It’s heartening to see the elections in Iraq go as well as they did yesterday. This war may be one of the most dramatic foreign policy debacles in generations, but encouraging developments bring hope, whether one believes the invasion was a good idea or not.
But, like Bob Herbert, I see this as encouraging news burdened by stipulations.
You’d have to be pretty hardhearted not to be moved by the courage of the millions of Iraqis who insisted on turning out to vote yesterday despite the very real threat that they would be walking into mayhem and violent death at the polls.
At polling stations across the country there were women in veils holding the hands of children, and men on crutches, and people who had been maimed during the terrible years of Saddam, and old people. Among those lined up to vote in Baghdad was Samir Hassan, a 32-year-old man who lost a leg in the blast of a car bomb last year. He told a reporter, “I would have crawled here if I had to.”
In a war with very few feel-good moments, yesterday’s election would qualify as one. But as with any positive development in Iraq, this one was riddled with caveats.
Indeed, while we should all celebrate the modest success of yesterday’s elections, it’d be foolish to ignore — as some of the war’s most ardent supporters would prefer — the less encouraging developments.
* It was moving to see so many risk their lives to vote, but violence claimed the lives of nearly four-dozen Iraqis. That’s fewer deaths than some expected, but it’s not a good sign, either.
* The number of insurgent attacks in Iraq yesterday totaled 175, about triple the recent daily average.
* Shortly after polls closed, a British transport plane was reportedly shot down, killing 10.
* While many communities in Iraq saw high turnout despite insurgent threats, Sunni communities, as expected, stayed away from the polls.
* The elections themselves were hardly a model of democracy. Many voters were choosing candidates literally at random — candidates were afraid to campaign for fear of being killed so voters had to guess. As Herbert put it:
A real democracy requires an informed electorate. What we saw yesterday was an uncommonly brave electorate. But it was woefully uninformed. Much of the electorate was voting blind. Half or more of those who went to the polls believed they were voting for a president. They weren’t.
For that matter, it’s also difficult to get one’s hopes up after one modestly good day. Yes, it’s inspiring to turn on the TV and see Iraqis celebrating. But Iraqis were also celebrating after we tore down Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, just as some celebrated after the so-called “hand-over” last June. Those milestones, which we were told would put Iraq on the road to safety and stability, were fleeting moments.
Ultimately, it’s hard to say with any certainty how much better off Iraq is today than it was before the election. As Fred Kaplan put it, “The challenges and uncertainties that seemed so daunting last week — about Iraq’s security, society, and governance — are unlikely to turn less daunting next week, next month, or the month after.”
The streets of Iraq were largely safe yesterday because of unprecedented steps to ensure some semblance of security for voters. Those steps won’t be in place today, or tomorrow, or any day in the near future, which means the violence and chaos that was common the days before the election will now reassume the role of the status quo.
Yesterday was largely a good day, and for that we should all be grateful. But the idea that the entire war was worthwhile because Iraq hosted an election for a transitional national assembly that was marred by only some violence is misguided. Yesterday was good news, which may ultimately turn into great news, but the right’s victory lap at this point is ridiculously premature.