"What happened in Algeria in 1992 was that an attempt at democracy collapsed under its own weight, as the people voted massively for an Islamist utopia which a few generals refused to allow. There is now a very real fear that Morocco, one of the most developed and forward-thinking regimes in the Islamic world, will fall into the same trap."

One hopes this will not happen (nor should the terrorists wish it to happen, since they can more easily use "modernized" Morocco as a cover and launching pad, as they have up to now), but if it does, what does being "one of the most developed and forward-thinking regimes in the Islamic world" therefore mean?

Barry:

The notion that people would so choose is then contradicted by the rest of the story. Same in Iraq and Iran, where opinion polling shows people don't want Islamicist government.

"It's possible to be just as optimistic or pessimistic as you choose to be."

Yeah, and in the case of the former, it only depends on how far you're willing to shove your head up your...well, you know.

OJ,

Opinion polling in the third world is notoriously unreliable. Also, you need to bear in mind that during the American Revolution, only 30% of the people here supported independence. The rest were either tories or neutrals. Our enemies there account for at least that much of the population, and they have a ready source of armaments in Iran, whom we now cannot invade thanks to Bush's myopic misuse of our armed forces.

Derek:

Why would we invade Iran which is evolving rather rapidly towards genuine democracy?

Backing the Shi'ite insurgency in Iraq.
Racing to develop nuclear weapons.
Providing refuge and safe passage for members of Al Qaida.
Supporting international terrorism.
Doing everything possible to suppress reform.

For starters.

"Iran, whom we now cannot invade thanks to Bush's myopic misuse of our armed forces."

Hmm. Putting massive amounts of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, yes that will certainly make it impossible to invade Iran. It was much easier to invade Iran with our troops locked down in Saudia Arabia and Afghanistan and Iraq being controlled by hostile regimes.

Unless you're suggesting that we should have just kept going and overthrown Iran, leaving chaos and destruction in our wake?

Why don't the Republicans bring over a soldier to give a speech about this at the convention?

The only way to make sense out of Derek's comment on invading Iran vs taking action in Afghanistan and Iraq is that there is no military action that would be easy, cheap, tolerated by the "opposition" (Europe, the Arab world, the media, and the Dems), therefore you might as well pick the country you really want to knock out, take a deep breath, and dive. If this strategy makes ANY sense is only because the "opposition" above essentially wants no military deployments, anywhere, under a Republican Administration. Pure and simple.

No invasion in Iran is currently possible because US forces are tied down. Who are the troops that are currently free for an invasion of Iran?

By all accounts, the military is stretched to its capabilities right now. The reason civilians were killed in Fallujah is that we don't even have spare troops to provide force protection to food convoys.

John,

The problem with taking territory is that you have more area to guard and hold. We took Iraq, when we flat didn't need to, so now we have to guard and hold a hostile population of millions. Our forces are worn out from extended deployments and and are at their end.

Worse still, they're vulnerable to exactly the kind of guerrilla attrition that wore us out in Vietnam and the Israelis in Lebanon because we have an agitated population next door to an easy supply of arms, which we do not have either the men or the material to take--and that doesn't even touch on the domestic and international opposition to such a move.

So here's how it'll all play out. We'll put down this uprising in the next week or so. The usual happy-clappies will declare a great victory for freedom, but a few months from now, we'll be right back in this same situation as another outbreak flares up. And this will go on for as long as we are in Iraq in force.

The reason for this is that we never will be able to do what it would take to rule Iraq: i.e., flatten entire cities and build pyramids of skulls. Instead, we'll launch "devestating but precise" operations, which will be neither devestating nor precise. They'll kill too few people to have an effect, but they'll kill enough to further piss off the locals.

What to do? Chalk this one up as a loss, while claiming victory all the while. We find ourselves a ruthless dictator, give him some guns, declare victory and get out.

