The Election in Iraq
Iraqis are voting today in the beginning of a process that, if successful, will lead to democratic constitutional government during the coming year. This will be unique in the Middle East except for Israel, the region's only democracy.
In the south of Iraq, voting is proceeding peacefully. In Sunni areas where terrorists continue to attempt to stop the election people are voting anyway, apparently in large numbers. Despite the violence intended to intimidate them, CNN is showing jubilant Iraqis leaving polling places in these areas, overjoyed at having cast their first-ever free votes.
This is not happening because of the United Nations, or France, or Russia, or any of the other countries who have so strongly opposed U.S. action in Iraq. It isn't happening because of the media, most of which has done everything possible to focus on the negative and obscure progress in Iraq. It's happening because of the United States, which defeated Iraq's dictator and created conditions under which elections could be held.
From the lead editorial in today's Washington Post:
The Bush administration and much of the world will be riveted by the news from Iraq today as millions of citizens head for some 5,000 polling places -- and insurgents try to kill as many of them as possible. ... What is already clear is that the most fateful struggle in Iraq is between the millions willing to risk their lives for a new political order founded on a free vote and an extremist minority whose cause, as succinctly stated by Abu Musab Zarqawi, is "a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it." Today, and in the months after the election, it should be the mission of the United States to support that civil majority and help it defend itself against its totalitarian enemy.
Analysts who reduce the war in Iraq to a nationalist "resistance" against a U.S. occupation should be pressed to explain the events of the past couple of weeks: the brutal murders of election officials; the bombings of schools where voting was due; the bloodcurdling threats against those who approached the polls -- and the extraordinarily courageous response by tens of thousands of Iraqis who presented themselves as candidates or volunteered as poll workers. ...
...the new government must clearly establish that violence will not be a means of political leverage in a democratizing Iraq. ... That will require greater will by Iraqis to defend their new government, but it will also require, for the near future, help from U.S. troops. Much as it resents the foreign presence, the emerging Iraqi majority understands this reality -- which is why the violent "resistance" to U.S. troops now is limited almost entirely to those minority Sunnis who also oppose majority rule. When Iraq's majority, as democratically represented by its new government, asks the United States to agree to a timetable for withdrawal, the Bush administration should acquiesce -- as President Bush himself agreed this month. Until that time, this country has a critical obligation -- both moral and practical -- to continue defending the Iraq composed of those brave citizens who go to the polls today.
The polls haven't closed yet, and it will be several days before a fair assessment can be made. No doubt the election isn't going to be perfect. There will be areas under greatest threat from terrorists where turnout will not be as high as everyone would have liked. There will be confusion and administrative errors. There will be conspiracy theories and charges of various kinds of corruption. Much of this won't be so different from post-election complaints common to all democracies.
We have to expect that many in the media will continue to emphasize the negative, and the usual suspects, including American leftists, will continue to do everything possible to diminish Iraqi and U.S. achievements. The U.S. government should ignore this drumbeat of defeatism and stay the course, helping Iraq move from the hope of democracy to it's full realization. That will be a massive achievement, not only for Iraq and the Middle East, but for the world.
In the south of Iraq, voting is proceeding peacefully. In Sunni areas where terrorists continue to attempt to stop the election people are voting anyway, apparently in large numbers. Despite the violence intended to intimidate them, CNN is showing jubilant Iraqis leaving polling places in these areas, overjoyed at having cast their first-ever free votes.
This is not happening because of the United Nations, or France, or Russia, or any of the other countries who have so strongly opposed U.S. action in Iraq. It isn't happening because of the media, most of which has done everything possible to focus on the negative and obscure progress in Iraq. It's happening because of the United States, which defeated Iraq's dictator and created conditions under which elections could be held.
From the lead editorial in today's Washington Post:
The Bush administration and much of the world will be riveted by the news from Iraq today as millions of citizens head for some 5,000 polling places -- and insurgents try to kill as many of them as possible. ... What is already clear is that the most fateful struggle in Iraq is between the millions willing to risk their lives for a new political order founded on a free vote and an extremist minority whose cause, as succinctly stated by Abu Musab Zarqawi, is "a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it." Today, and in the months after the election, it should be the mission of the United States to support that civil majority and help it defend itself against its totalitarian enemy.
Analysts who reduce the war in Iraq to a nationalist "resistance" against a U.S. occupation should be pressed to explain the events of the past couple of weeks: the brutal murders of election officials; the bombings of schools where voting was due; the bloodcurdling threats against those who approached the polls -- and the extraordinarily courageous response by tens of thousands of Iraqis who presented themselves as candidates or volunteered as poll workers. ...
...the new government must clearly establish that violence will not be a means of political leverage in a democratizing Iraq. ... That will require greater will by Iraqis to defend their new government, but it will also require, for the near future, help from U.S. troops. Much as it resents the foreign presence, the emerging Iraqi majority understands this reality -- which is why the violent "resistance" to U.S. troops now is limited almost entirely to those minority Sunnis who also oppose majority rule. When Iraq's majority, as democratically represented by its new government, asks the United States to agree to a timetable for withdrawal, the Bush administration should acquiesce -- as President Bush himself agreed this month. Until that time, this country has a critical obligation -- both moral and practical -- to continue defending the Iraq composed of those brave citizens who go to the polls today.
The polls haven't closed yet, and it will be several days before a fair assessment can be made. No doubt the election isn't going to be perfect. There will be areas under greatest threat from terrorists where turnout will not be as high as everyone would have liked. There will be confusion and administrative errors. There will be conspiracy theories and charges of various kinds of corruption. Much of this won't be so different from post-election complaints common to all democracies.
We have to expect that many in the media will continue to emphasize the negative, and the usual suspects, including American leftists, will continue to do everything possible to diminish Iraqi and U.S. achievements. The U.S. government should ignore this drumbeat of defeatism and stay the course, helping Iraq move from the hope of democracy to it's full realization. That will be a massive achievement, not only for Iraq and the Middle East, but for the world.
5 Comments:
Yes, it is a massive achievement, but what's mesmerizing me about this story is the courage of the men and women heading out to vote in Iraq.
How many of us in the West care this much about our right to vote? I guess you could say that those in the Armed Forces are putting their lives on the line to defend our democratic institutions, but so many people over here don't seem to have a clue about what they have.
All I can say is that this day ought to be a humbling rebuke to all those who said that Iraqis were too backward for freedom, and that a dictatorship was the best form of government for them. Anyone who does not react with the acknowledgement that this people deserve the same rights as all other peoples is dead at heart.
My response to Francesca is at her site, Francesca's Liberal Wingnut Corner.
No doubt America's efforts in conducting the elections on schedule are laudable. Hopefully, the outcome of the elections would fall in line with the spirit!
Kevin, the election in Iraq didn't happen because of the UN, in any sense. They have had a small contingent there for a while to work on the election, but I can't find evidence that they've done much. The biggest news they made was when the head of their group criticized the U.S. for handing out election information flyers, then the UN quickly withdrew the statement. And I'm not always critical of the UN. In other posts I've commented on the good work often done by their field organizations, for example. But the truth is, it's been a while since the UN did much worth getting excited about.
No, of course I don't advocate attempting to democratize the world by force. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say that, in any serious sense. Iran and North Korea remain as serious problems in terms of our national interest, but each case is different and requires a different approach.
Am I willing to "sacrifice" soldiers? Come on, Kevin.
Medbh, thanks for your comment. I'm just guessing here, but it seems you disagree. Was it something I said? Or was it the Washington Post?
Post a Comment
<< Home