Iraq: Is Optimism Justified?

Following in the rhetorical footsteps of Bret Stephens, Stephen Lee Meyers, and the editorial boards of the N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, and Wall Street Journal, Thomas Friedman hails last Sunday’s election as a “very good day for Iraq.” While acknowledging that an “election does not a democracy make,” Friedman takes heart in the fact that Iraqis overcame the persistent pre-election sectarian quarrels to achieve a strong voter turnout (62 percent). And in terms of geopolitical implications, he surmises that Iraq’s comparatively free and fair contest — assuming it produces a positive outcome — may compound existing frustrations in Iran and “be a source of permanent pressure on the Iranian regime.”

Meanwhile, in an interview with Der Spiegel, Brian Katulis echoes Friedman’s take on the election-day success, but predicts that Iraq’s larger challenges are still forthcoming. “For Iraq’s democracy to take real root,” he says, “the country’s leaders need to move forward on resolving power-sharing disputes and protecting the rights of all citizens.” While the prospect of a devolution into violence still exists as a result of the many unresolved power-sharing issues, Katulis suggests that “the environment in the country has created greater incentives for more Iraqi factions to join the political system and turn away from violence.”

But in taking on the “doomsdayers” who incessantly fear that withdrawing U.S. troops will irreparably destabilize Iraq, Tom Engelhardt points out that that post-invasion Iraq already descended “into a monumental bloodbath” and that it happened “in our presence, on our watch, and in significant part thanks to us.” He attributes the notion that continued occupation can repair political and religious ills to “hubris” and the restless desire to eschew the lessons from America’s own history.