> We flatter ourselves to believe that our 230 year old democratic experiment has any chance of getting off the ground in a region defined by clan, religious edict and ethnic rivalries that reach back into antiquity.

I'm not sure why one should buy this conjecture. Cataclysmic changes of mind can and do happen. It may be presumptuous to think one can MAKE them happen, but happen they do.

Furthermore, one can create an environment where it is possible to happen. But even if it doesn't, recall "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest" where in the insane asylum Jack Nicholson's character tried to tear out the water fountain. Nicholson felt obliged to try. It showed the others who were resigned to their fate that their own resignation contributed to it. Although his effort failed, through his example others succeeded.

Whether democracy takes hold or not, that we gave Iraq the opportunity exposes the United Nations to have been resigned to its fate.

And you and I? We need to salt the discussions with compelling clarity what actually is the institutional benefit of democracy, the more likely to bring about that cataclysmic change. Democracy institutionalizes the humility to always allow the smallest voice to suggest a better way and the mechanism for others to join in to make it happen.

Modern societies with some sense of consensual government (i.e. even a fragment of the social compact between people and ruler) depend on the following:

1. Religion as a largely personal matter of conviction rather than the organizing principle of laws and government.

2. Emphasis on free inquiry into technical and scientific matters, with again religion as a matter of personal conviction rather than organizing principles of science and research.

3. Patriotic and nationalist feelings, i.e. the nation is Japan comprised of Japanese, or China comprised of Chinese, or Korea or Singapore or Australia or the United States, with appropriate respect and reverence for national symbols such as Old Glory, the Liberty Bell, or sacred shrines. Allowing a trust-compact between people who do not know each other or are related through common reverence and respect for the nation and patriotism.

4. Low levels of tribalism, clan orientation, etc. which limits co-operation to tribe and family and retards any significant material progress in economic, military, and technical spheres.

5. Good treatment of women and minorities, with rights respected and enforced by the rule of law made by policy makers not religious edicts.

6. Unity of law, i.e. law exists from the national level downwards and not through the independent edicts of competing forces such as religious leaders and the like.

7. Individual freedom including freedom to marry whoever one wishes, better one's self economically, and move around the nation.

8. Relatively low levels of violence, banditry, and corruption so that economic investment and growth can take place.

In all instances every Muslim nation and grouping on earth fails this test except in very moderate amounts parts of Turkey and Kurdistan, influenced by a desire on some parts of those groupings to achieve Western levels of wealth.

That Iraq is a failure, that Muslims are the enemy of the West, that Muslims in the West cannot be anything other than the enemy of the West and have no place in our societies, that the only way the West can achieve security is by periodically killing Muslims on the scale of Hama or worse is self evident.

Forget Iraq. Look at the wider Muslim world. Which Muslim country boasts a world-class company competing in the global marketplace with Muslim expertise? Which world-class Muslim medical center attracts patients from all over the globe? Which Muslim university is the center for scientific and technical research? Which Muslim nation leads in patents or scientific or technical prizes. Ha. Which Muslim nation has ANY scientist or technical person who has done any original research or development worthy of noting?

In all areas of human endeavor except terrorism Islam and Muslims have been and continue to be a total failure, the case arguably since the Mongol invasions. Yes of course Muslims are incapable of democracy because of ISLAM. ISLAM nullifies all 8 requirements above, and so renders Muslims incapable of co-existing with the modern world. Thus the conflict. The only solution is to induce enough pain on Muslim societies to get them to periodically cease to attack, and long-term destroy ISLAM in the acid-bath of Modernity (of which Christian Europe has dissolved, but not Judaism nor Evangelical Christianity in America and Africa).

ISLAM cannot handle doubt that Allah exists, or Mohammed was anything but a homicidal pervert, or that Koran is full of made up tribal nonsense. Judaism and some forms of Christianity can, and the essence of doubt about tribal superstition and tradition is the key to modern societies material success (include Japan, China, Korea, and the Anglo-sphere in this category).

Jeez, Jim, I thought I was discouraged....

I actually work with about ten Muslims, none of whom have or desire to cut anyone's throat. I suggest you chill on the lumping. (Or if the post was meant to be a joke that I'm too literal-minded to get, account for the terminally un-hip when writing.)