MG,

I never said invading Iran should have been a first option. We really had no choice in Afghanistan, and we should have stuck with that. But, we decided to take on yet another problem by invading Iraq. Yet we did so half-heartedly. We sent in just enough forces to take Baghdad, but not enough to hold and reform it, and to make it clear to the neighbors to stay out. But that never happened, and now we have the worst of all situation, an insufficient force projected into hostile territory. We displaced a secularist and are now looking at an Islamic theocracy. We'd have been better off staying out.

Of course, as an alternative, you can rely on OJ's faith-based foreign policy and pray the Iranians magically transform into democrats soon enough to save our bacon. Personally, I don't think the lives our troops, as well as our whole foreign policy, should be banked on something so nebulous and dicey.

Derek:

They don't need us to reform their society and, more importantly, don't want us.

Derek:

This is sublime:

"Opinion polling in the third world is notoriously unreliable. Also, you need to bear in mind that during the American Revolution, only 30% of the people here supported independence."

Ah, if only the Third World had colonial polling methods...

Chris:

If invading Iran made any sense, which it doesn't, we could just transfer troops from Iraq to the Iranian front.

Barry:

The only one that matters is "Doing everything possible to suppress reform", which reveals that the reform movement is a force.

But the Shah always falls.

Take it up with the historians, chief. It's an estimate, but one most agree with. I can cite other instances where motivated minorities made the call.

The problem with opinion polls in places like Iraq is that people tend to guard their sentiments. They've grown accustomed to saying what the power in place wants to hear, while believing something to the contrary. And the proof is in the pudding, as our Iraqi allies consistently avoid combat and shelter the guerrillas.

But, hey, why let those inconvenient facts disrupt your fantasy of an Iraq where Americans are almost universally loved and adored. I'm sure any minute now dancing in the streets will break out all along the Tigris and Euphrates.

Mr Copold:

Any word on when the Texas Mercury will be updated?

OK, so they don't want us. I don't blame them. I didn't want to be there in the first place. Fine. Let's go. Give them some nasty son-of-a-bitch Saddam II, and leave. We'll go back to square one, and they can fix their own problems, which is how it should have been anyway.

Ali,

Not for a very long time. I've got a lot of other things on the plate now. Thanks for asking, though.

Cool. I was hoping you'd archive some of your other stuff there too like your Houston Review articles and the letter you wrote to Salon about Bush vs Ann Richards.

So, Derek, most of the criticisms of Iran apply to Saddam as well. Sure, Saddam was secularist, but that has about as much point as saying that the Iranians are Shi'ite, opposed the Taliban, and oppose the Wahabis and Al Qaeda. Which they do-- they mostly support OTHER terrorists, which is still a problem.

It's a little confusing also to read these conflicting comments (some by different people) of "we should have sent more troops" and "our military can't possibly send more troops." If we could've sent more troops, as Derek seems to claim, then that's a correctable problem. If we couldn't possibly have sent more troops, then we couldn't have done anything about Iran to start with.

Y'all may call democratization a fantasy, but it's equally fantastic to believe that rushing in to overthrow dictators just to give power to another, equally nasty but US-friendly dictator is going to reduce terrorism either. That's the Saudi Arabia model, essentially, of supporting "friendly" dictators, and that's encouraged any many terrorist as anywhere. The US installing dictators is at least as likely to upset a populace as the US occupying to install a democracy.

Derek:

No, that's the point of the war. Instead of Saddam II they get Shiastan II--and, of course, Kurdistan I.

If another Saddam arises we go get rid of him too.

The big difference between us is not a willingness to kill all the Muslims, I'm fine with that. I'd just give them a chance to reform first. there's plenty of time to crush them if they prove irredeemable. But if I'm right we avoid the murder.

Unreliable polls vs. the reliable estimates of the academicians. Good one.

The more germane point though is that by your own numbers the ratio is precisely reversed between us then and them now. We achieved statehood and democracy when only 30% wanted it. 70% of them want it.

John,

My view of the Middle East and the Muslim world is that it needs to be quarantined altogether (allowing exception for good behavior to countries like possibly Turkey). Most of the people there would just as soon fight each other. The only time they don't is when an outsider steps in and unites, as we are now seeing in Iraq.

