Editorial: Iraqi election doesn’t justify nation building

President Bush was quick to proclaim the Iraqi election a
success. But the United States’ nation-building exercise is
still a fragile work in progress and Iraq’s quasi-democracy
should not be the catalyst for future policy decisions.

Iraq is now a nation balancing between its old and new identity.
Political and economic improvement is possible, but it will come
slowly. The lessons from Afghanistan are clear: A successful
election does not guarantee a sudden, or even gradual, shift toward
stability.

Across Iraq, thousands of police officers, city officials and
judges do not show up for work every day for fear of assassination.
People still are dealing with rolling blackouts. The elections, no
matter how well they go, will not change this.

Even the best electoral process merely sets the stage for future
change and growth. No one expects a U.S. election to instantly
create new jobs or better security, and it would be unreasonable to
expect anything like that in Iraq.

While it is nice to imagine the possibilities of a new democracy
in the Middle East, the process was hardly ideal and the price
unnecessarily high. Nation building is not why Americans elected
President Bush or grudgingly approved of his original justification
for invading Iraq.

During his campaign, he repeatedly spoke against nation
building. During one debate Bush said, “I would be very
careful about using our troops as nation builders.” In
another debate he said, “It needs to be in our vital
interest, the mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy
obvious.”

Bush sold the invasion as a national security issue revolving
around weapons of mass destruction. Now even the official U.S.
military verdict is clear: Iraq did not have weapons of mass
destruction. The invasion of Iraq was hardly vital, the mission
decidedly murky and Bush has yet to declare an exit strategy.

Now that Iraq begins its course as a nominally sovereign nation,
there will be a strong temptation for the United States to extract
itself rapidly. No American wants to see U.S. troops continue to
die in Iraq, and many Iraqis would be equally happy to see the U.S.
occupation finally end.

So far, most of the money spent by the United States has been
related directly to the war effort. Now, U.S. taxpayers must accept
that rebuilding Iraq is even more important than invading it was in
the first place ““ a much harder sell for the president
without the imminent fear of WMD.

But the United States cannot simply abandon the new government
and expect it to emerge as a stable democracy. Iraq remains a
nation with a shattered infrastructure ““ both physically and
psychologically ““ facing thousands of insurgents with the aid
of few international allies.

It’s too premature to know if the foundation for the new
Iraq will be a solid and lasting solution, but the need for our
investment is clear.

As the Iraqi people cope with their uncertain future, President
Bush must be resolute not to infer success where only questions
remain. While freedom is an admirable goal, Iraq should not be used
as evidence to fuel more crusades in the name of democracy.