More than a year after the arrest of Saddam Hussein, his former subjects voted in a national election this weekend. This dramatic turnabout is historic. Whether the election is an historic event or an historic novelty remains to be seen.

The day was almost wholly positive for a number of reasons. First, actual levels of violence failed to meet expected levels of violence. Second, the elections showed the world a face of Iraq they're not used to seeing. With terrorist attacks dominating the headlines, the media occassionally created an impression that confused Iraqi weariness of the occupation with Iraqi support for the terrorists. The dyed finger now stands with the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein as one of the striking visuals demonstrating the benefits of this campaign. Third, the elections facilitate the future withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Fourth, despite boycotts and death threats, the percentage of Iraqis casting votes compares to the percentage casting votes in the U.S. and other Western democracies.

But declaring democracy in Iraq now makes as much sense as declaring "mission accomplished" in May of 2003. Less consequential than the fact that Iraqis chose a government is the matter of who they chose to govern them. One election does not a democracy make. Sunday's events were encouraging, but check back one, five, or ten years from Sunday to have a better understanding of the significance of January 30, 2005.

America can learn from Iraq too. We need a new election law. All voters get their fingers inked! No one without a blue finger can be proud that week.

Something even simpler like having to show a driver’s license to prove residency (and citizenship) would work very nicely. For those who don’t drive, I’m sure a voter registration id could be provided.

Don’t need finger prints or laser scan able forehead tattoos.

I was for the Iraq war because I believed (as the CIA, foreign intelligence agencies, and the previous administration did) that Saddam had WMD. I didn't want to risk one of our enemies giving another of our enemies a weapon that could make 9/11 look mild by comparison.

I was totally oppossed to "democratizing" and "nation-building" as the motive for invasion. And so I still am. But watching coverage of the election yesterday, I could not help wondering whether such a plan could work, and whether such a regime would serve U.S. security interests.

Suppose - and I am as skeptical as the next guy - that the result of all this is a representative Iraqi government that, while not like our own, would protect the basic rights of its citizens, and thereby foster citizens that are more inclined to pursue the "fruits of liberty" than attack Westerners. Pie in the sky? Probably. Impossible? I'm starting to have my doubts.

Isn't the best defence against terrorism a group of people that likes voting, cheeseburgers and a good pair of levis? What if such a people emerges in Iraq?

Nice post, Brad, but I donno. I always thought the best way to avoid terrorism is not to let would-be terrorists into the country.

But, anyhow, is this type of regime impossible in Iraq? ...no. Is this type of regime likely to find quick and steadfast roots in a culture that has no history or practices to support it? ...also no. So is all of the trouble of the last two years justified by yesterday's success? ...I don't think so.

Brigid, you may be right - if yesterday's success is only yesterday's success. If it is the first faltering step to a free, prosperous Iraq, then I think it a welcome change. (The US Colonists didn't tank after Bunker Hill or Valley Forge.) It's non-productive to reject imperfect progress because it hasn't yet reached its goal.

But I will wholeheartedly agree that we should start controlling the borders. Catch-and-release is great for fishing, not for immigration enforcement.

Now that our needs to know about hidden WMD’s has been for the most part satisfied, and the Butcher of Baghdad has been captured and his horde defeated, I’m not convinced that our efforts should now be focused on building a democratic style government in that country.

However, it appears that a majority of the population does want to have free and fair elections and at least something resembling a democratic style of government. Ultimately, this is a very good thing and a decent start to have the Iraqi people work for internal independence. I’m sure that down the line this will serve us well to keep some kind of democracy driven presence established in this part of the World.

I still think that we should get out as soon as possible and hope that the next step isn’t going to be to have troops stay there to enforce this fledgling democracy.

Very much agree with Brigid that we need to put more focus and effort on keeping the bad guys out of the U.S. as opposed to trying to eradicate their forces all over the Planet.

NightFly -- I agree, and I don't want to seem like a player-hater against the Admin's success yesterday. But Brad indicated that success in Iraq would make him rethink his rejection of invasion, occupation, and democratization as a policy. My concern is that success there is a long shot, so even if it pays off, we shouldn't make it policy. E.g., if a man bet his house on a hand of cards and happened to win, that doesn't mean he should try it again.

btw....the drivers license crack was more directed at voting in this country where it always seems to be a big mystery and some confusion that the people voting actually are who they say they are.

Blue finger should work fine in Iraq.

I am happy for the Iraqis who got to vote. I don't really care much at all about voting or democracy myself but it seemed like a meaningful vote for them. Since the invasion was unjust at the outset and I am not a consequentialist, this changes nothing as far as my opinion on the war or the prudence of the admin. However, things can always still turn out "okay."

Here are two quick issues that will have a big long-term impact on success for the Iraq nation.

1) a seperationist Kurdish population. They lived in almost complete autonomy for the last 12 years before the invasion (due to saddam's weakness and the American defended no-fly zone) and will be extremely fidgety as a minority ethnic group if they feel their autonomy is threatened. Related to this issue is the existence of Kurds in Iranian and Turkish territory. In case you didn't know, Turkey (the oldest democracy in the east) routinely sends its military into the mountains of southern Turkey and northern Iraq to beat the snot out of the Kurds, or as they refer to them (since they deny their existence as a people), the "mountain Turks." This can cause serious problems down the road.

2) The fact that democracies routinely succumb to the temptation to allow majority populations to oppress the minority populations. Considering the impoverished and long oppressed Shia will soon be in power the chance of their acting as the black population in South Africa largely had/has is great. Note the fact that Sunnis have not been participating in this process at all, they are wealthy and unhappy, that ain't good.

I am sure we could add more to the list, such as the big x factor of the unknown reactions to a new Iraqi government of its neighbors, in particular, Iran and Saudi Arabia. And the fact that Iraq does not have a particularly ancient territorial integrity but was really a creation of the British empire in the early part of the last century; thus it will take a strong state to control its borders and various isolated regions which could easily become hotbeds of terrorist activity and warlord activity much as exists in Afghanistan and did not exist under Saddam.

So I hope good comes of it all but I am more concerned that we will have several more years of invading Arab nations at will and destroying our country through overreach and ignored social decay.