An Iraqi Election for Both Right and Left
by Neil Wollman & Anne Anderson | View comments |
Print This Post
Neither post-election euphoria nor despair lend themselves well to a realistic view of the situation in Iraq, nor in the larger global political context in which we all live.
Both the political Left and Right have long since declared Iraq either a success or a failure. They have either supported or opposed U.S. policy, and either minimized or emphasized mistakes made. And in the aftermath of the recent Iraqi elections, we are seeing much rhetoric, again, from both sides.
In exaggerated terms, for the Right, the outcome of the election represents a complete justification for and escape from past criticism of the U.S. invasion and its unintended consequences. For the Left, the election was deeply flawed on several counts and there are many problems still unresolved in the country. For the Right, those on the Left are “nay-sayers” unable to admit progress being made. For the Left, those on the Right are apologists grasping for a way out of a failed policy.
The rhetoric gives rise to little common ground. We feel it’s time for both sides to step back from the situation and take a look at the broader picture.
For the Left, their core values call for respect and support expressed for the valiant Iraqi people who came out and voted, often under dangerous conditions. There is hope here for the future of Iraq, as people step forward to wrest control, through the ballot box, from a previous dictatorial regime and a current occupying force. By firmly upholding the principles for a “free and democratic Iraq,” with all parts of the Iraqi society included in the process, and free of external meddling, the Left can support positive possibilities and hope for the future.
For the Right there must be an acknowledgment of unintended consequences of U.S. Iraqi policies. Their core values are threatened by problems associated with the war in Iraq, such as much reduced security, and cannot be discounted or ignored without serious damage to the stated desired result: A “free and democratic Iraq.”
So where are we? Iraqis will need to work across party and ethnic lines to get the next phase of rebuilding their country done. And, of course, the outcome will be affected by past ethnic conflicts, the many Saddam and post-Saddam Iraqi civilian deaths, foreign occupation, current lack of security and decline of basic infrastructure, the relief of being out from under Saddam Hussein’s regime, the hope of moving forward with a voice in their future.
In addition, we will judge the war, likely more importantly, on world-wide effects that go beyond what happens in Iraq. Will that country go democratic and become a shining model that lifts others in the Middle East or elsewhere to find a similar result? Or will an emerging democracy actually be influenced or controlled by outside interests — be it American corporations or Iranian mullahs — to the detriment of human rights and freedom? What about Iraq now being a training ground for terrorists ready to go elsewhere; or more importantly, the U.S. being a “not-so-shining” motivator of terrorism world-wide due to its occupation and actions such as Abu Ghraib? Or what about the damage done to long time Western alliances, hurting of U.S. credibility in the wake of no WMDs, U.S. “preoccupation” with Iraq hurting us otherwise internationally, or possibilities of others modeling after a pre-emptive U.S. invasion of another country? Even a democratic Iraq which never threatens its neighbors, as good as that sounds, does not assure us that the war was overall a good thing.
Neither post-election euphoria nor despair lend themselves well to a realistic view of the situation in Iraq, nor in the larger global political context in which we all live. What does seem clear is that if the Left focuses only on the problems, leaving out of its analysis the fierce determination of the Iraqi people to be free, and the hope and possibilities that they may create, and the Right focuses only on the triumph of having carried out an election, ignoring other consequences of their policies, we will have a hard time doing clear-headed planning for the future — a critical task to be undertaken by all sides now.
Even now, perhaps the election is best not seen as legitimate or illegitimate vindication for the war. Instead, maybe it is better viewed as a mark of Iraq trying to move forward to a future that is better than a Saddam-ruled Iraq, better than a U.S.-occupied Iraq, better than an insurgent-blighted Iraq — an insurgency with roots in both Saddam and the American occupation.
And what about our original statement that both sides have long since declared Iraq and its consequences a success or failure? We say that it is far too early to do that — not only for the country itself, but for those world-wide ramifications. We will all certainly cheer if democracy spreads. We will all curse the war if a threatened nuclear power North Korea follows though with a statement made by its leaders back in 2003 — “preemptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S.”
NJWollman@manchester.edu
Read more articles by Neil Wollman & Anne Anderson
