Making Electoral History

President Bush’s inauguration speech Thursday was long on rhetoric and short on substance. Signaling the promising possibility of a new chapter in his approach to foreign policy, Bush filled his speech with idealistic abstractions—mentioning “freedom” and “liberty” more than 40 times—and he charged America with the venerable task of ending tyranny worldwide. But just in case anyone was fooled, the following day, White House officials clarified that Bush’s speech was in no way meant to suggest a shift in policy but to clarify the existing “Bush doctrine of liberty.”

Missing entirely from the speech was any direct reference to the events transpiring in Iraq. Instead, Bush made a single allusion to the conflict, saying “Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon.” Difficult is an understatement. As of Friday, 1,372 American soldiers have died and at least 10,502 have been wounded. Meanwhile, this coming Sunday, Iraqis are poised to hold an historic—if uncertain—election to pick a 275-member National Assembly. This will likely be the final chance for the United States to establish a legitimate Iraqi government in a country that has become increasingly chaotic and violent during the last several months of occupation.

Like so many other moments in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion, these elections occur at an especially crucial juncture at which many consequences remain uncertain. Some have argued that Iraq is not just approaching the tipping point of civil war but is already fully immersed in one. Details about candidates and polling locations have been highly guarded due to security concerns. It is expected that a large portion of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs will not participate in the elections at all, which almost surely means the National Assembly will have few Sunni representatives. This result may exacerbate ethnic tensions.

Due to these concerns, some members of the Bush administration have sought to downplay expectations concerning the success of the elections. Officials have begun emphasizing the fact that the vote itself is only the first step in a long process of constructing a new government. The National Assembly still must take office, elect a prime minister, establish remaining government agencies and field a police force able to maintain security. It will also be charged with the monumental task of writing a constitution to facilitate elections later this year or in 2006. Any one of these steps may undermine the project of establishing a stable and free nation.

If Iraq is to be Bush’s legacy, it will never be a legacy of liberty. Elections will not erase the damage done to American credibility by faulty intelligence or cleanse the world of the horrifying images from Abu Ghraib. Bush’s unilateral war on Iraq has been marked by a series of disastrous blunders, and his administration’s failure to plan for reconstruction has been an astounding error of judgment.

Still, the freedom to democratically elect one’s leaders is of fundamental importance, and the goal of eradicating tyranny worldwide is—if a bit outlandish—a worthy one in spirit. How to achieve such ideals in practice is, however, a more complicated question. Elections are a critical component of the long and arduous process of putting Iraq back together again, but elections do not always go well—nor are the results always welcome. Sunday’s vote may place the stability of Iraq in an even more precarious position; when American soldiers will be able to return home remains as unknowable as ever. For all the troops, and for the Iraqi people who have endured so much, we hope the elections help solve Iraq’s many problems, because there are few solutions remaining.