Iraq's First Step

I've been holding off on posting on the Iraq vote because I couldn't quite wrap my head around what I wanted to say. After the SOTU speech, I think I've nailed it down.

First, of course, is the astounding and truly inspiring fact that thousands of people were willing to risk death to realize a drive to be agents in determining their future. It puts the low rate of voter participation in the United States to shame. Remember the purple fingers in November 2008, when we're hearing that people are staying home because of some rain.

That so few of the insurgents' threats were successfully carried out was an enormous relief and an encouraging sign, though I think it says much less about the security situation than many have made out. Martial law, including a complete ban on car travel, is hardly a sustainable approach. That said, that the process was not significantly marred by violence is a victory.

While recognizing the importance of the Iraqi vote, and being thrilled for the Iraqis who've had a long overdue first step toward democracy, and even in the wake of the President's truly moving SOTU photo-op, it's important to remember that we didn't invade Iraq so that Iraqis could vote. From the President's 2003 SOTU:

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

President Bush went on:

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMD that were presently or nearly deliverable. In other words, we invaded Iraq for reasons that turned out to be utterly false. That the Iraqi people have a chance at democracy is a good outcome, but we would not have gone to war for that goal alone. A cursory look around the world proves it: there are, sadly, massive numbers of people living under violently oppressive totalitarian regimes that have no hope whatsoever of being freed from their conditions by American intervention.

But back to the vote: That so many Iraqis risked so much on the 30th makes the fact that they did so for very, very little in the way of true democracy somewhat disappointing. The Iraqi people who voted on January 30th chose representatives to bodies that will in turn decide on the basics of the Iraqi government and elect the first president. They voted for people whose names did not appear on the ballot, who were members of parties that did not present even a cursory explanation of what they stood for. (The BBC's got a pretty good list of the major players). January 30th was a massive, dangerous practice run at true democracy.

It very much remains to be seen whether the practice run will lead to a functioning, legitimate government that eventually can be truly democratic. The extremely low levels of Sunni participation do not bode well. The glacial pace at which reconstruction has taken place has been a major source of dissatisfaction with the U.S. occupation - I can't imagine it will be less problematic for any new Iraqi government. The complicated consequences of an elected Iraqi government that is hostile to the U.S. are still very much a possibility.

We didn't make our world safer by invading Iraq. Did we at least make a small part of it more democratic, more free, and ultimately more just? January 30th was only the very beginning of the answer to that question.