The indispensable site Watching America, which contains pieces from foreign newspapers, many of them translated specifically for the site, has a Le Monde editorial that proclaims “Zarqawi Has Won.” And rather than being a medley of rhetoric, it lays out its case in specifics.
Some highlights:
Before disappearing, the Jordanian jihadist had, in less than three years, won his main wagers.
Zarqawi promised an international rout: by attacking U.N. headquarters in Baghdad he succeeded in making United Nations’ agencies, NGOs and businessmen flee Iraq.
Zarqawi promised a ruthless war against the American Army. Even if his participation from a military point of view was undoubtedly less decisive than he claimed – most operations being conducted by Iraqi rebels, ex-Saddamists, Islamists or Sunni villagers – the result is there: no American patrol can hope to leave its base in Baghdad or in the Sunni triangle without being harassed, often to deadly effect.
Zarqawi finally and above all – and this is what differentiated him from an Osama bin Laden who is at war with the West and Saudi Arabia – promised blood and tears to the Shiites, to the Kurds, and a civil war in Iraq: this has come to pass.
It offers some qualifiers. But you have to wonder if each of those are as clear-cut and attributable to Zarqawi as this thought-provoking editorial claims. MANY kinds of social and political forces are at play; he may have made various promises but it doesn’t necessarily stand to follow that he is the one who brought the present situation to pass. Le Monde again:
His disappearance consequently changes nothing a priori about the Iraqi challenge. Certainly, we must wait to see who will take over from him. But above all, it is necessary to resolve the basic questions in Iraq: those of sovereignty and governance, American occupation, Iranian involvement, the destruction of the economy and the Islamization of society.
But the world will find one thing out, soon enough. Can the death of one person make a huge difference in the course of history with certain historial forces? Some would argues YES (the most glaring example the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy and the subsequent path of the nation and the Democratic party once they vanished). Whole countries can change when a ruler is kicked out (remember the Shah of Iran?).
Will Zarqawi being gone from the scene mean a change for the better? Or will more brutal (if that is possible) or perhaps more politically-savvy young terrorists step in to fill the vacuum and provide less of a symbol and be more effective, from their point of view?
We hate to say “stay tuned” but…stay tuned. And we have to say this about the Le Monde piece but we will: Read the whole thing.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.