However, we decided to step in. Having done that, then we should have gone all the way and been ready to finish the job. That means invading Iran if necessary and that means being morally ready to perpetrate Mongol massacres if necessary. Now you and I and everyone else here knows that Americans and westerners do not have that kind of moral make-up (thank God), so we should have stayed clear altogether, but we didn't.

Well, what now? We can either start turning cities like Fallujah into smoking holes, or we can look for the best face-saving exit available. That's the choice in front of us. What looks like a contradiction to you is really me putting the two option clearly in front of you. Either we become Ghengis Khan or James Madison (ie, don't go abroad searching for monsters). What's it to be? Since Americans are not Mongols, I suggest finding a an exit.

I don't respect this bullshit about democritization because that's all it is: bullshit. Iraq is in no way ready to become a western model democracy. At best it'll become a moderately Shiite shithole, at worst a chaotic shithole. Either way it's still going to be a shithole and isn't worth the blood of our troops.

OJ,

I don't see how turning Iraq into what Afghanistan essentially was in the 1990s, a chaotic land split by ethnic and religious factions, serves our intersts. Quite frankly, we'd have been better off leaving Saddam in charge.

As for your claim about the Iraqis wanting democracy, one can only boggle at your clasping to disproven hopes in the face of reality. The Iraqis may not all be steadfastly against us (which all too many are), but they sure aren't with us. If they were, Iraqi policeman would not be cutting and running everytime there's gunfire. We'd have a lot better intelligence. Almost a dozen cities wouldn't have fallen into chaos over the weekend.

You can try to score meaning forensic points about academics all you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation in Iraq. It's one big shit sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite.

Shoot, I don't even believe in polls from the United States.

Whether we should invade Iran or Syria or not, we can't. Not enough infantry.

This is a real problem. Orrin thinks Arabs are capable of self-government, which falls into the class of pious hopes. There's no evidence that's it's true.

So you go in, roust out the incumbents and hope for the best. And get Algeria or something.

Self-government is a learned behavior, very difficult, and like all learning, you have to want to first.

Derek-- nope. Osama and others bombed the US even when we were largely leaving them alone. In fact, Osama repeatedly referred to the US tendency to capitulate and leave them alone as a reason to attack. They also bombed us and hated us for "dealing with" their corrupt dictator.

Harry-- ah, help overthrow the tyrants and then hope for the best. The Afghanistan strategy from the '80s and '90s. See Derek's complaints about that one.

The nice part about all these strategies is that they all have their exemplar which demonstrates their potential flaws. What's the (possibly apocryphal) Churchill quote? "The USA always does the right thing-- after trying everything else first."

Funny how everyone's common sense recommendation is different.

Harry/Derek:

You'd have said the Germans were incapable during WWII and the Slavs during the Cold War, etc., etc., etc. Everyone is totally different than us right up until they turn out to be same. The whole anti-immigration schtick flows from the same place.

If Islam proves incompatible with democracy we've the resouces, the will, and the excuse to wage a war of extermination. But they're liberalizing far faster than anyone in the West ever did, so we can afford a little bit of patience.

They'd better be far faster, they don't have as much time.

I don't think I'd have said the Slavs were incapable of self-government. I might have thought so of the Germans, and in fact I still do.

You can turn around a society, but it's difficult.

Since World War II, there have been only two places where genuine land reform occurred, Taiwan and S. Korea.

In each case, the landlords were given a choice -- cooperate or be shot.

Everywhere else, they managed to sabotage whatever schemes were on offer.

I have confidence the Arabs will be able to sabotage their best interests, too.

Derek:

I agree they're against us, wouldn't you be against an Islamic nation that occupied us? But the point is that they are for a fairly liberal democratic future. That means they are our allies in the long term. The short term only matters to atheists like Harry who judge the Universe by the span of their own years.

Great posts Derek, I could not agree more. The War on Terror will end in one of three ways.

a)Western Civilization forces a major reformation of their religion to wipe out any strain of violence in it.

b)Western Civilization forces the destruction or near destruction of the Islamic religion.

c)Islam is the state religion from Lisbon to Bangkok.

