United States and Iraqis Give Lesson in Democracy to UN


by Freedom Alliance
January 28, 2005

Dulles VA -- “The elections in Iraq are an example of democracy, and the United Nations is discouraged that democracy is actually taking root,” says Tom Kilgannon, President of Freedom Alliance, in response to UN complaints today that “the U.S. military has been overly enthusiastic in trying to help out with this election.”

Kilgannon continued, “We thought the terrorists were the only danger in deterring the elections, but now it is the UN as well, as they globally disparage our efforts in promoting safe, free elections. It is no surprise though, the UN turns a blind eye to tyranny, and if President Bush has any hope whatsoever of defeating it as he stated in his inaugural speech, step one should be holding the United Nations accountable for harboring terrorists and dictators.”

Democracy for Iraqis makes world safer for us all


Chicago Sun-Times ^ | January 26 2005 | RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON


For 35 years, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with vicious brutality. In a few days, millions of Iraqis will go to polling stations to vote for new leadership. They will be taking an important step in securing their freedom and in assuming the personal responsibility necessary to sustain it.

The United States is the world's oldest democracy. And democracy promotion has long served as part of the moral and strategic foundation of American foreign policy.

Early in the 20th century President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the United States' role in the world was "not to prove . . . . Our selfishness but our greatness." And Wilson led America into World War I to "make the world safe for democracy."

Two decades ago, Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." But Reagan also made clear that America's "crusade for freedom" ought not end with the fall of the Soviet empire.

Reagan said, "The task I've set forth will long outlive our own generation. . . . For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny."

America promotes democracy because it is the right thing to do, and because the advance of democracy makes the world safer.

Every human being has inherent dignity and worth. Self-determination is a fundamental human right upon which America has prospered. And, as Reagan said, "Freedom is not the prerogative of the lucky few, but the right of all mankind."

Democracy is a rampart against state encroachment on individual rights and liberty. If you can participate in choosing your government through a democratic process, you can protect your interests and rights from abuse by government. It fosters greater political equality.

Democracy is the surest path to a just society because it gives people the opportunity to live under laws of their own choosing. It provides restraints and accountability. A democracy provides its citizens the freedom to follow their dreams, develop their talents and reap the reward of their labors. It helps create growth and opportunity.

Among other things, today Americans are threatened by global terrorism. Dictatorships where there is no hope nor opportunity provide fertile soil to grow terrorists frustrated and bitter by their impotent lot in life, attracted to fanaticism, and willing to strike out in senseless violence against innocent civilians.

Democracy, by empowering its citizens, encouraging personal responsibility, providing opportunity and allowing hope to flourish crowds out the despair upon which terrorism relies.

And democratic societies, with their capacity to adjust and adapt to changing circumstances at home and abroad, are inherently more stable than dictatorships unresponsive to the will of the people. Furthermore, democracies are more reluctant to engage in foreign adventurism and begin wars of aggression because they must build and sustain popular support. Dictatorships often capriciously invade neighbors for the vain glory of its ruler such as Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait.

So promoting democracy helps in the war on terrorism, creates a more stable world and is a restraint on wars of aggression. For all these reasons, the advance of democracy in Iraq is important for the Iraqi people and for us. And for all these reasons the Saddam loyalists, dead-enders and terrorists are committed to derail the upcoming election.

Sadly, therefore, the violence rises in Iraq as these desperate spoilers seek to thwart the march of freedom. Nonetheless, thousands of dedicated Iraqis are risking life and limb to prepare for election day. And millions plan to cast their first meaningful vote.

It has been a difficult, perilous and bloody path from Saddam's brutal reign to this election. The Iraqi people will take an enormous step toward freedom when, in a few days, they cast their votes.

In the face of critics and skeptics, in the last year the march of freedom has advanced through free and fair elections in Afghanistan, Ukraine and among the Palestinians. Different cultures. Difficult circumstances. Yet in each election brave people chose freedom. And in each country those people are taking control of their own destiny.

The runup to the Iraqi election has not been smooth. It seldom is. The election will not be perfect. Elections never are.

But in the end the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people will go to the polls, they will vote, and they will take a critical step toward freedom, opportunity and hope. And the world will be safer for it.

And we can be sure, as President Bush has said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

Richard S. Williamson, a Chicago lawyer, is a former U.S. ambassador at the United Nations





Sunni Voter Turnout to Equal U.S.'s

While the American press touts the prospect that Iraq's Sunni population will boycott next Sunday's election, Sunnis themselves are telling pollsters a different story.

