Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005

Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

WHAT FREEDOM BRINGS

The United States is engaged in what President George W. Bush has called a "generational challenge" to instill democracy in the Arab world. The Bush administration and its defenders contend that this push for Arab democracy will not only spread American values but also improve U.S. security. As democracy grows in the Arab world, the thinking goes, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is therefore not merely consistent with U.S. security goals; it is necessary to achieve them.

But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound premise? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html

The elections will bring an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties with Iran.

How is the fathering of Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties with Iran an acceptable response to the horrific attacks of 9/11?

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Extreme Islamic Theocracy

The Next Offensive
Wesley K. Clark The New York Times
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005
Last week, as the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and President George W. Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it both dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique - and, unfortunately, it is correct.

The Iranian nightmare
By Michael Schwartz
Aug 11, 2005
In 1998, neo-conservative theorist Robert Kagan enunciated what would become a foundational belief of Bush administration policy. He asserted, "A successful intervention in Iraq would revolutionize the strategic situation in the Middle East, in ways both tangible and intangible, and all to the benefit of American interests."

Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan's prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the "axis of evil" and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, "By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein ... the US removed the main barrier to Iran's eventual triumph." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

New York Review of Books
Volume 52, Number 13 · August 11, 2005
Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith

[snip]

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern--and legislate--without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution--the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

We are all guessing and do not have a clue about the final result. I do not think the Iraqis will get much material support from the Bush Administration. The Iraqi army needs logistical support from somewhere. Since the Administration doesn't properly support U.S. troops, I do not think Iraqi troops will fair much better. However, they do love to get workers at reduced wages, so they may have some attraction. The survivors of the Hurricanes along the Gulf Coast of the United States are not being helped, so I don't think there will be much help for rebuilding the civilian infrastructure of Iraq.
I think that Iraq will have to look to her neighbors for financial and military aid. The Iraqis might want to start a bidding contest between Saudi Arabia and Iran for aid. They both want some degree of influence in Iraq.
Finally, Sunni and Shia Iraqi have to quit killing each other or there will be no Iraq.
Just call me an optimist!

Pres. Bush's powerful speech today confirmed to me that we're committed to Iraqi democracy/rule of law in spite of potential contradictions with the US-backed secessionist Kurds and the obvious favoring of the Shi'ites, a group with no love lost for us.

Anyone can see the apparent enigmas but what most ignore is that the triumphant triumvirate of Mr. Bush, Sec. Rumsfeld and Dr. Rice appears to be cobbling together the impossible, an expansion of the last-named's recent and widely acclaimed success in the Palestinian question.

Now, how about the triumvirate turning its sights not just to Syria and Iran but to Venezuela and Cuba, the latter a festering sore for a mere 47 years?

As for "Little César," Venezuela's ruler, it would be a good idea for Washington and the oil barons to do something about too high energy costs given that he has earned the credit for being the only one doing something to help the American People as well as neighboring nations. Bill O'Reilly's right on this one.

(Clay Bullrohr, bullrohr@yahoo.com)

Haw about waking up to the Armenian Genocide, fellow Americans?

No, it's not something the Armenians did! In 2000, candidate Bush said he'd something about it but to date, nothing.

Unless America, a traditional friend of Turkey, makes a strong representation to the Turks about this, I don't believe anything will be done. The EU hasn't got anywhere, either.

P. J. Casey: We are all guessing and do not have a clue about the final result.

Please, that is silly.

The final result is that Iran is the chief beneficiary of the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Do you have any writings that discuss the USA as the chief beneficiary?

Do you think the fathering of an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran, a so-called axis of evil', is an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks?

Do you think the beheading, torturing, burning, raping, starving, maiming, and killing of tens of thousands of people is a fair price for the fathering of an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran?

Do you $200 billion is a for price for the fathering of an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran?

while more free people (free from tyranny and poverty) will produce conditions leading to fewer suicide terrorist (people who believe they have a life worth living on earth rather than heaven being the only source of 'peace and wealth')...,

...i can see (from many miles away) that Iraqis don't have a fair election process going on - only those leaders acceptable to America (Europeans) can run without fear of assasination, enough iraqi leaders have been assasinated already to preclude the possibility that iraq will turn out the way iraqis want (much like JFK's, RFK's, MLK's, and MX's assasinations precluded leadership of America in the direction their supporters wanted...), and the lack of security (and the presence of US) taints the process and votes...

surely more would vote here in the US for one of the two white males (or eurocentric minded persons) we have to choose from (or the Supreme Court has to select among) - if car bombs, assasinations, house invasions, absence of food/water/electricity/heat, along with an illusory promise of change were elements of going to the poles here...

Whenever we leave Iraq - because of the way we came, didn't see, but conquered the land and lost much of the heart/mind/and soul of iraqis - it probably won't take long for Iraq to fall apart (coups, assasinations of top leaders, sessession of many parts...)...

i guess having a good plan and an honest rationale for pre-emptive invasions IS preferable over 'winging it' and using the ol forked-tongue...

a good 'appology' to the world and a change of course would've been better than re[sort of]affirming our off-course/Bush activity... except the majority of voters (if one can trust computerized voting results) wanted to stay the course...

with the patriot act attack on civil liberties and supreme Law from within and the 'terrorist' attack on civilians from outsiders, most Americans will have seen the best days... (put a deadline on the act and release of all information about whose info was distroyed for privacy and how innocent people were infringed upon... and a course correction would've begun...)

anon: preclude the possibility that iraq will turn out the way iraqis want

?

Put down the hookah sunny-boy and ease up on the parentheses (phew! poor writing!).

The majority of Iraqis are about to easily install an Islamic theocracy with extremely close ties to Iran.

"Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington."

The real faulty premise is that the Bush administration wants a democratic Iraq at all. For that, there really is no evidence, besides the fact that the president says he does. We can fool ourselves, but not the rest of the world, and certainly not the Iraqis.