The WaPo Editorial Board Weighs In

Man, I wish I could write like this:

FOR MONTHS news from Iraq has told the story of the extremists, those who destroy themselves to murder others and to proclaim the cause of a religious or Baathist dictatorship. Yesterday the world saw and heard, at last, another Iraq, one in which millions of people from all over the country turned out to vote -- even in places where their nominal leaders had proclaimed a boycott, even at polling stations where mortar rounds fell or gunfire rang out. Some danced or distributed chocolates, some wept with joy, others grimly pressed forward as if their lives literally depended on it. A 32-year-old man who lost his leg in a suicide bombing arrived at the polls in Baghdad and told a Reuters reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to." There were nine suicide bombings, and at least 44 people died, including one U.S. soldier. But the day's message was unmistakable: The majority of Iraqis support the emerging democratic order in their country, and many are willing to risk their lives for it.

And my argument yesterday was that the import of the elections for domestic opinion was not that the elections will stop American casualties, but that those images from yesterday will serve to make clear to people again why those casualties have purpose.

Well, look at what the WaPo ed board writes and tell me if I wasn't right:

That course will surely be full of pitfalls, and the extremists will go on trying to kill anyone involved in it. For the emerging democratic regime to have any chance of taking root, U.S. soldiers will have to continue fighting, and dying, to protect it. The elections probably won't make their job any easier, or the price any lower, in the short term. Yesterday, however, Americans finally got a good look at who they are fighting for: millions of average people who have suffered for years under dictatorship and who now desperately want to live in a free and peaceful country. Their votes were an act of courage and faith -- and an answer to the question of whether the mission in Iraq remains a just cause. (My emph.)

Comments

[Oberon]

Though I think that invading Iraq was a dumb idea and the aftermath criminally unplanned, I almost cried to see Iraqis voting and celebrating.

Still, it would be nice if someone in the major media would recap how the Bush administration spent months opposed to any sort of nationwide election (handover to Chalabhi, anyone?)

[Media Hound]

"Though I think that invading Iraq was a dumb idea and the
aftermath criminally unplanned"

Hmm, which wars of this scale had better planning?

Also, how long should a dictator be allowed to flout its
cease-fire agreement (signed after invading and being expelled
from the nation of Kuwait by the United States)??

Saddam was to comply in 13 days, not 4,300 days.

The biggest mistake of the United States, is not taking out
Saddam on that 14th day.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

      President Clinton
      Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
      February 17, 1998

      http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/