Speaking on background last week, a State Department official told reporters that when Sunnis are surveyed on whether they intend to vote, the number who say yes "approaches 50 percent."

Fifty percent would be a higher turnout than the U.S. had in the 1996 presidential election, and around the same number who voted in the last four out of five White House races.

In the 1988 presidential contest, for instance, 50.3 percent of eligible American voters went to the polls. Four years later 55.1 percent showed up. In 1996, turnout dropped to 49 percent. In 2000, it was 51.3 percent.

Turnout in non-Sunni areas is expected to top 80 percent - meaning that a third more Iraqis intend to vote in their election that Americans did last November - when 60 percent voted in what pundits ballyhooed as a record.

Iraqi Expatriates Begin Voting in U.S. 'This Is One of the Happiest Days of My Life' By DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP

SOUTHGATE, Michigan (Jan. 28) - Joyful tears and frequent applause marked the start of U.S. voting Friday in Iraq's first independent elections in more than 50 years.

Security was tight at the abandoned store-turned-polling place in this Detroit suburb, with guards checking IDs at the parking lot entrance and using metal detectors at the doors. Inside, an oversized, homemade Iraqi flag hung from the ceiling. One poll worker could be seen weeping.

''We feel happy now. This is like America, this voting,'' said Zoha Yess, 64. ''We want fair, good government.''

Nearly 26,000 Iraqi expatriates registered beginning last week to vote here or in the other four U.S. polling places: Chicago, Nashville, Tenn., Los Angeles and Washington.

Adl Almusasarah, 30, traveled from Denver to Nashville, arriving at the polling site an hour early so he could be first in line.

''We pray for the election to go well,'' said Almusasarah, who has been in the United States for 12 years. ''I wish well for all the parties - for all the people in Iraq.''

Ayad Barzani, 42 flew into Nashville from Dallas on Thursday night, casting his ballot early so he could get back to the restaurant he owns before the busiest night of the week.

''This is one of the happiest days of my life,'' said Barzani, who has been in the United States for about 25 years after his family fled Iraq because of a crackdown on Kurds. ''This is one of the greatest days in Iraqi history. I'm very proud.'' Election Timetable When will the polls open in Iraq?
Polls open Sunday at 7 a.m. Iraq time (11 p.m. Saturday ET) and close at 5 p.m. (9 a.m. ET). The hours could be extended if people are still showing up to vote.

Where will expatriates vote?
Iraqis living outside their country can vote between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. local time on Friday, Saturday and Sunday in Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iran, Jordan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the U.S.

When will we know the outcome?
Preliminary results are expected within a few hours of poll close. Final results are not likely for a week or more.
Source: AP

Barzani said he chose the Kurdish Party slate of candidates from the 111 choices on the paper ballot. Parties were listed by name, number and logo.

The expatriates here and in 13 other countries - about 280,00 registered altogether - were going to the makeshift polling stations to choose the 275-member assembly that will draft Iraq's new constitution. Overseas voting continues through Sunday, which is election day in Iraq itself.

Elsewhere, many voters in Iran, waiting to cast ballots at a Tehran mosque, said they came out of respect for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, who has called voting a ''religious duty.''

''I am happier than on my wedding day,'' said Saja Verdi, 26, an unemployed mother of two. ''We are going to a start a new life in Iraq after long years of oppression.''

In London, voters and election officials clapped their hands and sang to celebrate the start of voting, and one staff member banged a water container like a drum.

''Today I feel that I am born again,'' said Darbaz Rasool, 23, a Kurd who fled Iraq in 1994.

By contrast, the scene in Iraq two days before the vote there was tense. Bombers hit one polling place overnight. Iraqi police supposed to be guarding two polling places were nowhere in sight. And Iraqi contractors charged with placing bomb barriers around the polls for Sunday's vote were likewise missing - too scared to work. The danger in Iraq was on the minds of many voting in the United States.

''I just wish our families and relatives would have the same peace of mind that we have in the U.S.,'' Fouad Al-Najjar, a 53-year-old graduate school dean at a local university, said after voting in Southgate. ''I hope somehow they will overcome these problems and will go and vote.''

Election organizers didn't really know how many Iraqis in the United States were qualified to vote, but they put the figure at roughly 240,000. Using that number, the total who registered represent slightly more than 10 percent of those eligible - people who turned 18 by Dec. 31 and were born in Iraq, are present or former citizens of Iraq or have an Iraqi father. Election Countdown

''We recognize that the Iraqi voting population is spread out, and we never fooled ourselves into thinking we'd reach 100 percent of the population,'' said Jeremy Copeland of the International Organization for Migration, or IOM, which organized the overseas voting.

