Why Democracy Is Bad For Iraq

There has been much talk around lately about how a new "democratic" Iraq will look, act and behave. We are constantly bombarded with the notion that in order to have been successful in Iraq, we have to have left behind a functioning, secular democracy.

Wrong. We actually don't want anything of the sort.

The Administration has talked of bringing democracy to Iraq. What they have meant is that they intend to bring liberty to Iraq, not necessarily democracy. It is very important to recognize that distinction.

Liberty is the ability to life as you see fit to live it. If you want to speak out against the government, speak out. If you have a great idea to make millions, bring it on. Want to be a bum? Go right ahead. In each case, the choice is yours.

Liberty has been the goal all along. I said it back on March 12, we went to war for liberty - and ultimately for no other reason.

Democracy is not freedom. Pure democracy would lead to the establishment of heavy restrictions on the rights of minorities. To use the term democracy to describe what we want in Iraq is wrong.

We want to leave the Iraqis with a government that protects the rights of minorities. We want a government that is representative of the people. We want the people of Iraq to know freedom, without the fear of it being snatched away from them.

We want them to know liberty.

And the Administration knows that. They understand that installing a tyranny of the majority would be unacceptable. It's just that, like everyone else, they got caught up in the nice, benign sound of "democracy."

What we really want is a constitutional republic founded on liberty and rights. That is what the benchmark needs to be, not the warm-fuzzy of an ambiguous word.