Why do I not share in the general bliss over the Iraqi election?

In the aftermath of the Iraqi election, and the ecstatic responses thereto, I repeat what I wrote here last week:

We keep hearing that the administration is expecting a “good” election in Iraq, a “successful” election, and that if this occurs, it will represent a great victory for us, almost a miraculous achievement. I find this attitude odd. I never doubted that an election would occur, that people would go to polls and vote for parties or candidates, and that some type of government would be set up as a result. I’ve expected that to happen all along, so I’m not excited by its achievement. It doesn’t matter in the least because what matters is not whether some kind of government can be set up. What matters is whether the enemy can be defeated, because without that, the elected government won’t be able to survive and we’ll have to keep our forces in Iraq forever. Unlike the Bushites, I put the horse before the cart.

And please don’t misunderstand. It is not that, like the anti-Bushites, I want our endeavor in Iraq to fail. I want it to succeed. The problem is that Bush has redefined that endeavor from the defeat of our enemies to the utopian construction of global democracy. Though I have profound doubts about the viability of a democratically elected government in Iraq, I could support the creation of such a government as part of a larger strategy to render the Moslem world less dangerous. What I do not support is the escapist pursuit of Iraqi and Moslem democracy for its own sake. For this, not one American soldier should lose his life.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 31, 2005 11:28 AM | Send