And then I wrote

... that I paid a little more attention to the voting in Iraq Sunday than I intended to.
Not that I wasn't interested. I was just sort of trapped.
My back was still hurting from the effects of snow shoveling the weekend before, and Saturday evening, I sat on my glasses and ruined them. It happened as I was rushing around at the halftime of the Iowa basketball game to scare up something to eat and setting up a tray in the room with the TV set. The glasses apparently slipped off the arm of the lounge chair onto the seat, and I didn't notice.
So anyway, I flipped to the news shows from time to time, and that was fascinating. News people (I know; I was one!) can report the same facts and yet tell two separate stories. Two of the major networks (which I hardly ever watch) made their lead story the loss of that British airplane. One "news" network concentrated on the fact that those who voted now could easily be picked out for retaliation because they had fingers inked to prove they had voted. All noted there had been some polling place violence.
The folks at Fox led with the high voter turnout and showed shots of celebrating Iraqi voters. They also noted the "few" incidents of violence and the loss of the British aircraft.
In the first cases, the liberal networks, with obvious chagrin that the election had taken place and appeared to be a success, hurried to get the bad news out first. Fox, more favorable toward the American effort, put the good news first.
I harbor no illusions that Sunday's vote means an end to the troubles in the Middle east. There has been almost continuous warfare in that area since the dawn of time, and since it is largely religious or sectarian in nature, that probably will not change.
One news show reminded me that the Iraqi people are among the most intelligent generally in that area, far ahead of such nations as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, which have large populations of historically subjugated and less advanced people. And interviews showed many Iraqis speaking excellent English as their second language.
The Shiite majority (80% of population) seems more advanced than Saddam's Sunnis. How, then, did Saddam's people gain absolute power? I was reminded of what was said about the rise of Hitler. The only way evil can succeed is for good people to do nothing. So if I have hope at all, it is the hope that the intelligent majority, having made this first move, will stay strong and defend what gains they have made, and magnanimously reach out to the Sunnis and Kurds. But it is only hope, not expectation.
If there is any group more unhappy with free elections in Iraq than the Sunnis, it may be leading Democrats. They were demanding Monday morning that the president now define what he means by victory and set an exit date and bring the troops home. It's a sad commentary that, after Korea and Vietnam, some Americans no longer recognize what it means to be victorious in war.
And setting a date for withdrawal of troops would only cause the enemies of peace to bide their time until that date had passed. Why surrender that advantage to an enemy?
Those who were elected Sunday have a year in which to come up with a constitution for a nation which has never had one. Doesn't that mean there will have to be a strong U.S. presence there for at least that long?
In our three most recent "big" wars, we quit before we gave ourselves a chance to win. Korea, Vietnam and the first action against Iraq.
Have we learned that lesson?