Sunday, May 13, 2007
The death of an enemy general
We killed the Taliban's military commander:
The killing of the top Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah, a one-legged fighter who orchestrated suicide attacks, beheadings and an ethnic massacre, marks a major victory for the U.S. campaign at a time of flagging Afghan support over civilian killings.
As victims of Dadullah's brutality celebrated his death Sunday, analysts called the killing the most significant Taliban loss since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. But even NATO acknowledged that Dadullah, who directed some of the Taliban's most notorious violence, would soon be replaced.
The BBC has more detail here.
Candidly, I don't care whether the killing of Mullah Dadullah is ultimately of any substantial military consequence; Dadullah was such a bastard that it is a great day regardless. Still, it is unlikely that this achievement is of no military consequence. Any well-run insurgency can survive the death or capture of an important commander. That does not mean that its reserves of capable and experienced leaders are bottomless. History supplies examples of both victory and defeat after the death of a great commander, and sometimes it takes a little while to understand the consequences. If Robert E. Lee had been able to rely on Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg, would the American South's insurgency have ended differently?
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun May 13, 07:13:00 PM:
I really had a hard time getting past this guy's name. I mean, Mullah Dadullah? Really? Do you think his middle name is Abdullah because I sure hope so.
It was like waking up today and reading a press release from "War on Terror, Cartoon Edition."
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sun May 13, 07:14:00 PM:
It is disturbingly close to the Taliban version of Major Major Major Major.
By , at
Sun May 13, 08:33:00 PM:
You wrote:
"Any well-run insurgency can survive the death or capture of an important commander."
Is the Afghan insurgency well run? What makes for a successful insurgency and are we facing one now?
By Cardinalpark, at
Mon May 14, 08:20:00 AM:
That's a great question about Stonewall Jackson; and yes, I think Jackson's survival would have made a difference. He did not lose a single enagagement with the north. His strategy and tactics differed markedly from Lee's, which were more of the old school Gentleman's warfare variety. Jackson's approach was more reliant upon speed, assault and flanking, and very well designed for an outnumbered enemy.
Had Jackson survived, he may have replaced Lee over time. Rather than accepting surrender, defeat and reconciliation as Lee did, Jackson's leadership may have mled in a vastly different direction and heralded a different outcome.
Leadership makes a difference, and while I have no idea whether Dadullah qualifies in the fashion to which you analogized, his death is at worst neutral, and may be a prelude to complete Taliban defeat.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon May 14, 10:11:00 AM:
"If Robert E. Lee had been able to rely on Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg, would the American South's insurgency have ended differently?"
Oh Tigerhawk... have you joined ranks with Screwy Hoolie in your collective inability to tell the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?
A flag, an anthem, hundreds of thousands of uniformed soldiers, diplomatic relations with foreign powers, a functional navy, elections, currency... what's it take? Is the US really just a particularly long-lived insurgency against the British?
By ScurvyOaks, at
Mon May 14, 02:38:00 PM:
Well said, Dawnfire. Additionally, after the formal surrender, it was Lee who used his enormous credibility to encourage the Confederate soldiers to lay down their arms and go home, in specific contradiction of those who argued for continuing the war through guerilla tactics. So, thanks to Lee, there was not an insurgency. (To be fair, I should say, "not a widespread insurgency." There was some, and it formed the background for the creation of the Klan.)
