When will the Republicans, Democrats, and alleged-journalists stop talking about how the "victory" of the elections in Iraq is a "symbol" of the success of the Iraq War?
First of all, it's not a success for the over 100,000 dead Iraqis. 100,000.
Second, is the U.S. occupation better than the Saddam occupation? Ask the 100,000 dead Iraqis, and, if they could talk, they would probably say "no." Here's a more CONTRASTING comparison: is the U.S. war/occupation better than the velvet revolution in Czechloslovakia? Because we COULD have backed a velvet revolution in Iraq.
Third, whether you agree with me about the above or not, you can't deny the parallels between these "victorious" elections and some elections held in Vietnam less than 40 years ago. Here are some tidbits from the NYT, circa 1967.
United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting...A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.
(1967 NYT tip courtesy of Mr. Wiggles.)