PAINFUL AWAKENING

With millions of Iraqis casting ballots Thursday to elect members of parliament, the county has completed the last formal step in the U.S. devised plan to create a democratic government there. Despite what appears to be a successful election, the future of Iraq – and American involvement there – remains uncertain.

Just days before the election, and nearly three years after U.S. forces invaded Baghdad, President Bush for the first time acknowledged that many mistakes were made before and after the invasion. The president’s change in tone, while unexpected given his past assertions, is a welcome sign that the administration understands it must do a better job of keeping the public and Congress informed about events in Iraq. For too long, administration officials have painted a rosy picture that contrasted sharply with news reports of bombings, prisoner torture and instability in Iraq.

The president astounded many when he agreed, after a speech in Philadelphia, to take questions from the audience. The first query was about Iraqi casualties. The president calmly answered that about 30,000 Iraqis had been killed. It was the first time the administration had discussed Iraqi casualty figures. Although he did not give details about how many were killed by U.S. forces as opposed to Iraqi insurgent attacks, the 30,000 figure comports with estimates from other groups.

In four speeches, the president acknowledged that much intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities was wrong. He said the insurgency was allowed to spread because the United States had failed to quickly arm Iraqi security forces. He admitted that many mistakes were made during the on-going rebuilding process. He said the plan to establish an Iraqi government was too slow.

The president’s comments were likely calculated to stop the slide in public support for the war in Iraq. Whatever the reason, the candor should continue, especially as calls to hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops are growing louder and more frequent.

While the president is right not to set a timetable because insurgents – or rejectionists as the administration now calls many of them – will simply wait us out. However, there already are deadlines that the president can’t change. One is the 2006 congressional election and the pressure the administration feels from its own party for demonstrable progress in Iraq.

Another, more distant, deadline is the 2008 presidential election, when the U.S. approach to Iraq could be radically altered.

Complicating the picture is the growing threat of sectarian violence. American soldiers have uncovered a second detention center where Sunni Muslims, a minority in Iraq, were reportedly tortured by Shiite forces. Can U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq when it is known that the Shiite majority is capturing and torturing Sunnis? This is a difficult question that has nothing to do with elections and the number of Iraqi troops that are trained.

Thursday’s election, especially the participation of Sunnis who largely boycotted the last election, was an important step forward, yet it remains a work in progress. Now Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will have to work together in Parliament to effectively govern Iraq despite insurgent bombings and assassinations aimed at derailing the government.

Victory, in the form of a country that can govern itself and protect all its citizens, is likely still a long way off.