[theFIRMbss]

> I take chaos of democracy versus authoritarian order anytime. Its frustrating, you bet!

Well, my post was half
tongue-in-cheek, but the point stands --
democracy works

pretty much only
when citizens have schooling
and shared common goals.

In the Middle East,
the "masses" have no schooling,
and are so split up

in warring factions
that "common goals" seems to mean
they all want to kill.

I am just not sure
democracy can work well
with those citizens.

[Tolik]

I see your point and agree.

I think that Iraq was chosen as a weakest link in part because Iraqi looked like the least brainwashed, more entrepreneurial, less hapless than other obvious targets like Saudis and Syrians. When mullacrats in Iran finally fall, Iran also has a chance to spring up democracy.

But basically, as Hanson says, it does not need to become a perfect democracy: "Success in Iraq cannot be measured by how much it resembles the Connecticut countryside next month, but instead by whether — in two or three years — it is a country that no longer invades others, promotes terrorists, kills its own citizens, and uses petrol dollars to acquire a strategic arsenal to threaten the West."
I think its a realistic goal.