Is some democracy better than no democracy?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that parts of Iraq might be excluded from elections set for January due to rising violence.

This takes a moment of pondering before you figure out why this is really, really wrong. I mean, on the surface of it, it doesn't sound all that bad. You know, realistically, okay, maybe all of Iraq won't be calm and organized enough to participate in elections in January. So they're hoping to get most of the country ready. Better than Saddam Hussein, right?

But think about it: which areas won't be ready to vote? The areas that are controlled by the insurgency. Are they not Iraqis as well? So you will have an election where the people who are most opposed to the candidates propped up by the U.S. are unable to participate.

Next thing you know, there's a "government" in place, Bush pulls out of Iraq saying we achieved our goal (mark my words, Bush is much more interested in cutting and running than Kerry is) and washes his hands of the mess. And voila! Civil war because there will be large chunks of the country that doesn't support the new government.

Now, it may be a politically risky position, but I would advocate delaying national elections in Iraq until each voter can be guaranteed the opportunity to participate.