Lack of documentation was another hurdle for some Iraqis, Copeland said, and others feared their relatives in Iraq could face reprisal, even though information collected from voters was kept confidential.

Edina Lekovic, a spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles, said most Iraqi-Americans didn't believe they would significantly alter the outcome, but felt the symbolic importance of casting a ballot.

''The sense is more often about having the right to vote and the access to vote and being thrilled by the opportunity,'' Lekovic said.

Voters are choosing parties rather than individuals, with the number of candidates seated from each party determined by the party's percentage of votes.

Associated Press writer John Gerome in Nashville, Tenn., contributed to this report.

Zarqawi's War On Democracy


By Joe Mariani
January 25, 2005

The most fascinating -- and disheartening -- aspect of the War on Terror is how well the terrorists seem to understand what's at stake, while so many Liberals seem either clueless or indifferent. While the latter are wrapped up in Bush-hatred, "suffering" from what they call Post-Election Selection Trauma, (web site) making wild accusations of voter fraud by Republicans while ignoring real incidents by Democrats, (web site) and self-indulgently "mourning" President Bush's re-election, (web site) the former are busy fighting the war. What's at stake, in much of the world, is the future of democracy itself.

In a recent taped statement, a man who identified himself as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said, (web site) "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology." The aim of terrorists in Iraq is to prevent Iraqis from exercising their right to choose their own leaders in next week's election, the first of its kind. This statement, however, reflects Zarqawi's understanding of the overall War on Terror (does he call it the War on Democracy?), and his knowledge that, in the end, he and his kind will lose. Democracy and liberty are rising in the Islamic world at last.

Afghanistan held its first-ever democratic election (web site) in October 2004. Only a few years ago, the Afghan people lived under one of the harshest and least-democratic regimes the world has ever seen. Some international observers referred to the recent Palestinian election of Mahmoud Abbas as the first truly democratic Arab ballot. (web site) The people of Iran are on the verge of rising against their own theocratic oppression. (web site) Soon Iraq will hold its first truly democratic election, and according to polls, the Iraqi people are openly enthusiastic (web site) about voting and their prospects for the future. Critics say that democracy is doomed to failure in the Muslim world, (web site) because of ethnic and/or religious inability to grasp its tenets. This elitist bigotry and knee-jerk nay-saying comes from the same people who informed us that Afghani women would not vote (web site) for fear of terrorist attacks, or that the US military could never beat Saddam Hussein's feared Republican Guard. (web site) Certainly there are problems inherent in instituting and especially sustaining a democratic government -- after more than 220 years, we Americans still have our problems. Let's not mistake problems for failure, however. Muslims are more than capable of governing themselves, as they do in Turkey and Indonesia.

In April 2004, the Center for Strategic and International Studies published a paper (web site) entitled, "Modernization and Democratization in the Muslim World: Obstacles and Remedies." More than 20 analysts of diverse backgrounds contributed to the report. According to the CSIS, the main factors that have prevented democracies from arising in Muslim countries were neither cultural nor genetic, but circumstantial in nature. The lack of freedom in the Middle East is largely due to "the excessive role of the state in the region, the weakness of the private sector, excessive military power, large scale poverty, the legacy of colonialism and the impact of the Cold War." The last part is explained by the vacuum caused by the sudden withdrawal of Soviet support and control as the USSR collapsed, which led to the rise of warlordism in some Muslim countries and "strongman" dictatorships in others. A Pew poll in 2003 found (web site) that despite anti-American sentiment, "there is considerable appetite in the Muslim world for democratic freedoms. The broader, 44-nation survey shows that people in Muslim countries place a high value on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, multi-party systems and equal treatment under the law. This includes people living in kingdoms such as Jordan and Kuwait, as well as those in authoritarian states like Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In fact, many of the Muslim publics polled expressed a stronger desire for democratic freedoms than the publics in some nations of Eastern Europe, notably Russia and Bulgaria."

In his second inaugural address, (web site) President Bush expressed his understanding of the powerful concepts in play. "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom," Bush said. This is not simply a statement of idealism, however -- the War on Terror began as a war to ensure our own safety, after all. The President continued: "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." However, there's always room for idealism in a just war. Bush also reminded us that, "we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."

