Post Election Questions

In the face of the overwhelming success of the election in Iraq yesterday, what are those of us who opposed the war to make of this?

We must acknowledge the desire of Iraqis to find stability and democracy – I, and I’m sure my readers, never doubted it. They turned out to the polls in great numbers, braving terrorist threats and actions. There can be no doubt that this war torn nation and its citizens will go to great lengths to stop the carnage. This acknowledgement in no way, however, signifies that how we came to this day and this result was an appropriate action on the part of our government.

That a people would rather elect their officials and select their constitution and form of government instead of living under a tyrannical regime should surprise no one. Frankly, I will admit surprise at the large number of voters who turned out. The threats made by the terrorists were very frightening and it took courage to stand in open lines at the polling stations.

In retrospect, the confidence of the Bush Administration that an election could be held and that many voters would brave the dangers was correct. Obviously, the intelligence within Iraq is improving. But what does all this mean?

My first thought is that my mindset during the Inaugural Address of two weeks ago was improperly focused and I evaluated it in the wrong light. My initial reaction to the speech was, as directed by the words of the president, to look to the future. While our military position in Iraq made it obvious that we could not at this time sustain another war and rebuilding project in an even larger and more difficult situation such as in Iran, President Bush was staking a claim to the hearts and minds of oppressed people across the globe.

In the wake of the Iraqi election, perhaps we were looking in the wrong direction. Maybe we should have been looking backward. Since all of our reasons for attacking Iraq and toppling the existing regime turned out to be wrong, perhaps the Inaugural Address was meant to be President Bush’s apology for the war. Since why we went in could not be supported, the new Bush Doctrine of helping oppressed people everywhere could be applied retrospectively and all would be made right with American citizens and voters.

Unless one buys into the idea that toppling Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqi people, everything we’ve done is a terrible waste of lives and resources and makes no sense in the War on Terror. Agreeing with the Bush Doctrine makes the regime change in Baghdad a permissible use of American military might and an ex post facto legitimizing of the action. And the president’s constant mantra of stating that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam suddenly takes on new meaning.

All of these mental gymnastics must, however, be performed in isolation from the rest of the world. Nothing has changed in the way we went to war except our after the fact explanation of why we did it. We did not secure the approval of the Security Council. Our coalition of the willing is still us, Great Britain, and token support from a small percentage of the nations of the world. And all of the problems of illegality of our preemptive (really it was preventive) action under international law have not been expunged.

We know that the Iraqis want peace, democracy and stability. We knew that before the war. We can deduce the same for the people of Iran, North Korea and just about any other place in the world governed by a tyrant. That said, what’s next? I don’t know, but there are still questions to be answered.

The Iraqis will have a self selected government within weeks. They will have a wonderful constitution in the very near future. The presence of more than 100,000 troops from the U.S. and its coalition partners assures that the new government will have time to prepare for its own security and survival. When the Americans leave, will the coalition of ethnic groups hold? Will the new Iraqi government require significant financial and military aid even after the oil revenue begins to pour in? Even further out, if a coup is attempted, would we intervene militarily? Could we? Could we not?

Yesterday was great. The future lies ahead, a great unkown.

Blog on!

Wild Bill