Was Bush (indirectly) right about Iraq?

There's no way of estimating when Iraq might become a full and genuine democracy on par with say, Germany or Japan. It could take half a century or perhaps even a full century. But ever more it is looking as if the “shock and awe” of invasion was required for progress towards democracy. This logic is of course anathema to many liberal Americans, many of whom believe it is impossible to export democracy and who condemn the United States for its sometimes self-righteous belief that it alone represents “true” democracy. But regardless of one's political philosophy it's hard to argue with results on the ground. In Iraq today, political parties are forming bonds and hashing out a kind of democracy that works for them. It's not perfect — it's not even pretty — but it is the beginnings of a modern democracy.

Those who loathed former President George W. Bush found little about his career to praise. The former U.S. president in some ways stumbled into office after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in a recount dispute, despite the fact that Bush's Democratic challenger Al Gore had won the popular U.S. vote by over half a million. Bush's time in office was also marked by stumbling, both domestically and overseas. But could it be that George W. Bush will be remembered more for Iraqi democracy than his shortcomings?

Over 4,000 U.S. military personnel as well as hundreds of soldiers from the UK and other nations have lost their lives since operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003. It's heartening to see indications that history will view these brave fighting men and women as those who made the ultimate sacrifice to bring freedom to Iraq and perhaps eventually the entire region.

1|2

SharePrintEmail

Write a Comment

Terms

Enter your comments - 3000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos
 Respond to this email