Sunday’s elections in Iraq have been labeled across the board as a huge success. The critics, Republicans and Fox News, to mention a few, wasted no time jumping on the victory bandwagon.

Even The New York Times came around, and Newsweek lavished the cover of its Feb. 26 edition with a bold title reading, “VICTORY AT LAST — the emergence of a Democratic Iraq.”

Thus far, it seems like liberals, moderates and conservatives are all patting each other’s backs. And for once in a very long time, everyone is on the same page. What happened to ideological polarity? Let’s have some more health care legislation, please!

But how can supporters and antagonists of the Iraq war speak of success in unionism when they weren’t on the same page throughout the war? And does the election in Iraq necessarily mean success?

My father of blessed memory once said to me, “Failure is a loner, but success — even a speck of it — is a drawer of all crowds, even critics.”

This seems to fit well with the media buzz in Iraq. I have never been a fan of the Iraq war, and I’m not about to deviate.

America had no business in Iraq in the first place. It was a venture that drew too much American blood, Iraqi lives and money.

But before going further, I must commend the men and women of the American military and allied forces for their bravado and perseverance.

Amidst the fog of war and an unclear mission, they’ve shown real heart in making the best of an ill-orchestrated war.

But back to the issue. It’s funny how after a second election, everyone sings victory songs, forgetting that democracy wasn’t the main mission in Iraq.

Democracy only took center stage after the world realized how faulty the initial premise for going to Iraq was.

On the eve of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the primary reason for the invasion, according to former President George W. Bush, was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and defend America and global security.

Seven years later, we know that those premises, to put it nicely, were bow-tied crap. Although Saddam Hussein was indeed a cynical leader (just like the dozens we still have), Iraq was not about to blow up America or the world.

Then the scheme changed and the story was rewritten. After a couple of years of wasted effort, the mission was restructured and the rhetoric changed.

It became “reconstruct Iraq, the civil war-torn country riddled with terrorism and insurgency.”

So if you haven’t quite gotten the picture yet, here’s a summary: America went into Iraq under false premises.

It deconstructed Iraq, and then built it up with private security firm Blackwater (now Xe Services) and energy company Halliburton as co-conspirators — who profited from the war.

And at the earliest inkling of what seems like a democracy, victory songs are sung. A well-written script, but I’m not buying it.

Democracies aren’t validated by just one election, not to mention an election that claimed the lives of voters and candidates alike.

Also, although the election held in Iraq was a great democratic stride, it’s way too early for America to galvanize its own ego, especially for a situation it staged.

So now that the mission has been accomplished (whatever it was in the first place), what’s the next Oscar-winning plot?

Accuse Zimbabwe of having weapons of mass destruction, invade it and in seven years have another election? And then scream success? Nice.

Food For Thought: Don’t count your chicks before they hatch.