The right is appalled that some reactions to the death of Zarqawi are not ecstatically correct, particularly the reactions of Democrats -- whoops, sorry, of two Democrats (plus two who say "we have a long way to go," which is pretty much exactly what President Bush said) -- but, er, Michael ("Anonymous") Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris, thinks this could make things worse, as he told Bob Schieffer of CBS News:

SCHIEFFER: ...Michael, I want to ask you: It's my understanding you believe this might actually increase danger for U.S. troops?

SCHEUER: I think that's probably the case, Bob. Zarqawi was really off the reservation for Al Qaeda in terms of his willingness or eagerness to fight Shias. That is Al Qaeda's worst nightmare, a Shia-versus-Sunni civil war, because it'll detract from the focus on the United States, and with him out of the way, I suspect the next Al Qaeda leader in Iraq will focus more on American forces and the Iraqi government than actually just fighting against the Shia....

SCHIEFFER: What do you think the real significance of all this is, Michael?

SCHEUER: Any day you can kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a good day for Americans, sir, but in the long run I think it's a great tactical victory. Strategically it's not very important. Al Qaeda always plans for succession, and the next person they put in there is less likely to be trying to provoke a civil war with the Shia, which means the Shia insurgents and the Sunni insurgents probably will refocus their efforts on American forces, British forces, and the forces of the Iraqi government.

Righties, enforce conformity! Attack the pundit infidel!

(Video here; scroll to "Impact Of Zarqawi's Death." The Scheuer interview follows a much more optimistic interview with Thomas Friedman.)