Slaying Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

One should make a James Bond film out of this only the terroist groups are like SMERSH or SPECTOR

The world is a better place today now that the coward who planned and inspired so many murderous acts against innocents of a different belief from his own has gone to his reward.

Binoy, the theatre may have been more colourful but in reality no different to the elimination of Osama Bin Laden under Obama. Of course he's going to take the credit in an election year. He's missed out on the wall and the attempt to tarnish Biden blew up in his face. Im not sure whether the "protean monsters drawn from apocalyptic fantasy" is an accurate description. Both ISIS and ISIL creed is that the end justifies the means. "ISIL is widely known for its videos of beheadings and other types of executions of both soldiers and civilians, including journalists and aid workers, and its destruction of cultural heritage sites. The United Nations holds ISIL responsible for committing human rights abuses, crimes against peace, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. ISIL also committed ethnic cleansing on a historic and unprecedented scale in northern Iraq."Wikipedia. And its not a religious war when those of the Sunni sect go after their Shiite brothers as they did in the Sinjar massacre. They do purport to worship the same deity. Whether Abu Bakr is easily replaced remains to be seen.

Trump's "smart-arse" comments about the demise of Al-Baghadi were typical of the triumphalism of the man. My reaction? how would Trump behave in the same situation? or even myself? Facing death is the ultimate fate of all of us. Bush Jnr, 's decision to disband the Iraqi military, the Sunni based intelligence and civil service after the fall of Saddam Hussein was a monumental miscalculation, as no doubt will be Trump's decision to withdraw American Forces from the Middle East. The colonial meddling in the Middle East by France, the U.K. and other European powers post World War I continues to impact the Western World centuries later.I fear we are continuing not to learn from our miscalculations. ISIS is certainly not dead. We need to be very vigilant as sleeper cells world wide react.

"The protean monsters drawn from apocalyptic fantasy and political franchises", indeed. And it behoves us also to look within the dysfunctionalities of our own cultural (and confessional) legacy for the same baneful end-of-days messianic fanaticism. And I do not mean just the neo-Nazis. As Orwell was supposed to have remarked at the end of WW2, Fascism won't die, and is likely to return worse than ever. The same can be said for Torquemada's Inquisition, if we don't do something substantial to address the motivating underground terrors afflicting every society at this juncture.

Having worked in many countries affected by atrocious wars associated with what is commented on here, I can only agree that the trauma and horror this has brought for millions of people is beyond deplorable. However, I agree with Gavin, that the situation is complicated, and has been exacerbated by international economic and political interests even before the start of this century. Some media reporting, and even what reads as light-heatedness give us little hope, especially when a Western President speaks of a man's death as that of a dog, and our own ABC requoting him chooses a headline "... he died like a dog". Such terminology is disgraceful and a gross insult. I do not romanticise what has happened, but gloating over deaths of al Baghdadi, bin Laden, al Gaddafi … with such headlines does nothing to address the situation of disaffected youth, where near forty percent have no hope of employment, and where governments, leaders, and even international assistance is seen as one-sided. I wonder if it is beyond us, to consider the word 'dignity' even when reporting death of criminals.

It demeans western civilisation as an upheld example of lofty principles of governance for state leaders to be watching in real time what is in effect a snuff movie, be it Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton for Osama bin Laden or Trump for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Ordering a snuff can be statesmanlike. Watching it is petty and distasteful.

Binoy, it is good that you have written this comment on the ghoulish and sickening triumphalism of Donald Trump and his associates on the death of of Al-Baghadi. Before becoming too triumphant about the demise of a key figure in ISIS, we need to be aware of the circumstances of its origin. Some years ago in a revealing moment, Tony Blair - a key advocate of George Bush's war against Iraq - admitted that it was this war that greatly contributed to the formation of ISIS. A few years later when addressing university students in the US, former vice president Joe Biden admitted that the US had for some time cooperated with ISIS in the quest of the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Qatar to bring down the Assad government in Syria. For too long western nations like Britain, France and the US have used Middle Eastern nations for their own ends. key people who have played significant roles in this history are as culpable as ISIS for the mass killing and destruction. Australians should be telling our leaders that we do not want to be involved in such wars and we don't want US bases on our soil to be involved in such conflicts.

I don't understand how 'ordering a snuff' (aka assassination, murder, or extra-judicial killing) can be considered 'statesmanlike'. Or why a hijacked airliner aimed at the Pentagon is a heinous crime but a missile launched at some desert headquarters is justified. Surely they are just both acts of war?

Dead right, Ginger. Nevertheless, I reckon this is one of the rare good outcomes of war.

Against what criteria is it a 'good outcome' John Frawley? What change for the good do you expect to see? Why will the outcome be any different from that which followed the assassination of Bin Laden? And what if the principal outcome (which was probably the principal objective) is the re-election of Trump to the Presidency?

“Surely they are just both acts of war?” The acts are not morally equivalent. There is no initial justification for flying a plane into a building full of civilians. The initial justification for the missile attack is that it was provoked by the prior war criminal-like activities of the operators of the base and its purpose is to stop them from continuing with those activities. As for ‘war’, even war has internationally accepted rules to govern how it is to be pursued. The extremists are not soldiers as such. They are similar to the violent free-lancers of the drug trade in Latin America and elsewhere. To be statesmanlike is for a political leader to do what is morally necessary at political cost. Given that political leaders in the West are made accountable by the open nature of Western societies populated by sceptics free to voice their disagreements without penalty to themselves, a ‘snuff’ by, say, Israel is more likely to be statesmanlike than a hit ordered by secretive leaders immune from political costs such as criticism or removal such as those found in China, Russia and most Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries.

May I suggest Roy that any judgement about 'moral equivalency' depends upon the viewpoint of the person making the judgement? As Adele says the situation is, to say the least, 'complicated'. Gavin rightly reminds us of the post WW1 meddling by Western powers (which includes the so-called 'police actions' by the RAF against Iraqi civilians in the inter-war period) and Andy reminds us of the 'culpability' of Bush, Howard and Blair for the consequences of their invasion of Iraq. One could easily see why someone on 'that' side could see come to a completely different conclusion about 'moral equivalence'.