Zar­qawi’s fate

The Washington Times Weekly - - Culture, Etc. -

“When the U.S. gov­ern­ment top­pled Sad­dam Hus­sein in 2003, it thought regime change would help bring democ­racy to Iraq, and then to the rest of the re­gion. [. . .]

“Rather than view­ing the fall of Sad­dam as an oc­ca­sion to cre­ate a lib­eral democ­racy, most Iraqis saw it as an op­por­tu­nity to re­dress in­jus­tices in the dis­tri­bu­tion of power among the coun­try’s ma­jor eth­nic and re­li­gious groups.

“Hence, while Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials were cel­e­brat­ing the killing of Abu Musab al-Zar­qawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, and spin­ning it asan­other ‘turn­ing point’ in the ‘War on Ter­ror,’ the elim­i­na­tion of Zar­qawi was seen in Iraq as an­other vic­tory for the Shi’ites and their cur­rent Kur­dish al­lies as they try to con­tain an in­sur­gency led by var­i­ous Sunni groups, such as for­mer mem­bers of the Ba’ath regime and Is­lamist guer­ril­las, in­clud­ing for­eign re­cruits such as the Jor­da­nian Zar­qawi (and, ap­par­ently, his Egyp­tian suc­ces­sor). In fact, some an­a­lysts have spec­u­lated that Zar­qawi was be­trayed by ri­val Sunni in­sur­gents.”

Leon T. Hadar, writ­ing on “Af­ter Zar­qawi,” in the Au­gust is­sue of Chron­i­cles

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.