U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill said yesterday that the process used to erase people linked to Saddam Hussein's regime was misguided from the get-go and has tainted the legitimacy of the March 7 general election. "I don't think there is any person alive who would say that mistakes were not made early on in the process," said Hill, referring to the controversial steps taken by Paul Bremer, the former U.S. Administrator of Iraq who headed up the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Paul Bremer ordered the process of de-Baathification, and it passed on May 16, 2003, the same day as the creation of the CPA. This order resulted in the removal of tens of thousands of Baath employees from public life and politics. I find it mind-boggling that Bremer insisted on such a defective policy that clearly would have long-lasting and ominous repercussions on Iraqi politics and society. Was it because he didn't understand that millions of ordinary Iraqis joined the Baath party out of necessity, not conviction? How did he neglect to realize that banning such a wide range of individuals would undermine human capacity in the post-Saddam era? And, perhaps the most pressing question: why didn't he realize that forbidding people loosely affiliated with the Baath party would consequently narrow Sunni participation and thus strengthen the influence of Shiite Islamists with the closest ties to Iran?