Jim:In all areas of human endeavor except terrorism Islam and Muslims have been and continue to be a total failure, the case arguably since the Mongol invasions.

Read about Ibn Khaldun and tell me again what is not possible.

In my opinion, the fact that prophet Mohammed was also a prince, that is, ruled over our world matters creating a civil law in the process, is a point that complicates a lot the issue of creating a democratic country in the Arab world. Muslim extremist can always manipulate desperate (usually for economic reasons) people against a non-Islamic government.

In addition, due to religious reasons, people closer to the ascentry of the prophet seem to have a leverage in a Muslim society from the times of the first expansion: the peoples that converted later to Islam shared a smaller part of the loot. Muslim peoples are clearly classified according to it. This principle is aggravated with tribes, clans and the like.

Therefore we have got a fragmented, highly non-egalitarian, easy-to-manipulate, desperate people on which base some kind of democracy. That is quite a challenge. It was far easier to send a man to the moon.

What do those Muslims want? The same than you and me: prosperity. I don't know why you identify Iraqis with the brutal acts of some thousands of them. If someone keeps shooting at you, that is your enemy. Period.

I think there are three kind of traditional Muslim-world leaders:

1. The descendant of Mohammed (i.e: the king of Morocco). An easy-to-get-along post (hey, won't you dare to stand against the will of Allah?) on what really is a theocracy.

2. The bloodthirsty tyrant (i.e: family Asad in Syria). In order to keep such a post you need to stick into ALL your subdits minds, even the most dumb, that you are in charge and not the slightest opposition will be tolerated. A massacre like Hama should suffice.

3. The succesful Jihadist (i.e: Al-Mansur, 11th century in Spain). Only occasionally used during the last centuries, Osama Bin Laden may fit, at least before he hide in a cave. In the old days in which their movements became organized kingdoms had the curious property of, if loosing a battle to the infidels, quickly dissapear, due to a sudden shrink of confidence from their subdits.

It would be interesting for the developed world, in order to avoid having people crashing into skycrapers, that these three feudal sterotypes of Muslim world leader were overcome. I don't think like Cicero, that the civilized world can leave aside the Muslim one. They will keep coming. What we may choose if they do so having a minimal democratic skills or wearing an explosive-belt.

BTW, Sterotype #2, only hide the reality under the carpet. Authocratic regimes do not prepare their people to democracy, and rarely provide them with enough economical resources. Their "order" is a mirage, as was Hitler's.

Hama should not be repeated on Iraq. There must prevail a neutral law, a law that does not favour any group above others. Who breaks the law must be severely punished. All Iraqis should have access to the oil revenues. A neutral to any group but common to all educational system should be created. All Iraqis should be equals before the law.

From that point of view, Muqtada Al-Sadr militias are far a greatest danger for Iraq than the Sunnis. The National government of Iraq cannot survive if they favour a group above others.

Interesting.

1) America was founded and organized around Christian principles. There's a big difference between a government ruled by religion and one organized around religious principles.

2) Emphasis on free inquiry is a recent phenomenon in America. (Remember the Salem witches?)

3) Patriotic and nationalist feelings. During the Revolutionary War, Americans who supported the British were called "tories". There were many of them, and some worked actively with British forces to undermine the American effort. Our founders wrote of the many factions that infected our country. In fact, the entire reason for the Constitutional Convention was that the Articles of Confederation were too weak and unenforceable.

4) Low levels of clans and tribalism. Tell that to the Hatfields and the McCoys, or the Irish and the Mafioso, et. al.

5) Good treatment of women and minorities. Heh. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Church bombings. Women's sufferage. America has not always been the shining example of perfection you seem to think it was, Jim.

6) Unity of law. A relatively recent phenomenon (in practice) in America. In some areas of the country, it still struggles to exist.

7) Individual freedom, including choosing whom to marry. It wasn't long ago that interracial marriage in America was prohibited by law.

8) Low levels of violence and banditry. We still suffer, in America, from gangs, drive-by shootings, governmental corruption, etc., etc.

So it seems that neither your complaints about Arabs nor your claims about democracy are well-founded. As America surely proves, building democratic institutions is long, hard work, against which many will continue to rebel, even in the best of times.

