn't change much either.

However, the problem with terrorism as we are experiencing it is that our enemy is not an organized state from which power emerges from a single locus. Rather, it is a radically individualized movement full of mini-leaders, self-starting cells, and zealous lone gunmen. The killing of a supposed leader does nothing whatsoever to affect the actual power base any more than the ousting of Hussein did to affect the threat posed by Iraq.

Bottom line is that these aren't governments we’re dealing with. In traditional warfare, you may reasonably target the enemy’s power locus (their government) since this is the entity responsible for directing the country’s assets against you. If you manage to take them out, the threat will generally stop since the prime motivator has been eliminated. However, terrorism functions as a populist movement where the power derives from the bottom. There is no single government but rather hundreds or maybe thousands of tiny governments and the power in this case is no more Zarqawi than it is any other zealous individual motivated to strike US interests.

I think it is infinitely more likely is that Zarqawi’s death will further inflame US hatred and that somebody even more vicious will rise to take his place. In fact, this may be the best possible outcome since it is far more likely that 3 or 4 individuals will view for power, each seeking to run their own ops campaign to prove their abilities. Absent Zarqawi’s leadership, whatever form of "command" he had over his followers has now been abruptly splintered and the US will probably have to face a more diffuse level of aggression from a group that was once concentrated.

After five years of incompetence in the War on Terror, a major American city still in shambles, and a skyrocketing national debt, Bush decides to divert billions from Iraq in order to better fight the War on Terrorism Mexico.

The money was diverted at the behest of the White House in a last-minute bid to address growing political unrest about illegal immigration. The Office of Management and Budget championed the change without input from the Army or the Marine Corps whose budgets were sliced, a Pentagon budget official told United Press International last week.

'It was done in a 24-hour period, and presented as a fait accompli,' the official said.

The Senate accepted the offer 'without recognizing they were shorting the very people fighting the war,' the official said.

'You can`t tell me that illegal aliens coming across the border pose the same kind of threat to national security as insurgents in Anbar do against Marines,' the official said.

Growing political unrest? Chimpy created this mess and now suddenly realizes he might have to actually pay for it? Too bad that after five years of fiscal malfeasance the coffers have run dry. This is nothing but an election year strategy to distract voters from the growing disaster in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is once again going to be our soldiers who have to face the consequences of Bush’s tragic incompetence. How are those tax cuts looking now?

Well I guess we pretty much won the war then. We can all go home now.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida-linked militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister said Thursday.

So Zarqawi is dead. Again. Always funny how when Americans are killed or wounded, or miss the target altogether, it was in a raid by coalition forces. But when there is "good" news, it is a U.S. campaign. Sort of like when the kids are bad they're your kids. Either way, I'll believe it when Cowboy Bush parades his dead body about on TV in another flagrant and disgusting violation of Geneva Conventions. Again.