[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.

[theFIRMbss]

>"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."

Yes, this is true, but
it's much more interesting
-- to me -- to wonder

about this wider
issue of "democracy"
where the citizens

just believe odd things ...
I mean, we saw it right here
in the Civil War.

Southerners acted
"democratically" to leave
the United States.

But the North used force --
abandoned democracy --
to lock in the South...

I think we see this
with the PLO. If we
get them their own state,

and their leaders act
"democratically" -- they do
their citizens' will --

we will make a state
dedicated to crushing
Israel. I think

we should stop saying
this or that political
system is our foe,

and just bluntly say
people -- individuals
who believe weird things --

are our enemies.
I think that makes our "problems"
easier to see.