Iraq holds the best prospects for stable self-government in the entire Middle East, and that terrifies the terrorists. With an educated population used to a fairly secular society, a high degree of industrialisation, and vast wealth that can be used to alleviate poverty and privation, a democratic Iraq could eventually form the center of a coalition of Middle Eastern democracies. Only a repressed, frustrated, disheartened population can provide the kind of recruiting ground that groups like al-Qaeda need to survive -- and al-Zarqawi knows it. He and his kind will do everything in their power to stop democracy.

The question is, why won't Liberals -- the self-styled guardians of freedom, democracy and justice -- do everything possible to promote it? Why the continual carping, griping, negativity and obstruction? Why the feverish effort to undermine popular support for what America is trying to do? In the end, democracy and freedom will win; Zarqawi and terrorism will lose. Which side are Liberals on?

Part of me hopes that I get the answers to these questions. Another part of me fears that I will.

-----------

Joe Mariani is a computer consultant born and raised in New Jersey. He now lives in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are less restrictive and taxes are lower. Joe always thought of himself as politically neutral until he saw how far left the left had really gone after 9/11. His essays and links to articles are available at http://guardian.blogdrive.com/

POR LOS GRAVES PROBLEMAS DE SEGURIDAD
El presidente iraquí dice que la mayoría de sus compatriotas no acudirá mañana a las urnas

BAGDAD.- El presidente interino iraquí, Ghazi al-Yawar, ha asegurado, apenas 15 horas antes de que abran los colegios electorales, que aunque desea que una mayoría de la población iraquí acuda mañana a las urnas, "sabemos que la mayoría de ellos no lo harán, por los graves problemas de seguridad". El presidente estadounidense, George Bush, se ha mostrado sin embargo confiado en que la "valentía y la determinación" del pueblo iraquí se impondrá en la consulta.

En una rueda de prensa en su palacio presidencial en Bagdad, Yawar reconoció que Irak tiene tres grandes grupos de población -suníes, chiíes y kurdos- y "cualquier proceso político que no compartan las tres mayorías no tendrá éxito".

"Esperamos que los iraquíes vayan a votar, pero sabemos que la mayoría no lo hará por problemas de seguridad, no porque deseen boicotear las elecciones", dijo el presidente, suní de una respetada tribu del norte de Irak.

"Hay muy pocos iraquíes que quieran boicotear (los comicios), pero la mayor parte de los candidatos temen que sus partidarios no vayan a votar, sobre todo en aquellos lugares donde la seguridad no está garantizada", explicó.

[foto de la noticia]
E propio presidente estadounidense, George Bush, calificó la cita electoral de mañana de "hito en el progreso de la libertad y un logro fundamental en la guerra contra el terror". Según dijo, la democracia significará en Irak "un futuro de paz, estabilidad, prosperidad y justicia para ellos y para sus hijos". "La mejor manera de asegurar el éxito de la democracia es a través del avance de la democracia", continuó.

"El terrorista Zarqaui, que planea y ordena muchas de las bombas en automóviles y decapitaciones en Irak, recientemente reconoció la amenaza que la democracia significa para su culto del odio", continuó el presidente, para el que, "ante esta intimidación, el pueblo iraquí se muestra resuelto". "Las elecciones de mañana se llevarán a cabo debido a su valentía y determinación", aseveró.

Varios grupos extremistas suníes han amenazado con sabotear los comicios, y en concreto el grupo del jordano Abu Musab al Zarqaui, responsabilizado de varios de los principales atentados y ataques armados de los últimos meses, ha anunciado que piensa "teñir de sangre" la jornada electoral del domingo.

Hoy mismo, los insurgentes han vuelto a demostrar que harán lo imposible por bañar los comicios de sangre. A pesar de las extremas medidas de seguridad impuestas en el país, varios coches bombas y ataques contra diversas localidades han dejado un saldo de al menos 14 muertos.

La explosión de Janakin ha sido el incidente más grave de la víspera de estos comicios. El coche bomba estalló entre la base de Estados Unidos y la sede de los tribunales en la ciudad, localizada a 110 kilómetros al noreste de Bagdad y causó la muerte de al menos ocho personas, entre ellas tres soldados iraquíes y dos civiles, uno de ellos un niño. Otras nueve personas resultaron heridas, según aseguró un oficial de la Unión Patriótica del Kurdistán, Walah Bakhtiar.

Aún no se sabe con certeza si el ataque fue perpetrado contra la sede de un partido político turco o un centro de votación, ya que las fuentes difieren en este extremo.

