Over at the Wonk Room, Brian Katulis responds to my challenge of the other day which, in turn, was in response to his Tweet which suggested “I ’still’ define democracy as elections,” as if I ever did. His Tweet, in turn, was in response to this NRO article. Well, the past week’s U.S. Army Afghanistan seminars just ended but, because of the storm in D.C., I’ll be stranded in Germany and so, to pass the time, I’ll respond at length, especially because Brian brings up a number of good points.

Brian more or less acknowledges that his Tweet was not accurate, as I hadn’t defined democracy as elections. But, he does raise a number of problems about governance in Iraq, especially with regard to human-rights abuses. I agree that the human-rights situation in Iraq remains poor, and corruption remains a cancer, alas one in which Iraqis perceive American officials to be complicit. This is why, however, the open list is such a step forward — Iraqis can finally hold politicians to account.

With regard to the disqualification of the 500 Baathists, I’m not as critical as Brian. The problem, for me, wasn’t the disqualification as much as the process — off-line, the Washington Institute’s Scott Carpenter makes a pretty persuasive case that Lami’s committee hadn’t been properly seated and so it’s actions were illegal. The Iraqi courts the other day agreed, and so the decision’s reversal, an example of growing respect for rule-of-law. What Katulis may and many American policymakers do miss, however, is how persuasive fears of a potential military coup are in Iraq, especially after the U.S. withdrawal. Perception means more than reality in the Middle East, and when a grand ayatollah in Najaf, and representatives of two other grand ayatollahs in the holy city single out General Petraeus and/or Odierno by name, it’s time U.S. officials pay attention. I’m not sure that those who are shepherded through Iraq by the U.S. embassy or U.S. military are exposed to important segments of Iraqi society who may not embrace the latest U.S. embassy or CENTCOM policy projects. And I’ve seen enough bad decisions made within the Coalition Provisional Authority because it prioritized the U.S. political calendar over Iraqi reality, and so I’m quite nervous about decisions made to ensure a smooth withdrawal which may undermine long-term stability.

We can disagree about President Bush and his administration’s “incompetence.” I certainly have had my differences with the Bush administration, but do believe that, like Harry S. Truman, historians will judge Bush far more positively than his contemporaries did. I don’t think Bush should apologize for giving millions of Iraqis and Afghans the opportunity to embrace democracy, nor do I think it was wrong (and, indeed, I lament Bush’s subsequent reversal) to hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for its actions. Historians will debate Bush. When Washington policymakers rather debate political blame for past decisions rather than how to ensure the best possible outcome in Iraq, however, I do very much see that as disrespectful of the Iraqi people. And this brings us back to the conclusion of the original National Review Online article.

The Obama administration has, on several different occasions, defined its foreign-policy philosophy as the “three Ds — diplomacy, development, and defense.” Democracy is not among them, but should be. More importantly, there is a risk that the Iraqi elections could be bungled as the Afghanistan elections were. Candidates and slates which realize they are losing in a certain district have too much to gain from spoiling ballot boxes, voiding them, and causing their opponents disproportionate loss. The Independent High Election Committee hemorrhaged Iraqis’ respect following a bribery scandals in the Kurdish municipal elections. Much more can be done now to ensure elections go smoothly. If Brian wants a third round, we can discuss what could be done, although I suspect we would agree.

A final aside: It seems that Matthew Yglesias defines as thin-skinned as anyone who dares correct Matthew Yglesias’s factual errors; the ad hominem attacks that result from challenging Mr. Yglesias to support his statements are both tired and predictable. Brian Katulis is a serious scholar, but he should certainly expect a response when he mischaracterizes a position and assigns a definition of democracy to me which I never made, and if Matthew Yglesias doesn’t like it, tough.