THE IRAQI ELECTIONS

Well, thankfully, the Iraqi elections seem to have come off without too many debilitating hitches. In fact it seems the Iraqis participated even more enthusiastically that American voters do in their own elections.

It remains to be seen, however, if government of the people, by the people, and for the people can be successfully imposed on a nation by a foreign invasion and occupation force. Optimists say that it can be, with post WWII Germany and Japan cited as the prime examples. But both still have a residual occupational force some sixty years after the war, and the German people still don't enjoy freedom of speech. The case of Japan is considered particularly significant, because it's culture is assumed to have been even more alien to that of its conquerors than the Iraqi culture is to its present conqueror-liberators.

As was the case in Japan, we have given women the voting franchise for the first time, and hope this will be the thing that transforms Iraqi society. We have even gone the extra mile in Iraq and mandated that women were not only among the voters, but that significant numbers of them were on the ballot. This, of course, is supposed to be democracy at work. We can be quite certain that, left to the Iraqis themselves, this wouldn't have happened for another thousand years. 

Of course, there are some significant differences between a totally crushed Japan circa 1945, and Iraq today. The Japanese military machine, after a heroic struggle, had been totally defeated — and to make sure they understood just who the boss was going to be, the atom bomb was unleashed on two of their major cities for good measure.

Perhaps more importantly, the Emperor of Japan was allowed to survive and remain on the throne after the war. When he told his people to mind their manners, they minded their manners. Shintoistic nationalism stood down in the face of military defeat and the prompting of the emperor.

The Japanese, being essentially of Buddhist persuasion, are a rather polite and obedient people. There was no significant opposition to the American occupation — in fact, none at all. There was no post-war insurgency against the occupying power — no Americans were killed daily after the end of hostilities. When the war ended, the hostilities ended with it, and the Japanese turned to, rebuilding their nation.

Obviously, this is not the case in Iraq. When the brief war of conquest ended, Saddam was gone and his army scattered to the four winds — but the Iraqi resistance was just beginning, and the death toll of Americans and Iraqis has continued to climb. The occupation has had a much higher death toll than the war itself.

The elections may have come off on schedule, but the liberators are still not well loved nor respected. The general population remains both fearful and resentful, if not outright hostile.

If the Iraqis are hostile, they are hostile with good reason. Neither they nor their leader had declared nor waged war against America. America went out of its way to make war on them, using false pretences to justify it. The American leadership had taken it upon itself to invade and conquer their country, depose their leadership, and remake their nation into what the American leadership wishes it to be — a western style "democracy" friendly to transnational corporations and the state of Israel.

The Iraqis are now leaderless, but for the government the occupying powers have shepherded into existence. More importantly, the Iraqi are not Buddhists. They are a dyed in the wool eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth people — a people who generally resent the infidel even without the prompting of a dozen years of bombardment and destruction of their nation and the deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of innocent people. Nor are the Iraqis Christians. They probably won't forgive and forget, and undoubtedly have long memories.

Now, with an ongoing insurgency bordering on civil war underway, we are rebuilding the Iraqi army. But its purpose is not to defend the nation from foreign invasion or protect the people from external threats. Its purpose is to fight other Iraqis within the nation's borders, and defend the new government from domestic threats. This is quite different from the post WWII Japanese Defense Forces of Japan.

Hopefully, the elections will bear some fruit. It would really be nice if there could be a happy ending to this unhappy chapter in Iraqi history. Perhaps it would give us the opportunity to get out of Iraq so we can go about making the rest of the world safe for democracy.

Having so many of our troops bogged down in Iraq is irritating. Those troops have other nations to democratize around the world. The Syrian and Iranian people still need our help badly. And so do the North Koreans. And this is not to mention our bosom friends, and business partners, the Saudis! Saudi Arabia is a long way from being a cradle of American style democracy. And what about the Cuban people who have labored under the totalitarian dictatorship of Fidel Castro for the last fifty years? How has Cuba (so close to our own shores!), escaped our democratization for so long? And there are the genocidal regimes in Africa to think about! And the list goes on and on!

Yes, if we are to see a perfect world in our day, we have much unfinished work to do, and if the Iraqi elections have moved us toward a peaceful, compliant, and democratic Iraq, maybe we can get back to the challenging mission of attacking and subduing.

It's funny how a constitutional republic, such as ours, can become responsible for the democratization of the world without so much as a constitutional amendment making global democratization one of its constitutional rights and duties.

No, on second thought, it isn't funny at all. It's a clear indication that the United States Constitution has effectively become a dead document, and that most of the the oaths of office taken by our leaders and mis-representatives (swearing to protect and defend the Constitution), are rendered mute by something that could only be described as being akin to the Talmudic Nol Nidre prayer. The American government is now far to big and important in the world to be fettered by constitutional restraints limiting government, and keeping it subservient to the people.

But the people must nonetheless be continually reminded that their Constitution stands, and that they are the freest people in the world, ruled only be their own consent — and the people continue to believe.

There are those who would argue that this deceptive slight of hand is justified by the fact that we (through our government and its wise leadership), are accomplishing good in the world. Pridger fervently hopes this is truly the case, for we seem to be unequivocally committed to doing a lot more of it, hell or high water. But, obviously, Pridger has serious doubts.

The "democratic" and economic model that we are pressing upon the world is a system that has not only spawned conspicuous over-consumption and overzealous self-gratification, but conspicuous mega-waste. Will it be a better world when the rest of humanity is as terribly wasteful as we are — and everybody is as over-fed, overweight, and over-entertained, as we Americans? Is it even remotely possible in a world of finite and quickly diminishing natural resources for this dream to be fulfilled?

Is a Wal-Mart in every village, and a Pizza Hut and McDonalds on every corner really all that desirable? Are we Americans really the happiest people in the world? Are we the healthiest and best educated? Are we really the freest people in the world? Is commercialized hedonism really the most desirable state of man on earth? Our government not only seems to think so, but is determined to remake the whole world in our own image. 

This, of course, has a biblical ring. God made man in His own image. So, if God could do that, why shouldn't the United States make the the rest of the world in its own image? This may sound slightly presumptuous but, after all, wasn't the United States once but a meek upstart in the global community of nations? And wasn't it written that the meek shall inherit the earth?

Inheriting the earth is one thing, consuming it is quite another. Didn't the Bible also tell us that gluttony was a sin? In the end, consumption may constitute the plague that destroys destroys mankind. And (heaven forbid!), God may be prompted to take charge again, in spite of the combined efforts of the ACLU, ADL, ADM, and the Democrat and Republican parties.

John Q. Pridger