The rising violence in the Middle East has apparently caused the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal to rethink its understanding of the war in Iraq. They write today:

Critics of the Bush Administration will surely find a way to blame it for the current crisis, on the theory that this is what happens when you push for change in the Middle East. But the real problem is the growing perception among Arab regimes and terrorist frontmen that the U.S. is so bogged down in Iraq, and so suddenly deferential to the wishes of the “international community,” that it has lost its appetite for serious reform. This has created openings for the kind of terror assaults on American allies we are now witnessing.

Despite trying to cast their stance as one that “critics of the Bush Administration” would dispute, the position that the WSJ editors take today is one that “critics” have been arguing for some time. American Progress’s Iraq strategy, Strategic Redeployment 2.0, explicitly states that, “As long as the United States is bogged down in Iraq and refuses to admit the thousands of mistakes it has made, it will not have the moral, political, and military power to deal effectively” with the threats it faces.

Sen. Chuck Hagel argued in Aug. 2005, “I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur,” adding, “We are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam.”

But the idea that the U.S. was “bogged down” in Iraq – which the WSJ now appears to embrace – has been repeatedly blasted by their editorial page. For example:

The political class and media treat the war as something whose “policy” details can somehow be revisited, even rethought. At home, the war is a political event, a normal partisan phenomenon. Its metaphors are borne out of Vietnam — quagmire, bogged down, body counts, Ted Kennedy. Guess what? Vietnam isn’t coming back. The people of this country tore the nation’s fabric terribly over Vietnam. They are not going to do it again. [Daniel Henninger, WSJ, 4/30/04]

Being “bogged down” in Iraq has had damaging consequences in the Middle East due to the disastrous choices the administration made. The WSJ finally seems to understand that. Better late than never.

Reacting to a new conflict igniting on Israel’s northern border, President Bush stuck to his standard talking points about freedom and democracy during today’s press conference with German Chancellor Merkel:

We’re concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We’ve been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hizbollah.

Indeed, the United States must support the advance of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. But simply holding elections – the focus of the Bush administration – will not create stability in the region. Consider:

- In Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, elections have empowered, not defeated, Islamist extremists like Hizbollah and Hamas who espouse violence.

- In Iraq, two elections and a constitutional referendum still has not brought freedom or stability to the country, which slips further into violence each day.

Democracy is not simply about going to the polls. It also means having institutions operating within the rule of law, a system of checking the power of strong executive bodies, and political actors that respect the rights of women and religious minorities.

We need to think beyond elections and take serious diplomatic steps to promote stability in the Middle East.

- Brian Katulis