So, if we really should write off Iraq as a lost cause, at least be honest enough to admit that the underlying reason is a racist view of the Arab world rather than reason and logic.

To tell the truth, I'm tired of hearing the word democracy. I'm tired of hearing it almost as much as I am tired of hearing the word moderate, The latter is not the primary point of your post, though it is related so, I won't incorporate it here because my comment then would be insufferably long, even for me.

It was okay for Bush to appeal to me by using the term, as far as that goes, but in this global age of communication, there is no combatting the fact that one people's understanding of it is different from another's. Witness the Palestinian Territories and Hezballah's approach to it in Lebanon, not to mention 90% of swath from Morocco to Pakistan, and in a different context, China, the old USSR or, more recently, the activities of the 'democratically elected' government of Venezuela.

It doesn't help to parrot Bush by trotting it out either, imho. We have to speak about first principles -- Life, Liberty, PoH or property, and keep pounding heads about equality and rule of law. (That "We", by the way, is Bush with the American people in his pocket.) It seems to me that democracy blossoms from an acceptance of those principles and not the other way around. Until those principles are the founding rules on which the then societal rules and policies are debated in the political arena, then it should be expected that the tree of Liberty will be watered now and then with can or flood. Please note, though, what kind of tree it is. Jefferson did not call it the tree of Democracy. That, as with most of his writings I can think of, is, to my mind, why he was one of the inspirations that set our nation on the path we have travelled: clear thinking, clearly expressed.

It seemed to me that Iraq was the best province in which to "remake the Middle East", to coin a phrase owing to a confluence of factors that set into motion, to coin another phrase, opportunity knocking. Regime change could have been done differently or not at all, of course, but that wasn't the confluence of conditions or opinion with regard to Iraq or the "remaking of the Middle East. And Iraq still does, if only in the sense that, besides, say, Lebanon, it has most of the conditions about which the principles that, too often, the word democracy is substituted for, can be taught. But again, the opportunity, and timing, for another country did not present itself, however much others complain about this or that country being a greater enemy, while ignoring the conditions, or this or that country is comparable, while ignoring the contrasts. As an aside, this view is why I continue to defend Bush's decision -- he got the reasons right, the concept right, the location right and the procedure wrong, while those who vociferously deride him get all of them wrong.

That is all background to my thinking, Molon, for why I think Hama is not an example to accept in resigning to reality (leaving aside my objection to your assertion that "wanton slaughter is required to beat anarchy into submission). In fact, I think it is an example to accept in preventing, in order to advance the teaching of these principles. Accepting it in the latter context is part and parcel of our reason for regime change, one that was judged worth our blood and treasure. And primarily because we are not in the midst of that example yet, and because in allowing it to come to fruition would likely cause a much larger conflagration, it seems to me the additional blood and treasure in an effort to ensure it does not take place is much more valuable to "remaking the Middle East", and enhancing our reputation in the world.

But for any value to be gained from the work necessary in preventing it, the work must be understood as an act in safeguarding life, establishing the rule of law, observing equality, fostering liberty, giving hope to the pursuit of happiness and suggesting that a democratic form of government is the best guarantor for preserving them, for those are the reasons and underlie the means by which we would undertake it.

Some of the things I have read lately, here and there, cause me to be optimistic that this line of thinking sparks occasionally in our leaders' minds but it certainly hasn't been stated yet in any clear and comprehensive way. That is disappointing to me because I believe wholeheartedly this is why the task we've undertaken has been made harder, why the plan has been denigrated as vague, why it's been as unsuccessful as it has to date, not to mention why the Administration has not maintained the support of the people and why his detractors get such a sympathetic hearing, i.e., without the reasons being clearly understood and stated, as in our national compact, the policy and priority alternatives chosen out of the multitude possible can be appropriate only by chance.

Oops. That's what I get for browsing about while I think about what to say and how to say it.

I should be addressing you, Cicero, not Molon Labe. My apologies.

I wondered .... LOL

It's not racist to worry about the possibility of democracy spreading in the Middle East. One major obstacle is the high level of violence the region has seen in recent decades. This violence creates obstacles to progress because of the distrust and desire for revenge that it fosters; Iraq is a prime example of this. The U.S. perhaps did not appreciate that despite Saddam's brutal dictatorship, the Sunni community of the country had made a Faustian pact with him to gain power - and the passing of which they might actually regret. Building a democracy on top of their damaged pride and the desire of the Shiites for revenge is going to be a tall order.