I am betting on C. No war has been won with half measures, politically correct battle plans, and most the people of one side not wanting to fight for their own survival. Until this war is fought like all others we are wasting our time, our treasure, and lives.

Harry:

Yet since WWII scores of nations have become viable liberal democracies. Indeed, a country like Chile has done a far better job effecting the 21st century version of land reform--privatizing the Welfare State in a democracy--than we have and even Hong Kong, with a Communist government, has a freer economy than we.

I know you think Darwinism renders all these gradations of beings that can only be changed by the forces of Natuire, but ideas matter too and they are universal.

BJW:

One notes with hilarity the notion of the Christian Crusade to wipe out all violence in Islam so that they are just like us.

John,

We were not "leaving them alone" in the strictest sense of the words. We stuck our nose into the middle of that mess to evict Hussein from Kuwait. Now, let's say that was the right thing to do. Okay, but why stay there maintaining our provocative presence. Once Hussein had been evicted we should have been moving out, making it clear that the people living there needed to start taking care of themselves.

Further, we continued letting people in from these areas with absoluteley no serious border control. We had plenty of time to defend everyone else's borders but our own. This was a cocktail for disaster.

OJ,

I have seen zero evidence that they are for a liberal democratic future. The leaders there run the gamut from communists to corrupt thieves (Ahmed Chalabi) or religious fanatics. Sure there may be a blogger or two hiding out at Baghdad U. who'd like a democracy, but they're not making much noise.

BJW,

I think the best response is D. Western civilization quarantines their ass and takes care of its own problems. Eventually, the Saracens will get tired of living in fanatic **** and will decide to play nice. However, our invading Iraq has set that day back by years, possibly decades. We should take the same tact as we did when Vietnam was obviously a lost cause: turn over power to a stooge, declare victory and go. Then impose a quarantine. If the government needs something to do, let it set up a Manhattan project to find an alternative energy source for oil.

OJ - It's not a crusade, it's a choice they are going to have to make. Reform or else, and as soon as the first WMD attack happens here the "or else" will come a lot sooner than they think.

OJ,

If hear this false analogy with the Germans drawn again, I'm going to freakin' puke. Germany and Iraq are in no way comparable. Culturally, ethnically and historically the situations are entirely different.

As for the Slavs, no one's occupying them. They're making their own way in the world.

Derek:

Try listening to Ayatollah Ali Sistani

Derek:

Of course they are. The point is that if this were 1940 you'd be saying they were genetically undemocratic and unchangeable.

BJW:

Read a speech by the President--it's a Crusade.

Oh, Sistani. You mean the guy who condemned the U.S.'s reaction to Sadr. Yeah, a real democrat. The clerics in Tehran talk a good "democratic" game, too. The proof's in the pudding, though, and Sistani, at the end of the day, wants a theocratically guided government. The difference between him and Sadr is one of degree, not kind.

BTW, I never said anyone was genetically predisposed to democracy. I mentioned culture and history. The fact is Germany was not divided between three large factions. It was culturally homogenous and had a huge incentive (in the form of the Soviet Union) to follow our program. It had also been completely leveled by our bombings and invasions. None of this applies to Iraq, and you can see it in the fact that we never faced this kind of uprising in Germany after the surrender. To overlook these critical facts is to go beyond obtuseness.

I have listened to Sistani, and he sounds just like a Chicago alderman.

They keep telling us they have no interest in democracy, they have no experience of it, and their social outlook disdains the kinds of relations necessary to have a democracy.

Why don't we believe them?

Harry:

Because their outlook is identical to Christianity's, so it's ideal for democracy.

Derek:

Yes, all of Germany fought against us to preserve their antidemocratric regime so we crushed them. In Iraq that's not necessary because most are predisposed to change--the exception being Sunni Ba'athist remnants.

A bit of perspective from The Belgravia Dispatch:

It's Not 1920 All Over Again

OJ, their outlook is not identical to Christianity. You are severely deluded if you believe that. Secondly, the changes Iraqis want right now look far more like Iran than us.

