Last Sunday was a momentous day. In a conflict defined by bitter international divide and regional chaos, a bright spot, in the form of purple ink on an index finger, finally broke through the darkness that has so far defined the Iraq war.

Following the success of the elections, conservative punditry and war supporters used its success as ammunition to fire “I told you so” rhetoric at those whose skepticism of the war has increased with the deteriorating state of the Middle Eastern country. Such remarks form the perception that those critical of the Iraq war were eager for an election day filled with bloodshed, bodies and unmarked ballots. The pessimism preceding last Sunday — pessimism spawned from witnessing the consequences of a poorly planned war strategy — has been classified as hopeful expectations that the courageous citizens of Iraq would fail.

The efforts of the right to demonize Iraq’s skeptics — essentially synonymously “leftists” and “liberals” with “terrorists” — in a desperate attempt to find legitimacy in an otherwise illegitimate war comes at a time when we all, regardless of political ideology, should be able to applaud a triumph that generates new hope in the midst of controversy and suspicion.

Conservatives’ lambasting of war critics is a twisted attack on those who exercise democracy in its purest form — dissention. It is a tool that has been ingeniously utilized by the right; an attempt to further their revolutionary power by dismissing any dissenters as unpatriotic and any criticism as demoralizing cynicism. Such strategic condemnations were used no more infamously — and successfully — then in the weeks and months following 9/11, when patriotism was re-defined as unquestioned submission to U.S. policymaking and any resistance was met with anger and hatred.

Those who came out in opposition of America’s direction following the collapse of the twin towers were thoroughly ridiculed, demonized to the very level of the terrorists who committed the attacks. As conservatives attempt once again to salvage dwindling public support for the war in order to promote groupthink and squash opposition, they accuse those who met the elections with skepticism as being anti-American, anti-Iraqi and anti-democracy.

In the wake of the first good news out of Iraq for a long time, people have too easily forgotten that the initial foundations of America’s invasion had little to do with free elections or the spread of democracy. This war was not built on the potential for liberation, but on the potential for proliferation; the infamous claim of Saddam’s nuclear weapons arsenal and his determination to use it against the United States. 70 percent of the American public supported a pre-emptive war based on immediate concerns for their own security, not on immediate concerns for Iraqis’ security.

Though, as last Sunday reiterates, democracy in Iraq is a desirable goal for both Iraqis and Americans, this newfound Wilsonian rhetoric was minimally used in the initial rush to war — only after the crumbling of our leaders’ original rationalizations left them searching for alternative excuses. Since the search for WMDs was silently and officially closed last month, proven to be the largest intelligence blunder in U.S. history, the overlaying reality is that the American people were duped and sold a war by the exploitation of post-9/11 fear and hysteria. Despite the election’s success, there is still the question of whether the end still justifies the means. Was it worth the costs, both in dollars and in lives? Was it worth the destruction of international alliances, worldwide tension, the rise of anti-Americanism and the proliferation of terrorist activity?

The elections were extremely promising, and security officials, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens should be commended. But the right’s responses reveal the great misconceptions of the motivations behind the opposition to the American occupation. Skepticism of the war is not hope for failure, but it does rest on the belief that a successful election does not presume a successful war.

As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger pointed out, the Iraq elections “should be viewed not as a culmination but as the first and perhaps least complicated achievement in the quest for Iraqi self-government.” We should celebrate this major success, but let us not fly on that aircraft carrier and prematurely declare “mission accomplished” just yet.

Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.