After the Iraqi Elections

Some lefties have their heads permanently buried in the Iraqi sands. Before the election, ten days ago, Ted Kennedy once again drove off the bridge by pre-judging failure. John Kerry "dissed" democracy. And the intelligentsia publishes "long tracts on Bush's 'failures' and those on neoconservative 'arrogance,' [and] predictions of defeat in Iraq, laced with calls for phased withdrawal and — throughout — resounding criticism of the 'botched' U.S. occupation and innuendos of petroleum imperialism." According to Mark Steyn, the left was so smug that "scanning the coverage from Toronto to Sydney via Dublin, London, Paris and Berlin, I had an eerie sense of déjà vu. The Western media appear to have decided that any good news out of Iraq is one almighty neocon snow job."

This pessimism is largely nonsense, of course, as the elections proved. And, contrary to leftist expectations, the American military continues to support the war. But liberals are most disingenuous when they presume to know the views of the Iraqis themselves. Dems insist the terrorists only seek to eject an invader, ignoring that the terrorists themselves are foreigners who pre-date the toppling of Saddam and oppose any sort of democracy. Indeed, Bush's opponents skip the numerous Iraqi blogs, which offer voices far more authentic than the New York Times, and overwhelmingly support America's policies to date. Even the Arab press applauded the vote.

Their other arguments having failed, the left's now muttering that democracy can't work in the Middle East. This is arrogant and racist beyond belief. In fact, the prospects remain excellent, says NRO's John O'Sullivan:

Iraq has a well-educated people, considerable oil wealth, a strong middle class, and even a tradition of elections and limited democracy under the British and the monarchy. In other words, it has most of the usual preconditions for a successful democracy. It also has prudent religious leaders and a sophisticated political establishment who want a decent constitutional compromise.

And, finally, the election atmosphere of joyful democratic commitment suggests that Iraqis may be increasingly united by a national patriotism that could help overcome communal rivalries. So there are good reasons to hope that Iraq will surmount the obstacles of ethnic and religious division.

Indeed, even the Washington Post's turned optimistic:

[T]he public mood appears to be moving more clearly against the insurgency in Iraq, political and security officials said. In the week since national elections, police officers and Iraqi National Guardsmen said they have received more tips from the public, resulting in more arrests and greater effectiveness in their efforts to weaken the violent insurgency rocking the country. . .

[A] relative lull in violence in the capital has fueled the sense that something has fundamentally changed since the vote. A change of attitudes in Baghdad could make a crucial difference in the battle against the insurgency, and a buoyed sense of civic pride is already beginning to change the way the public treats the police, authorities say.

Indeed, the Iraqis have gone on the offensive:

Now that the elections are over and the terrorists are trying to make good on their threats to punish those who voted, the Iraqi people are fighting back, having seen the cowards for what they are. Further, it is great that the Iraqi people are demanding their government protect them better. If the “common people” of Iraq want protection and are beating the stuffing out of the terrorists, then the Iraqi security forces are much more likely to stay with the program, reducing the desertion and absentee problems we are currently having.

So the libs shifted course, doubting the elections' legitimacy -- because of relatively lower participation from Sunnis -- and worrying Bush's policies might spawn a Shi'ite monster. But, Iraq has a Shi'ite majority; a Shi'ite victory reinforces the vote's validity. Moreover, the Sunnis don't appear worried:

In a bid to avoid marginalization, a group of Sunni Arab parties that refused to participate in the election said Saturday they want to take part in the drafting of a permanent constitution — a chief task of the new National Assembly.

"The representatives of these political bodies that did not participate in the elections have decided in principle to take part in the writing of the permanent constitution in a suitable way," a statement from the group said.

And Shi'ite clerics vigorously deny seeking a religious autocracy:

Hamed Khafaf said Ayatollah Ali Sistani believes Iraq's new constitution should respect what he described as the Islamic cultural identity of Iraqis.

Shia success in the election led to speculation that the ayatollah wanted a constitution based on Sharia law.

Mr Khafaf said the speculation was baseless.

So the left remains consistent--consistently wrong, says Steyn:

[T]he "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.

Kerry and Kennedy are stuck in 1968. Their increasing shrillness flows from frustration at failing to fool Americans to follow them into the way-back machine, says GOP Bloggers:

[I]n the minds of Democratic activists it is not that their proposals are rejected after being considered, but that the majority of American people are either too stupid to understand or were hoodwinked by tricky Republicans. In either case, the Democratic base sees no reason to alter message - they just need, in their minds, to smarten up or un-hoodwink a sufficient number of people to give them the majority. Thus we see their intense desire to be obstructionist of all things Republican and hammer home an ever more left-leaning message.

(via Captain's Quarters)