Demagogue

That's the headline over yesterday's column by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mark Brown:

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started ... while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

... we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility ... If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

But I would pose a question to Brown: what if Bush "was right all along" about what?

He certainly wasn't right about WMDs in Iraq.

Whether Bush was right in arguing that the United States can help establish democracies in the Middle East remains to be seen. Let's make sure we use the right measuring stick. After all, to most Americans, democracy means much more than simply holding an election. It also means some constitutional or legal framework exists to protect the majority from infringing on the fundamental rights (religion, employment, etc.) of minorities.

As Arnold's recent post indicates, the Iraqi political slate with frontrunner status appears poised to run roughshod over such rights.

To judge whether Bush may have been "right" about democracy's prospects in the Mideast, one has to assess his performance in the proper context. Even if Bush scores a personal victory from the Iraqi election, it's fair to ask whether he will have claimed that victory by making a bad choice -- namely, waging a war that has seriously undermined America's credibility and leverage.

As Brown himself acknowledges, "Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world."

So what happens the next time the U.S. brings an "imminent threat" from a rogue dictator to the attention of its allies or the UN? Even if the intelligence pointing to WMDs in this hypothetical case is highly reliable, a U.S. request for support is likely to be met with considerable skepticism -- skepticism that could delay effective multilateral action long enough to expose thousands or even millions of people to a terrorist threat.

Like Brown, I was heartened that so many Iraqis took the time to vote. But "the honest looks of joy" that Brown saw on their faces don't change the fact that our president waged a war that, by all accounts, has helped create a terrorist breeding ground in the very country he wants to democratize.