Lebanon is another example, and one I've just written about on my new blog. The story of that poor country is even more tragic for it has not known a year of peace free from foreign interference for many decades. The March 14 forces were always going to have a hard time triumphing, but it's high time we realized one thing: our enemies and their enemies are exactly the same. However hard it is for them to tie Lebanon together, we owe it to them. Otherwise the next Hama might just be in their country.

I think Democracy is leaving the guns aside and start fighting in the battlefield of ideas or in a court.

Most of any semi-developed society prefers to do so. What it has to be prevented in Iraq and Lebanon is that a more or less numerous minority brings the will of the majority down.

Antimedia,

1) That's not entirely true. Many of our Founding Fathers were deists rather than Christians (Franklin and Jefferson are two notable examples). Our country was organized on three basic principles: Christianity (you are right about that), Classical Republicanism, and Enlightenment Rationalism. So there was a strong secularist component to the organizing principles of America (in contrast to the theocratic orientation of early Islam).

2) Emphasis on free inquiry is not a new phenomenon in America. It was one of the founding priciples of our republic. True, the Puritans in New England had an unfortunate tendency to persecute heretics (see Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams, who went on to found Rhode Island on the principle of religious tolerance). But that was one small group in one small area. And that tendency pretty much died out by the end of the 17th century. The Salem witch trials were essentially its last gasp. There has been from time to time some brief and mild backsliding on the principle of free inquiry (the Alien and Sedition acts, McCarthyism etc) but it has always been one of our primary organizing principles.

3) Yes, we have had Hatfields and McCoys, Tories, and (you might have mentioned) Southern Secession. But while examples of tribalism exist in our history, tribalism has never been an organizing principle of American culture or politics (the closest we come, is the left-wing tendency to identity politics). Arab cultures, from what I can gather, have always centered on the tribe above all, except where some central authority, e.g. Saddam, was strong and brutal enough to enforce the facade of a nation state.

4) You are also correct that our treatment of women and minorities has, to say the least, a spotty record. However, except for Jim Crow, the racial oppression you cite was never official government policy. In fact, the church bombers and murderers of Civil Rights workers were lunatic fringe criminals who were (albeit after an unconscionably long period) arrested and convicted. In addition, it was our politico-economic system and our culture (the influence of both Christianity and the Enlightenment) that allowed us to correct the very problems you cite. No Islamic country I'm aware of has similar cultural influences.

5) Well, I suppose if you call 1865 recent. Even before that, there was a relatively strong central government that explicitly devolved some powers to a local level. The Civil War settled the disputes as to the limits of local power.

6) Interracial marriage was prohibited in some places, but that's another example of taking a flaw and magnifying it into a falsification. The fact that a long time ago some people in some places could not marry people of another race does not mean Americans don't (and didn't then in most instances) have freedom to choose who they marry. In addition, as with the race and gender issue, our culture and politico-economic system was self-correcting on that score.

7) We do have gangs and crime, as does any human community, but a) the violence is random and criminalized not official policy and b) crime has decreased dramatically in the last decade or two.

So apparently, Rockford was closer to right about both democracy and Islam than you are willing to admit.

I think the first thing that needs to be examined here is Cicero's opening statement. Is the belief that Iraqis are incabable of democracy actually a reason given for a US withdrawal? if so, by whom and how serious and integral a part of the overall argument for withdrawal is it?

The question also carries an implication that establishment of a democracy is among the purposes of our current visit in Iraq. I suppose that might be true to the extent that a democracy might be seen to serve our interest; but if a theocracy or a dictatorship or a monarchy were to serve our interests equaly well, no doubt that we would jump at it. After all, we are not on a mission to establish a democracy in Zimbabew or in Darfur or Tibet. In other words, it is not democracy for democracy's sake that we are pursuing, it is democracy for OUR security's sake that we are pursuing. This simple truth greatly changes the contours of the debate and allows us to better analyze the cost/benefit ratio of any action.

