At the VFW convention yesterday, the president reaffirmed his support for Nuri al-Maliki, describing him as “a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him.” As for whether Maliki should be replaced, Bush said, “[I]t’s not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position — that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship.”
There’s that word again, “democracy.” In his 45-minute speech, Bush used the word a remarkable 21 times, apparently to reinforce the thinking behind his alleged democracy-promoting agenda. Indeed, on Iraq, the president told VFW members that “a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it’s going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century.”
It all sounds nice until one realizes that even officials in Bush’s administration are becoming increasingly open to the idea of giving up on the idea of an Iraqi democracy. In fact, military leaders are conceding reality.
Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.
A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration’s stated goals of the war.
But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country’s nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren’t as “lofty” as they once had been.
Brig. Gen. John “Mick” Bednarek, part of Task Force Lightning in Diyala province, conceded, “Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future.”
The CNN report added that senior U.S. military commanders are suggesting privately that the entire Iraqi government may need to be removed — by “constitutional or non-constitutional” means — and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.
Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning, concluded, “I would describe it as leaving an effective government behind that can provide services to its people, and security. It needs to be an effective and functioning government that is really a partner with the United States and the rest of the world in this fight against the terrorists.” If those goals are reached without a democracy, Mixon said, so be it.
In other words, with no political progress in sight, a democracy isn’t going to emerge. The president’s (latest) vision isn’t going to come to fruition. We can keep trying to establish a government that isn’t going to function, or we can aim for a new goal — stability over freedom.
I’m not necessarily denouncing that as a policy option, but it’s worth appreciating the implications. Bush had moved the goalposts so many times, they’re no longer in the same stadium. This war was necessary because of WMD. No, because of U.N. resolutions. Or rather, because al Qaeda. Make that “democracy promotion.” We’d establish a democracy in the Middle East that would, in turn, inspire the region and topple dictatorships. Yeah, that’s it.
Except it’s not. We’ll replace a malevolent-but-stable dictatorship with a benevolent-and-stable dictatorship. Let freedom ring.