Los atentados contra colegios electorales han sido la constante de la última semana, ya que los grupos insurgentes no han ocultado su intención de sabotear los comicios legislativos, los primeros de la era post-Sadam y a medida que se acerca el día se recrudece la violencia.

En la ciudad kurda de Dohuk (norte), uno de los lugares más seguros de Irak, se produjeron tres disparos de mortero en la noche de ayer en un colegio electoral que mató a tres personas y un ataque similar destrozó otro centro de votación en la ciudad de Bajwan, a 25 kilómetros al oeste de Kirkuk.

También ha sido blanco de los últimos ataques insurgentes, un colegio de la región kurda autónoma de Irbil, en cuyos alrededores estalló una bomba sin provocar víctimas.

A lo largo de esta jornada, además, las tropas estadounidenses e iraquíes mantuvieron un ataque cuando colocaban barreras de protección junto a centros de votación cerca de Iskandariyá, a unos 48 kilómetros al sur de Bagdad. Por el momento se desconoce si se produjeron bajas.

Un país blindado

Las fuerzas de seguridad de EEUU e Irak han intensificado su vigilancia en este país ante la llegada de las elecciones este domingo. En la mayoría de las ciudades, el toque de queda ha sido ampliado desde las siete de la tarde (17.00 hora española) hasta las seis de la mañana (04.00 hora española).

Se han cerrado las fronteras terrestres del país y se ha prohibido viajar entre las provincias. El aeropuerto deja hoy de operar. En los distritos bagdadíes de Al Jadra, Al Gazeliya y Al Adel han cortado el tráfico rodado en las calles aledañas a los colegios electorales donde el domingo deben celebrarse los primeros comicios legislativos de la era post-Sadam.

Los residentes de esos barrios indicaron que el Ejército estadounidense ha estacionado tanques y carros blindados en varias escuelas que servirán de colegios electorales. La mayoría de los negocios ya ha cerrado debido a las restricciones y al temor a la violencia, ya que los insurgentes han redoblado sus ataques en las últimas horas.

¿QUE RAZON MORAL TIENEN LOS ANTI-BUSH A OPONERSE A LAS ELECCIONES EN IRAK???

Iraqi democracy debuts in pre-election debate


Chicago Sun-Times ^ | January 29 2005 | WALID PHARES



Last Sunday, when Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi aired his infamous declaration of holy war against democracy, six main Iraqi leaders performed Iraq's first televised electoral debate on Al Hurra TV. The contrast between naked jihadism -- calling for the assassination of free choice -- and campaigning with ideas and words, is flagrant. The war in Iraq was never as clear as today, and its stakes were never as high as Sunday.

The debate participants represented six major tickets. Iraq's future assembly will have 275 seats. More than 4,000 candidates have gathered in ''coalition lists'' representing ethnic, ideological and political interests -- the single largest bloc of candidates in the modern history of the Middle East. The participants in the televised debate in Baghdad represented the leading ''blocs.'' In their opening remarks, they proclaimed their ''main principles of action.''

Jawad al Maliki, representing the Iraqi United Coalition, emphasized the necessity of elections: ''Those who called for it are larger in numbers. Those who wanted to postpone them feared the terrorists, and those who wanted to cancel them are the terrorists,'' he said.

Ironically, al Maliki represents an Islamist Shiite party. He concluded that elections are the beginning of the solution -- not the end of it. Hajim Husseini, representing the ticket ''Iraqiyun,'' or ''Iraqis,'' said most Sunni Arabs are not boycotting. They are under terrorist threat.

Dr. Adnan Pashaji, from the ''Gathering of Independent Democrats,'' admitted that he called for postponement of the elections for political reasons. He hoped he would convince more to participate. Dr. Ibrahim Saleh of the ''Kurdistani Alliance'' reminded viewers that elections are not happening in an ideal situation. ''We are facing international terrorism and the former regime forces. The main Iraqi leadership decided to go for elections to move forward, but there will be mechanisms to absorb those who won't be able to join us, including a referendum next November,'' he said.

Qassim Daoud of the ''al Qai'ma al Iraqiya,'' or ''Iraqi ticket,'' said elections are needed to establish a national authority, and Hamid Majid Musa, representing ''People's Union,'' strongly expressed the aspirations of most leftist and liberal forces in Iraq, saying that having elections now is better than no elections.