The last thing I would offer here is the point that the question should not be whether Iraqis are capable of democracy, but whether or not they accept democracy as a desirable end or goal. It is a mistake to expect people from other cultures to to desire the same things we desire. If they do not desire democracy then the question of whether they are capable or not is way off the mark.

A belief that democracy is in and of itself a high ideal requires a certain set of beliefs about free will, individuality and natural rights. If your conception of God and what is right and wrong in this life is of a certain cast, then democracy might not strike you as an honorable or desirable goal. It may seem to you as an invitation to ungodly licentiousness, a invitation to subvert traditional authority and traditional authority structures.

People don't necessarily want to be free. Neither free in the political sense as having to decide for themselves, nor free in a philosophical sense...many people feel the need for a god to anchor them, for a god to which they can attach an absolute sense of right and wrong.

We shouldn't confuse self-determination with democracy. Some people..many people ... might chose to surrender their will to a higher or more certain authority. They may, too, mistrust the rule of the mob.

But let us not pretend we are trying to do something in Iraq for their own good. Let's be practical about this.

Mark,

I don't know if anyone, or if they are who they are, is arguing that the Iraqis' incapacity for democracy is a reason to withdraw from Iraq. I do agree with you that in the final analysis, it makes no difference if Iraq is a democracy as long as our interests are protected. However, the question of the Iraqis' capacity and desire for democracy (both missing in my view) is important. If the Iraqis can't or won't develop a democracy, then our policy in the conduct of the war is misguided and likely to do far more harm than good. That's not exactly the same as saying that the war itself necessarily must do more harm than good. I'm completely with you that a pro-American fascist or theocrat running Iraq is far better than an anti-American democracy. But that means being far more realistic about the prospects for democracy in Iraq than we have been so far.

Fred, I'm going to be boring here and simply agree with you.

I will, however, try to set out what I believe to be the arguments of those who believe a democracy in Iraq will serve the US interests.

1. Democracies don't attack other democracies. True, to an extent, and under prior conditions. But this isn't a benefit if Iraq wasn't likely to attack the US in the first place. It's a condition that will bring peace only if ALL countries are democracies. It has been relatively true because the few democracies that have existed have been natural allies. That could change with a higher percentage of existing democracies.

2. A democratic Iraq will be a natural ally of the US. Maybe. Maybe not. It seems equally possible that the set of factors that have so far kept most ME nations outside of the democracy camp would continue to work against an alliance with the US even if Iraq became democratic.

3. A lack of democracy in the ME is the root cause of terrorisim. I've never understood this bizarre claim. Terrorists, of the type that concern us here, are threatened by democracy. They are on a moral crusade against the West's encroachment on their traditional beliefs and principles. A democratic Yemen, Egypt or Saudia Arabia would not lessen the attraction of the cause to them. They are not fighting against oppression, they are fighting for it, or at least for a different type of oppression, though they would call it a submission to God's will or plan, not oppression. Those who restort to jihadist terrorism are those who feel threatned by the modern world and by globalization. Democratizing the ME would probably have the effect of swelling their ranks as it would result in further Westernizing of the ME.

I disagree.

It's a condition that will bring peace only if ALL countries are democracies.

Wrong. A true democracy won't seek war, only pre-emptive interventions.

It seems equally possible that the set of factors that have so far kept most ME nations outside of the democracy camp would continue to work against an alliance with the US even if Iraq became democratic.

The setting of a democracy in Iraq is not for getting them as allies, but for showing the Arabs that they can leave in freedom, peace and prosperity.

They are not fighting against oppression

Those who restort to jihadist terrorism are those who feel threatned by the modern world and by globalization

Do you know how oppresed the people of, just say, Morocco live? Do you know how increasing birth rates and lack of resources are pushing them towards Spain? What do you think it happens in Pakistan, a country of more than 100 million souls? Who do you think attend the Madrassas? Of course they are manipulated by leaders that hate the free world, but they are desperate people. Of course lack of Democracy fosters terrorism.

It seems to me that a republican Iraq was always going to be the presumptive outcome of an invasion. Americans believe in democracy and its been a cornerstone of its national self-image and foreign policy for hundreds of years. Its pretty inconceivable to me that the U.S. would invade a country to depose a dictator and not install a republican system. The implication of such an action would be a complete vote of no-confidence in Arabs. It would undercut other efforts by America to promote freedom. I don't see any practical alternatives.

