At the beginning of December there was talk of delaying the Iraqi elections scheduled for next month because the security could not be completely assured.  The idea is that the delay would enable people to better be able to go and cast their ballots, despite the evidence in countries like Afghanistan where people still voted despite the danger that they faced from terrorists and Taliban sympathizers.

This suggestion to delay the elections undermines both the war in Iraq and the fledgling democracy that has been created there.  It also buys into the ridiculously arrogant liberal notion that Iraq is simply incapable of holding their own elections because they either don’t understand democracy, have never experienced, or wouldn’t know what to do with freedom if they did have it – and these are valid suppositions to take from the liberal talking points regarding the potential of elections in Iraq.)

Make no mistake, if the elections are delayed, they will continue to be far past six months. They’ll be delayed for years until the UN or some similarly stupid organization determines that the moon and stars are in the proper magical alignment that will allow the people of Iraq to finally get a chance to decide their own fate.

For the Democrats, delaying the elections is fundamentally important to their cause.  They tried, and failed, to delay the Afghanistan elections and now face a country that is fast becoming one of President Bush’s democracy-creation policy success stories.  To be sure, Afghanistan is far from a total success, but is quickly becoming a better and more productive country than it was under Taliban rule.  The Democrats do not want to see Bush have success a second time.  If Iraq’s elections go forward, there is the potential that the country becomes a success instead of a quagmire, meaning the loss of another attack tactic for Democratic use against the incumbent, and newly reelected, president.

Most importantly, the Iraqi elections will grant a renewed legitimacy to the democratic process for the citizens of Iraq, never mind the world, because there is this idea that the interim government is comprised of little more than puppets carefully selected by the American government.  Whether this is true or not is irrelevant so long as the Iraqi people believe it’s true.  The elections would grant legitimacy to those Iraqis’ view of their country’s government.  Changes will obviously be made over time to their government’s structure and function, and the initial government will certainly be far from perfect, but these are minor details and slight worries that stand in the way of a broader and better overarching goal granting a renewed opportunity to the country and its citizens.

Like the Democrats, the terrorists do not want the elections to occur, but they have far different reasons.  To allow elections to occur would be to allow democracy a foothold in the country.  The terrorists are desperate to destabilize the country and prevent this, a clear indicator of the validity of the Bush administration’s “domino” theory of democracy in the Middle East.  If one country successfully implements democracy, others will follow.  The terrorists will then lose their only bargaining chip: the destitution of the people their terrorism enslaves.

Iraq’s elections may not be the most successful elections in the history of the world, but they will be far better than the sham elections held by Saddam Hussein in the years preceding his downfall.  Remember his 99% approval rating and the record-high turnout to “re-elect” the dictator?  No reputable organization on earth recognized the election results as valid – except maybe some members of Left’s lunatic Hollywood fringe.

If Iraq’s elections go forward, the people will suddenly have a vested interest in keeping the terrorists at bay and allowing the process, for better or for worse, to help them.  Whatever the cost, whatever the need, the elections in January must go forward if Iraq is going to have any shot at a real democratic peace.  Yes, it may be difficult and there may be questions of the election’s validity, but if the elections are not held, something far worse will certainly be validated: the ability of the terrorist to affect the elections in yet another country.

Is that really the message we want to send to terrorists?

| Main Page | Column Archive | Who Is Brian Clardy? | Files and Links | Feedback |

All written material on this website not attributed to another author is © 2001-2004 by Brian Clardy.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any way without the explicit consent of Brian Clardy.
All rights reserved.