The debate covered several subjects, particularly these areas:

*Security and the Iraqi war on terror: Maliki called for new security agencies and popular responsibility. Musa warned about infiltration. Husseini criticized the disbanding of the army. Salih, referring to the Kurdish experience since the 1990s, insisted on ''Iraqization'' of security: ''Coalition forces will stay as needed, but cities should be under Iraqi security,'' he said. All candidates vowed to uproot terrorism from Iraq.

*The form of the new government: Husseini said a historical mistake was made in 1921 that should be addressed in 2005. Salih said consensus is the basis of any system, and proposed a federal state. Musa insisted on a republican-democratic constitution. All agreed on the pluralist identity.

*Perhaps the greatest consensus was democracy: The six candidates pledged full support for liberties and human rights, but differed as to the means. Pashaji declared democracy as a part of the constitution, sort of an Iraqi ''first amendment.'' And along with Salih, he insisted that it should be defended by the people.

*Role of Islam: Most of the candidates admitted that Islam is part of the new Iraq. Maliki proposed to send the matter to the new assembly. Husseini and Salih spoke of the values of religion but rejected a religious state. Pashaji reminded that the current legislation deals with the issue, while Daoud saw Islam as a religion of state.

*Baath Party: Husseini called the eradication of the Baath Party a mistake. Pashaji endorsed the dismantling of the Baath, but not the eradication of Arab identity. Salih distinguished between ''deBaath-ification'' as a purification of bureaucracy and eradication of the Baathists. He proposed a ''road map to absorb them.''

*Women: In an amazing volley of statements, all six politicians lent support to ''an increasing role for women.'' It's simple: Iraq's female population is the single largest voting bloc across ethnicities.

In a sum, Iraqi democracy is debuting with the politics of debates. Common grounds are laid out: National consensus, war on terrorism, democracy and inclusion. Cultural and spiritual issues will continue to divide parties. But two things are on track: Iraqis will win their elections, and the terrorists are now at war with Iraq's most important achievement: democracy.

Walid Phares is the Middle Eastern/terrorism expert for FamilySecurityMatters.com and a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Un éxito aliado y del pueblo iraquí

La Libertad Digital

EDITORIAL

“La masiva participación de ayer en las elecciones es un innegable y exitoso avance en la guerra que los iraquíes y los aliados están librando”

Los iraquíes han vivido este domingo una jornada histórica acudiendo, masivamente, a ejercer su derecho al voto, a pesar de las amenazas de muerte –muchas de ellas consumadas- de ese terrorismo islámico que aquí, todavía se ensalza apologéticamente -y desde mucho antes del 11-M- con los dignos ropajes de la “resistencia”.

Miles de iraquíes y centenares de soldados aliados han sido asesinados por los terroristas que tratan de evitar que prenda el injerto de democracia que, con tanto idealismo y sacrificios, se ha plantado en Irak tras una de las más sanguinarias y empobrecedoras dictaduras que haya conocido el siglo XX. Sólo en la jornada electoral de ayer, 36 personas fueron asesinadas y más de un centenar resultaron heridas en la serie de atentados con los que los terroristas querían ahuyentar a la población de las urnas.

Si es evidente que el terror islámico no da la batalla de Irak por perdida, la participación en estas elecciones –que se aproxima al ochenta por ciento- también pone de manifiesto que los terroristas no han conseguido amedrentar las ansias de libertad de la mayoría del pueblo iraquí, ni ahuyentar a las tropas aliadas que luchan por que esa esperanza compartida se haga realidad.

Garantizar la seguridad de occidente extendiendo la libertad a tierras que, como Irak, le eran ajenas, es una formidable empresa a la que Bush ha vuelto a comprometer su segunda legislatura. Si esta empresa nace del realismo de entender, tras el 11-S, que el mundo libre no puede seguir encerrado en sí mismo, rodeado de regímenes totalitarios que generan miseria en el interior tanto como fomentan la hostilidad exterior, también requiere del idealismo de considerar que el islam no es un obstáculo insalvable para ese empeño. Hace falta realismo, y al mismo tiempo, mucho idealismo para entender que en el expansionismo del mundo libre radica la principal clave de su seguridad.

En cualquier caso, la masiva participación de ayer en las elecciones es un innegable y exitoso avance en la guerra que los iraquíes y los aliados están librando contra el terrorismo. A pesar de la sangre, el sudor y las lágrimas.

Los iraquíes han demostrado con su alta participación electoral que quieren vivir en libertad y sin que nadie les imponga lo que tienen que hacer. Por tanto, pronto querrán echar a los gringos, que representan a un país que se acerca a su decadencia (como todos los imperios en un momento dado).

cierto