Will history agree with George W. Bush? It is his policy of democratization in Iraq, launched seven years ago after the fall of Saddam Hussein, that is being imposed, with election after election coming, despite serious initial strategic errors. This weekend, the Iraqis have once again rallied themselves to vote, despite al-Qaida intimidation (38 deaths in attacks). The Sunni minority, abstaining up until now, has now taken to the polls. Initial surveys suggest that Islamist parties will be in decline. As Adrien Jaulmes, Figaro’s special envoy to Baghdad, wrote this Monday: “The American invasion and the installation of a new regime has propelled the country into a democratic system without parallel in the Arab world, if we exclude the particular case of Lebanon.” However, the media in general is being careful not to recognize the origin of this success, which goes against its sheep-like, anti-Bush analysis. Having been one of those who supported the American strategy in 2003, I am enjoying this success all the more, even if the situation is still far from perfect. The Iraqi Christians’ lot remains an appalling one.
To those who feel that there exists an incompatibility between Islam and democracy, year upon year the Iraqis are bringing a cry of denial, joined by the hopes of many Iranians for liberty. In the last few days, television reports have shown electoral posters of Iraqi candidates for the legislative elections, photographed without their veils (is Olivier Besancenot aware of his regression when he defends his candidate who wears a veil?). For my part, I remember the absolute insistence of these numerous commentators who assured us that a democracy does not force its way into being (despite the examples of Japan or Germany) and that resorting to force can only consolidate terrorism. The followers of “soft-power,” such as France’s new, high-ranking appease-niks, remain ready to temporize before this new “Islamo-Fascism,” as Bush and the neoconservatives describe it. If the anti-war brigade had had their way, democracy would not have come into being in Iraq.
The price was 5% of Iraqi’s dead, 20% homeless, plus, plus, plus — 25 % of children born in Falugia have severe birth defects due to the use of depleted uranium!
Great move Dumbya!
Nolt all was lost Dumbya’s buddies made a fortune while robbing the treasury and bankrupting the country! The terrorists won big time!!!
This is a great post. It remains to be seen if democracy will succeed in Iraq, but things are looking better than ever. Bush got great advice from the Keegan’s and Gen. Petraeus. Also, Bush couldn’t have succeeded without his ally in the Sentate, John McCain. All of them get credit along with Bush.
@Bob Egan: Those depleted uranium myths have been debunked over and over again. Here is an article dating back to the Persian Gulf War (Hint: the (non-) effects haven’t changed since then):
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/26/nuclear-genocide
(Reason magazine was against the Iraq war, by the way)
(The article cites, the World Health Organization, WHO, with a link)
Why not claim 110% birth defects since we’re making things up?
The millions of casualties (5%) myth has been debunked, also. The anti-war site http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ documented civilian deaths from violence between 95,639 – 104,338 TOTAL from the war start in 2003 to today. If there had been millions of deaths, the bodies surely would have shown up by now, there is no way that many could be hidden or destroyed without leaving unmistakable signs.
A victory at what price? A trillion debt to the Chinese government. Diminished American standing in the world. 4,379 dead American kids and another 31,693 maimed and wounded. Finally, a new President who is hellbent on turning America into a socialist hell hole. This is what the Iraq war cost America.
Iraq was in no way an American “victory”.