Young: The census of hard-liners

WACO, Texas — This should have surprised no one. The magical elixir that is democracy can, under certain conditions, assume the properties of drain cleaner.

The popular elevation of Hamas to governing status in the Palestinian parliament is the latest example. But instances in which religious or ideological extremists gain power by popular vote are becoming too plentiful.

One Mahmoud Ahmadinejad governing Iran is enough. Add Hugo Chavez presiding over Venezuela. And voters chose leftists in Bolivia and Chile, not exactly the direction George W. Bush presumes breezes will blow when people vote.

With all the discussion of Hamas governing the Palestinians and the scary new president of Iran, we are ignoring the pachyderm in the room: the newly born government of Iraq.

It is much closer to a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy than anything envisioned by architects of "remaking the Middle East." Its Shiite-controlled government is much more likely to align itself with Iran than any other neighbor.

Some Americans might not recall, but a general thaw was developing in relations with Iran a year ago. Ahmadinejad's predecessor had talked about improving relations with the United States. But the people's choice, Ahmadinejad, was the only candidate for president who said he would not talk with the United States. With the jolt of his election, I wonder if anyone in the administration regretted the phrase "axis of evil" in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

When the phrasing was proposed, writes Bob Woodward in "Plan of Attack," then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice thought it "more than clever."

Clever indeed. But hardly a way to molify moderate Iranians. Throw in a U.S. invasion of Iraq next door, and no one should be surprised that Iranian masses elected a militant on U.S. relations. They might say: If the United States can reward hard-liners with power, why not us?

By the same token, when Supreme Court nominees feel the need to kiss the ring of a religious-right poobah — that's you, James Dobson — who are we warning about theocracies overseas?

On the rhetoric of war and what comes after, it would seem that this administration now would be ready to turn down the bellicosity quotient of the past six years.

We assure ourselves that we are in Iraq fighting the "war on terrorism." Actually, we know that most of the people fighting our troops are Iraqis who don't want U.S. troops in their country.

I posit today the first step toward resolving this: A State of the Union address that does not use the word "war." It can cite terrorism. It can cite the nuclear threat. But not in terms of war. Let's shift the dynamic.

Let's talk about hopes that Americans, Iraqis, Iranians and those under the thumb of North Korea's dictator might have no reason to fire their weapons at one another.

We can't rule out war because we can't predict what bizarre behavior by others might dictate warlike acts. But we, the role models of the civilized world, need to start modeling that old role again.

Sept. 11 was a horrific event that changed the way we looked at the world. But if it ushered to the world a state of never-ending war, with ever-hardening lines of division and conflict, terrorists who can never defeat a super power will have won.

John Young is the Opinion Page editor of the Waco Tribune-Herald. E-mail: jyoung AT wacotrib.com