|
I must be thick—how does the election vindicate the war?
I’m afraid I’m just hopelessly out of it. From everywhere in the conservative universe you hear that the Iraqi election “vindicates” Bush’s policies (Best of the Web) and that the election “effectively justified President Bush’s policies—particularly, the decision to topple Saddam in the first place” (New York Post). Now, I consistently supported Bush’s decision to topple Hussein. Yet I don’t have the slightest idea what it means to say that the election justifies or vindicates that decision. I can’t even translate this into some other phrase of which I might be able to make sense. We have an army of 130,000 in that country. We handed over power to an interim government, on the understanding that they would hold an election for a national assembly that would write a constitution. We locked down the whole country for days in order to prevent terrorist attacks, including closing the border (which we apparently had never tried to do before, even as foreign terrorists were flocking in, hmm), and the Iraqi people, eager for a new start, gallantly braved the threat of death to come out and vote. The terrorism continued, however, and about 40 Iraqis were murdered during the election and many more wounded. So the control of the country by the U.S. armed forces was needed to carry out the election, which nevertheless involved deaths that would be the equivalent of 500 Americans being blown up by suicide bombs while going to the polls on election day. Is this really a model of a new “democracy”? Is it? Given our conquest of the country and our effective control of main parts of it, why is this election, as tortured and violence-battered as it was, surprising? As far as I was concerned, it was a foregone conclusion that once we had toppled Hussein there would be elections at some point. Are Bush supporters so eager for a sign of victory (given the actual horrendous chaos that exists in that country as a result of our failure actually to win the war that we supposedly won) that they are constructing a mighty vindication out of what in fact is only one small step (and really the EASIEST step) toward a self-governing Iraq? Are the mainstream conservatives off the wall, or am I off the wall? What am I not getting here? Why am I so out of step with what every conservative and lots of liberals as well are feeling? Even Thomas Sowell, who once wrote wisely about the difference between democracy and liberty (liberty is much more important than, and must precede, democracy), has thrown aside his old sour and skeptical approach and is on the “Bush is vindicated” bandwagon.
I encourage you to write to me with your thoughts. I’d like to know if I am indeed as out of step as I feel. Email entry |