Zarqawi Killed on His Own Terms

Does the inability to beat an enemy on the battlefield justify killing the innocent around him?

This was taken from an unnamed news source from the web (which I am sure still violates some sort of copywrite):

"Video from the scene of the attack showed children scrambling over a flattened jumble of cinderblocks, concrete reinforcing bars, blankets, blue plastic bowls and other debris. A pickup truck was scorched and crushed.

Two young members of the crowd held up a child's sandal, a backpack with a teddy bear on it and a stuffed animal. The rubble was across a dirt road from a grove of palm trees."

Zarqawi did not wear a uniform. He could not beat the least American rifleman on a level field. He orchestrated the deaths of thousands and then hid, surrounding himself with the innocent.

The North Vietnamese worked this well. As a propaganda tool, when they were killed they had the media coverage of the deaths of the innocent around them. Al Qaeda gets to enjoy this now. And, make no mistake, they do enjoy it.

For those few times that Zarqawi managed to kill Americans, there were the deaths of the innocent around them. Al Qaeda enjoyed that too.

The alternative to not killing those around him would have been to let him remain free. Taking him alive would likely involve killing those around him. Possibly at an even greater scale.

Fox News' Rick Leventhal has stated that there is no excuse for the murder of unarmed civilians.

I do not know if he would equate the killing of these children to murder. I do not equate killing and murder.

America could not beat Zarqawi on the battlefield because he was never there. He was a coward who killed men, women, and children and then hid behind children. If there were a bunch of children killed in the bombing, then it is tragic. However, it is justified.