There is some carping about the elections in Iraq, and some down right defeatism. Daily Kos asks:
"Is the Iraq Election a success? The early reporting is that there is good turnout among the Shia and Kurds. Does this qualify as success?"
And continues:
" This Election is simply, in my estimation, an exercise in pretty pictures. Why? Because Elections are to choose governments, not to celebrate the day. Are the people elected capable of governing Iraq at this time? Without 150,000 U.S. soldiers? Or even with them? I have been accused of gloating by people right HERE because of my focus on the continuing violence. But my focus has been on the realities of governing a land in chaos, in the midst of civil war, with 150,000 U.S. soldiers the only force with the ability to provide security. And this is 2 years after the invasion."
At MSNBC online, Fareed Zakaria tells us that elections are not a democracy. Let's all agree that democracy is more than elections, but obviously it is not LESS than elections. All would like to see a democratic and prosperous Iraq (except for the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party that would hate to see any Bush policy vindicated). In order to do that there must be elections. And yes, Zakaria is right that democracy does not necessarily mean decent government. But Zakaria's point of view is also a recipe for accepting the brutal status quo of the Middle East, as Mark Steyn points out in today's Chicago Sun-Times. Steyn writes:
"When Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, warned that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would ''destabilize'' the entire region, he was right. That's why it was such a great idea...Nothing stands still. ''Stability'' is a fancy term to dignify laziness and complacency as sophistication."
Recent Comments