PD, Do the names Palahvi, Pinochet, Diem, Singmun Ri(sic?) mean anything to you? America has a long history of installing pro-American dictatorships in places where democracy doesn't flourish. We can argue about the morality of it, and it has certainly backfired in some cases, but I'd argue that it helped bring down the Soviet Union and would help our problems in the Middle East. In addition, our rescue of the South Korean dictatorship from Communism gave the South Koreans (who were probably not ready for democracy in 1953) the space to eventually develop a democracy. Despite Pinochet's brutality, he left conditions in Chile ripe for development of democracy. It's hard to imagine saying the same of Allende. A rescue of an Iraqi dictatorship from Islamism might repeat that success (although I doubt it).

Fred, I don't find any of those examples to involve the U.S. invading a country to install a dictator. I am not blind to the support the U.S. has given to dictatorships, but support is not the same as an invasion. Here, the U.S. invaded Iraq, toppled the government, became the government and got to choose the means of turning over power. There would be no ambiguity about giving the keys to a military dictator if it had done so.

The U.S. did not invade Iran, Chili or Vietnam and install these leaders. It did invade Korea to remove the Japanese and Syngman Rhee was elected President. Whether or not Rhee became a dictator is arguable, the U.S. handed the keys to a republic.

I also don't deny that the U.S. had wished for some sort of indigenous movement to arise in Iraq and topple Saddam and I believe the U.S. would have been satisfied with that outcome. But it wasn't happening and arguably the sanctions were making that outcome less likely.

PD,
I would make the distinction between what the US would prefer to have happen in Iraq and what the US will be willing to settle for in Iraq. Yes, sure, the plan always called for a pro-US democracy. The plan, however, hasn't exactly worked out so far. On the ever-shrinking list of conditions required for our exit, I think that is probably the next to go.

I think it could be argued that we did, actually, invade Viet Nam. I mean, we did, after all, replace the French, who invaded the place. Certainly, we did install a non-democratic government while we occupied it. I think it could be argued, too, that we installed Pinochet--as opposed to merely supporting him--although an invasion wasn't necessary.

My intital point was that a democracy in Iraq may not be vital to US interests and if it proves to difficult to manifest we will let go of the dream.

For me, there are two principles here that are larger than democracy. One is self-determination. Not everyone will choose democracy as the preferred form of government. The other is that one nation (group, society, culture, civilization, call it what you will) should never use force to impose its own prefered form of government on another nation (group, socieity, culture, civilization, etc.) I find this to be not only a good governing abstract principle, but a good practicle rule of thumb. To me this is a rare instance of when pragmatism and idealism coincide.

Do you mean self-determination like working with local elites to put together a constitutional set of rules, having the constitution approved by popular vote and then holding free and fair elections on their choice of leaders? Or does self-determination mean anarchaic violience in which the most brutal individual or group kills their way to the top? Or does it mean a regional war in which countries like Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia try to divide up the country?

I've seen no polls from Iraq that even suggest any popular discontent with the form of government.

Having chosen to invade the country and topple the government, would you have walked away? If not, who would you have turned the keys over to?

PD,

Who is "working with local elites to put together a constitutional set of rules?" If you meant the US, then no, to answer your first question, that would not be self-determination, the self in this instance would be the Iraqis.

But, yes, under occupation by a foreign power, many Iraqis did chose a form of government. But the whole basis for this discussion is the belief of many that this chosen form of government is not going to work out very well. It's not a national unity gov't but a sectarian one. Once the US leaves, the Iraqis will have to figure out how they are going to divide up what was once Iraq and how the separate segments are going to be ruled.

To answer your last question--and not to be glib--I wouldn't have chosen to invade Iraq in the first place for, among other reasons, the knowledge that it would create the very dilemma your question poses.

But I am not arguing that what the US did--after the mistake of having chosen to invade--was somehow incorrect. I agree, there was little choice. But I think it is extremely naive to think it is going to last in its current form. I do think some degree of chaos and anarchy is inevitable given the conditions. I think that was predictable. All I can say is "what the hell were they thinking?"