Friday, January 14, 2005
The Iraqi election must proceed
Ralph Peters is adamant that we must not allow the January 30 Iraqi election to be pushed back:
Iraq's elections are going to be deadly, disorderly and deeply flawed. And they will still be the most open and authentic elections ever held in the Arab world. Anyone who needs proof of the importance of these polls need only look at the ferocity and duplicity of those intent on delaying or preventing them.
From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq have a common goal: They desperately want the American experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East to fail — the first for reasons of power, the latter to regain its lost prestige.
The terrorists' alarm is understandable. Ditto for the Sunni Arab insurgents. They could never win an election in Iraq, and they know it. The terrorists believe in religious tyranny, while the insurgents believe in secular tyranny. Neither care in the least about the aspirations of the common people.
For its part, the Times believes in the tyranny of the intelligentsia. Blinded by its hatred for the Bush administration, it attempts to portray every development in Iraq as a disaster. Even marginally successful Iraqi elections would prove it wrong yet again.
Shouldn't we raise an eyebrow when we find America's self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" shoulder-to-shoulder with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the leftovers of Saddam Hussein's regime? Does the NYT really want the terrorists to win? Is their editorial vanity so great?
The truth is that some Sunni Arabs will show up to vote, at great risk. But even if not one participated, it would still leave us with over 80 percent of Iraqis anxious to go to the polls.
The issue the critics avoid like a leper's kiss is that any delay would hand the terrorists a victory. Wringing their hands about the level of violence in Iraq, democracy's opponents on the Upper West Side insist that voting requires higher levels of security.
Iraq is more complex than Afghanistan. The election may disappoint us, in its conduct, its results, or both. But you have to start somewhere. You can't play the intellectual's game of endless procrastination, sunk in dreams of impossible perfection. There is no substitute for the courage to act.
But don't listen to the terrorists, the insurgents or The New York Times, all of whom are committed to denying a voice to the majority of Iraqis.
Read the whole thing.
From Islamic terrorists to The New York Times, the enemies of free elections in Iraq have a common goal: They desperately want the American experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East to fail — the first for reasons of power, the latter to regain its lost prestige.
The terrorists' alarm is understandable. Ditto for the Sunni Arab insurgents. They could never win an election in Iraq, and they know it. The terrorists believe in religious tyranny, while the insurgents believe in secular tyranny. Neither care in the least about the aspirations of the common people.
For its part, the Times believes in the tyranny of the intelligentsia. Blinded by its hatred for the Bush administration, it attempts to portray every development in Iraq as a disaster. Even marginally successful Iraqi elections would prove it wrong yet again.
Shouldn't we raise an eyebrow when we find America's self-proclaimed "newspaper of record" shoulder-to-shoulder with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the leftovers of Saddam Hussein's regime? Does the NYT really want the terrorists to win? Is their editorial vanity so great?
The truth is that some Sunni Arabs will show up to vote, at great risk. But even if not one participated, it would still leave us with over 80 percent of Iraqis anxious to go to the polls.
The issue the critics avoid like a leper's kiss is that any delay would hand the terrorists a victory. Wringing their hands about the level of violence in Iraq, democracy's opponents on the Upper West Side insist that voting requires higher levels of security.
Iraq is more complex than Afghanistan. The election may disappoint us, in its conduct, its results, or both. But you have to start somewhere. You can't play the intellectual's game of endless procrastination, sunk in dreams of impossible perfection. There is no substitute for the courage to act.
But don't listen to the terrorists, the insurgents or The New York Times, all of whom are committed to denying a voice to the majority of Iraqis.
Read the whole thing.
# posted by mds : 10:00 AM