Derek:

Actually most don't, just as most Iranians don't want it anymore. But the lifespan of such an Islamic Republic seems about three decades. It may be a necessary and worthwhile step on the path to liberal democracy.

That explains why there's so much democracy in South America, I guess.

I know its nations are generally democratic, but was not aware South America had Islamic Republics previously.

Latin America is full of Christians. It is not full of democrats.

The former are always the latter--hense all the elected governments.

Christians are always democrats? I'll buy that Christianity and democracy are compatible, and I'll even buy that the protestant reformation led to American democracy, although only partially because of ideology (it's also true that the Reformation led to the English Civil War led to the Protectorate, led to the Restoration, led to the Glorious Revolution, led to benign neglect, led to the American Revolution), but obviously Christianity is also compatible with other forms of government.

Where?

1. The first democratic Christian nation only pops up about 85% of the way through the 2000 year history of Christianity.

2. Are you suggesting that Cuba is not a Christian nation? That Communist Poland wasn't a Christian nation? That Byzantium or the Holy Roman Empire weren't Christian?

3. Or, are you suggesting that the reason Communism is doomed isn't nonsensical economics but Christianity? Given that Communism is doomed and Christianity is widespread, the causation is hard to tease out from the correlation, but those nations also became Communist while overwhelmingly Christian. Certainly, Christians don't insist on democracy or death.

4. You often make the point that Islam needs a reformation because it, unlike Christianity, cannot conceive of a state separate from the religion, while the idea of a separate state is inherent in Christianity. Is that true only so long as that state is democratic?

5. Christianity gives us, or at least accomodates, the idea of the rightful sovereign annointed of God, incapable of error while holding God's grace. Democracy transfers that Holy sovereignty to the people, corporately, but Christianity certainly allows for a ruler as good shepard.

(1) Then all became democracies.

(2) No, it's not a Christian nation. It's a thugocracy. It'll be a Christian nation and a democracy soon though--that's inevitable.

(3) Communism is economic nonsense.

(4) A state need not be democratic to be decent. But we've made them all democratic.

(5) A sovereign perfects democracy--ideally you want a mixed regime, not pure democracy. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that we do away with them.

1) Then all became democracies. Yes, proving that Christianity is not incompatible with democracy and suggesting that Christianity might promote democracy. It does not prove, or even suggest, that Christians are always democratic.

(2) No, it's not a Christian nation. It's a thugocracy. It'll be a Christian nation and a democracy soon though--that's inevitable. Only nations with Christian governments are Christian nations? I'm willing to concede that the US is a Christian nation, but only because I look to the dominant religion of the population and the nature of the culture. The federal government was formed by Christians; it is not itself Christian. Your implication that Cuba is not a Christian nation because the government is inconsistent with Christian mores reduces your statement that "Christians are always democrats" to the odd statement, which you're about to refute in argument (4), that "Christians only recognize democratic governments."

(3) Communism is economic nonsense. Which is why the collapse of communism does not suggest that Christian nations (or nations made up of Christians) are always democratic.

(4) A state need not be democratic to be decent. But we've made them all democratic. Now, here I'm confused. I thought that you thought that only liberal, capitalist democracies are legitimate sovereigns. By the way, who is this "we", White Man?

(5) A sovereign perfects democracy--ideally you want a mixed regime, not pure democracy. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that we do away with them. There's always a sovereign and it is always abstract, whether called the "People" or the "Queen" or the "Party." The People can make for a somewhat more stable sovereign because the inevitable inconsistency between the ideal abstract sovereign and actual human sovereign is less blatant and it is easier to blame mistakes on the King's Evil Ministers, because only they are visible actors. The point is that Christianity will legitimize almost any sovereign regardless of the form it takes.

(1) Where aren't they?

(2) Castro isn't Christian.

(3) Which aren't?

(4) I think a monarchal republic is a liberal democracy.

(5) So long as it advances Christian ends. Precisely. A Monarchal Republic does so better than parliamentary democracy, as witness Europe, which was far better before they started getting rid of their kings.