Fri Jun 9, 7:35 AM ET
Americans awoke Thursday to a rare piece of hopeful news from Iraq: A U.S. airstrike had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most notorious al-Qaeda terrorist there.
What does it mean?
On an emotional level, there's no doubt: It's a huge relief. One of the most despicable terrorists ever to walk this planet, a psychopath responsible for the deaths of thousands, is gone. Zarqawi made beheadings of Westerners a trademark. He decapitated American engineer Nicholas Berg, then posted a video of it on the Internet. He committed atrocities against Shiites to provoke sectarian war between them and his fellow Sunnis. He even attacked fellow Jordanian Muslims who he thought had become too Westernized.
Depriving al-Qaeda in Iraq of its brutal, charismatic leader is a high-profile victory and a triumph for the beleaguered U.S. military. But the impact on the wider war in Iraq is less clear-cut. Other successes, notably the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, have failed to stem the violence.
In contrast to previous statements about developments in Iraq, President Bush struck the right tone Thursday. Zarqawi's death offers a chance to "turn the tide" but won't end the violence, Bush said. The realism is a welcome change from the premature triumphalism of the past.
So, is there really a chance the death can, as Bush said, start turning the tide? Perhaps, if it is smartly leveraged in three areas:
•Al-Qaeda. Though Zarqawi declared himself the head of al-Qaeda's Iraq franchise, there has been evidence of tension between him and the terror network's two top leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri. An intercepted letter to Zarqawi, thought to be from Zawahri, worried that his attacks on fellow Muslims were alienating too many of them. Playing up Zarqawi's atrocities, particularly against Muslims, can be helpful in making those worries real. Better still would be any captured documents or computer data leading from Zarqawi back to bin Laden and Zawahri, who are believed to be hiding along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
• The insurgency in Iraq. It has long been unclear just how much of the insurgency is homegrown and how much imported by outsiders such as Zarqawi. Zarqawi's network won't end with his death, and a successor might already have taken his place. Even so, it seems no single person did more than Zarqawi to foment secular violence between Sunnis and Shiites. The open question is whether he succeeded in provoking civil war beyond the point of no return. His death provides an opportunity to try to convince Sunni insurgents that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a dying movement, and that the better path is to work with the new unity government.
•The Iraqi government. The White House wisely let Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announce Zarqawi's death first, in an effort to shore up the fledgling government's credibility. In a happy coincidence, the announcement about Zarqawi came as Maliki reported he had finally filled the two most critical positions in his government, the heads of the ministries of interior and defense. This is a relief after months of squabbling.
If Iraq is to become a viable, relatively peaceful country, the insurgency must be quelled and the new government must gain authority. Zarqawi's death won't achieve that. But it can help. At the very least, the fact he can kill no more Nicholas Bergs, and others, is cause for satisfaction.