Rarely have I been so glad to acknowledge in print that I was wrong. Last spring, expressing the opinion that America, having done a bang-up job of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, would be wise to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible, I wrote: “It is hard to imagine … how the slow but steady transition envisioned by American planners from military rule to a popularly supported, democratic, pro-American government can take place.”

It still hasn’t taken place. It’s just no longer so hard to imagine.

I am of course in good company. The number of newspaper columnists who supported the American invasion of Iraq two years ago and later concluded that its goals were overambitious could probably fill an auditorium. (I forbear to mention the benighted souls who opposed the war from the beginning.) Why were so many of us mistaken? I can think of several reasons:

(1) Bad reporting

This wasn’t necessarily the fault of the journalists. When you are likely to end up with your throat slashed if you stray too far from your hotel or Humvee, it’s hard to do a good job of finding out what a country thinks and informing your readers about it.

Journalists in war zones are always at risk, but there has never before been a war in which they were treated as killable on sight by one of the sides. As a result, there has never been a war in which they got out into the field so seldomly and told us so little. The first reliable indication of what most Iraqis think about America’s campaign against the anti-democratic insurgents in their country came two days ago, when they went to the polls to vote. Surprise, surprise! They’re for the Americans.

(2) Sunnis, Shiias, and Kurds

We all knew of course that Iraq, like Caesar’s Gaul, was divisa in partis tris. We even knew that the Sunnis, who were the chief beneficiaries and executors of Saddam Hussein’s ethnosectarian totalitarian rule, were the chaps making all the trouble now. Yet even though we knew, we kept forgetting and confusing Sunni Iraq with Iraq. Sunday’s elections reminded us that there is no such thing as an Iraqi insurgency. There is a Sunni insurgency. Eighty percent of the population of Iraq is not connected to it.

It is possible now to see how foolish were those who argued, practically up to the opening of the polling stations, that the Iraqi elections should be postponed because Sunni participation would be low. Sunni participation indeed was low – but would that have been any reason to punish the Shiites and Kurds by not allowing them to vote either? On the contrary. The Sunnis have learned a valuable lesson in democracy. Because they didn’t vote, whether in protest or out of fear, they are now underrepresented in the Iraqi National Assembly and less able to protect their own interests. Next time they’ll know better.

(3) Western arrogance pretending to be the opposite

How many times have we heard the refrain in recent months, “Democracy? Where do we Americans and Europeans get off telling Iraqis about democracy when they don’t have electricity, drinkable water, basic security? These are the things with which they need to be provided. Without them, free elections mean nothing.”

It never occurred to those spouting such sentiments, by which many of us were affected, that they expressed the height of condescension. Behind them was a subtext that said: “Yes, we appreciate the virtues of democracy – but that’s only because we’re well-fed and well-educated and snug in our high-rise apartments and suburban homes. You can’t expect them to understand such things.”

It turns out that “them” understood such things very well. Democracy isn’t a concept that you need a Ph.D. to grasp. In fact, you’re probably better off without one.

(4) Anti-Americanism

I don’t normally think of myself as anti-American. Honestly, I grew up in the place! And yet I confess to having, now and then, the following not unfashionable thoughts:

Americans are ignorant. Give them a map and they’d confuse Iraq with Antarctica. How can they possibly bring it democracy?

Americans are ethnocentric. They think that what Iraq really needs is a good hamburger. How can they possibly bring it democracy?

Americans are naive. They think Iraqis should be grateful to them for dumping the law-and-order of the good old days of Saddam Hussein for the jungle that Iraq is now. How can they possibly bring it democracy?

It turns out that America just may manage to bring Iraq democracy. Because it’s ignorant. Because it’s ethnocentric. Because it’s naive. Because it’s dumb enough to think it can do it.

Sure, sure: Let’s not celebrate too soon. A million things can still go wrong before Iraq is as peaceful as Switzerland, as progressive as Sweden, as tolerant as Spain. Still, thing are looking a lot better than they were last week.

I should have stuck by a column I wrote two years ago in The Jerusalem Post, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. “Nothing could be more justified,” I said then, “than overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein, destroying all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and helping the Iraqi people to lead a better life that might be a model for others in the Middle East. The only thing unjustified about an attack on Iraq would be its failure to meet these goals.”

A year ago I wrote in The New York Sun that I was wrong about that. Now I’m writing to say I was wrong about being wrong. Nothing could be more justified than helping the Iraqi people to lead a better life that might be a model for others in the Middle East.

Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.