The Iraqi elections on Sunday were a good first step toward Iraq becoming self-governed. By the reaction of the Bush administration, you would get the sense that they are all pro-democracy all the time, and this was some huge monumental event.
While the event was important – there hadn’t been a truly democratic election in Iraq for about 50 years – it is but one step on a very bumpy road.
Considering that many Iraqis didn’t know who they were voting for, the government is far from representative, but it is better than nothing.
The creation and adoption of a constitution is far more critical to the success of Iraq, however.
That will determine how much power the central government has, what type of government is created and how many rights the citizens of Iraq will receive.
What may be more important to those of us in the United States is to not allow the Bush administration to use the Iraqi elections to paint reality as something other than what it really is.
At the same time the Bush administration is showcasing the Iraqi elections as part of their grand vision of the future, three of our biggest allies in the war on terror – Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan – have little or no democratic processes in place.
Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. While the United States has requested that they explore democracy every now and then, Bush has shown little inclination to hold Saudi Arabia accountable if they do not.
In Pakistan it is even worse. Not only do we tolerate Musharraf overturning diplomatic institutions in remain in power, we helped him do so.
The reason being that had the United States let democracy run its course, a thing that Bush is supposedly so in favor of, Musharraf would have been run out of office, and been replaced by a hostile Islamic-based party, which would have probably kicked us out.
This clearly shows that Bush only supports Democracy whenever he thinks it will help him.
Bush is just as likely to oppose democracy in other nations if the results would be negative for us.
While this by itself isn’t a bad thing – U.S. presidents always need to look out for the best interests of the United States – it is still dishonest of Bush to go around saying that he wants to spread democracy everywhere when he clearly doesn’t.
One also shouldn’t forget everything that led us to invade Iraq in the first place.
Does anyone remember weapons of mass destruction and the shadow of a mushroom cloud over New York City anymore?
Regardless of who you blame for being wrong about WMDs, the buck ultimately stops at President Bush. He told the nation that Iraq had WMDs. They didn’t. Therefore, the reason we went to war is no longer legitimate.
As much as going to war to spread democracy and to get rid of Saddam Hussein sounds good, there are several problems with it.
First, why are we taking money and people away from hunting bin Laden just so the Iraqi people can vote for their leaders instead of living under a dictatorship?
Of course it is better for them. There is no arguing against that.
The question that people should be asking is this: Is it better for the United States?
Which is better? Taking out Saddam and leaving al Qaeda to rebuild their forces and leaving Osama bin Laden out there to plan more attacks and to tease us with new videos now and then, or leaving Saddam in power while focusing on capturing bin Laden, the man who is actually behind the 9/11 attacks?
One must walk a narrow tightrope, celebrating the advancement of democracy of Iraq, but still keeping one’s head about what is most important to us – what is in it for the United States of America?

Author