Abazaid's Idea of Democracy

Gen. Abazaid's comments Sunday morning are telling for two reasons.  First, they imply something about the general's understanding of democratic elections and, thus, say something about what kind of elections we can expect in Iraq in (knock on wood) January of 2005.  Second, they imply something frightening about democracy in the U.S.

"I don't think we'll ever achieve perfection and when we look for perfection in a combat zone we're going to be sadly disappointed," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Abizaid compared the situation in Iraq to the disputed U.S. presidential election in 2000 that put George W. Bush in the White House following a protracted fight that ended up in the Supreme Court.

"I don't think Iraq will have a perfect election. And if I recall, looking back at our own election four years ago, it wasn't perfect either," he said.

He said the goal is to have successful voting in the "vast majority of the country."

"We're going to have to fight our way all the way through elections," he said, "and there'll be a lot of violence between now and then."

First, Gen. Abazaid (like Rumsfeld, as was pointed out earlier on this site) seems to see nothing wrong with a democratic election in which a substantial number of eligible voters are not allowed to vote. Of course, Abazaid conceals this point with his common-sense-sounding assertion that it's unreasonable to expect "perfection" in the upcoming Iraqi election. But talk about "perfection" obscures the issue. Few, if any, would go so far as to describe the elections of '88, '92, or '96 as "perfect" elections for the simple reasons that "perfect" is too grandiose a term and mistakes are bound to happen. Yet, few would contest the democratic legitimacy of those elections on account of such imperfection. When Gen. Abazaid says it's unreasonable to expect a "perfect election", he means it's unreasonable to expect a democratic election.  

The second point is a new gloss on an old theme. Isn't it an indictment when the top military commander in one of the most (if not the most) dangerous places in the world compares upcoming elections in that country with the 2000 U.S. presidential election? Perhaps I missed something, but was Florida in 2000 anything like Falluja in 2004? Of course, the general meant something different with his remark (-it's Abazaid's equivalent to Bush's "right track/wrong track" statement). Abazaid wants to lower our expectations for the Iraqi elections by drawing an analogy with something he thinks we've come to accept as legitimate and normal (i.e. the contested 2000 election). But a large segment of the American population doesn't accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election, and an even larger segment of Iraqis will doubt the legitimacy of their elections in 2005. One can venture a guess as to how a number of Iraqis might respond to an illegitimate government should their allegedly democratic election prove fraudulent. How will disenfranchised Americans respond if a similar situation happens here?

[N.B. Apologies if someone addressed the topic earlier. Search was down, my google search turned-up little, and I didn't see anything on the morning talk show thread].