By Andrew L. Jaffee

Iraqis voted on Saturday for local representatives, on an almost violence-free election day aimed at creating provincial councils that more closely represent Iraq’s ethnic, sectarian and tribal balance. By nightfall, there were no confirmed deaths, and children played soccer on closed-off streets in a generally joyous atmosphere. …

So admits the New York Times (NYT) in a story entitled, “Under Tight Security, Iraqis Vote on Almost Violence-Free Election Day,” published on January 31, 2009. In another story, the NYT admitted that the elections occurred in “Iraq’s most peaceful period since the American invasion in 2003.” This is all a far cry from the constant litany of doomsday prognostications we’ve been listening to since the Coalition effort to bring democracy to Iraq began in 2003.

President Bush was considered guilty without possibility of being proven innocent for his attempt to change the disastrous, totalitarian, incestuous, and corrupt morass which is the Middle East — except for Israel. He committed himself to bringing democracy to Iraq, stayed the course, and sacrificed his historical legacy, at least in the short-term, because he believed without reservation that he was doing the right thing. Bush always maintained that changing Iraq would not be easy, and would require a long-term commitment.

The professional, pretentious “radicals” have focused all their energy on hating Bush, as simple minds require simple solutions and always need an easily-identifiable scapegoat. They will probably never admit that they were wrong about Iraq. But after all these years of staying the course in Iraq, and ignoring the howling of the naysayers, it looks like Bush’s Iraq effort will turn out for the better, even according to the mostly politically-correct BBC:

… The election was an extraordinary achievement in a country that has been wracked by violence for the last nearly six years, our correspondent [Jim Muir] says.

Healthy and peaceful political competition, and change through the ballot box, have become the name of the game, he adds. …

Iraq’s Sunnis, once the heart of opposition to the democratic process, turned out in large numbers to participate in the elections:

… Meanwhile, the once-dominant Sunni Arabs regained political power in other parts of the country - having boycotted the 2005 election. …

According to Time Magazine, “the big winner at the polls was the Shi’ite-led alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.” He didn’t just win because Shiites make up the majority of Iraq’s population, but because:

… Al-Maliki has used his tenure as Prime Minister to emerge as the preeminent political figure in Iraq, enjoying a groundswell of popularity following his government’s largely successful efforts alongside U.S. forces to battle militias and insurgents throughout southern Iraq and Baghdad. …

Indeed, the Washington Post emphasized the election’s positives, writing that, “Elections strengthen secular moderates who seek to curb Iran’s influence,” and effused:

… Last weekend’s vote, which occurred during one of the calmest periods Iraq has experienced since the U.S. invasion, was a political triumph. Though results are still preliminary, they show that voters strongly rewarded Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his forceful action against extremist militias and his secular nationalist agenda — and punished religious parties perceived as too sectarian or too close to Iran. The nonsectarian alliance of former prime minister Ayad Allawi also appears to have done well, and nationalist Sunnis gained influence in areas where they had lacked it because of previous election boycotts. In short, Iraq appears to have taken a step toward becoming the moderate Arab democracy that the Bush administration long hoped for. …

Does anything truly worth having in life come easily, especially when one is talking about bringing democracy to the Middle East, probably the most dysfunctional region on the planet? No. Even President Obama has back-peddled on his campaign promise of immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Washington Post’s editorial board believes now is not the time for silly decisions, especially just as conditions in Iraq have started to stabilize:

… Oddly, the biggest beneficiary of the election other than Mr. Maliki may be President Obama, who has been a skeptic both of progress in Iraq and the value of elections in unstable states. Mr. Obama acknowledged on Monday that “Iraqis just had a very significant election with no significant violence” and called that “good news” — but only in the sense that it could justify withdrawing “a substantial number” of U.S. troops this year. While such a drawdown is certainly a desirable goal, the president would do well to recognize, value and exploit the very real political progress Iraq has made — and to be careful not to undercut it by acting too quickly on his exit strategy.

Let us hope Obama heeds the Post’s advice. I believe Obama is a pragmatic man and, since we’re discussing presidential legacies, doesn’t want to be seen as the world leader who ruined Iraq’s wondrous chances for transformation towards democracy.

---

---

Related: Elections, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Media/Blogsphere, Obama, Political Correctness

---