Two things that Sharansky didn;t address in his book that seemed to be significant holes in his argument.
1. Pakistan. As the political situation stands, free elections would likely bring Islamists to power. This would effectively make Al Qaeda a nuclear power. How, in this case, would democracy serve to enhance US security interests?
2. Russia. As Georgia and Ukraine demanded real elections and reform, Russia has been sliding into a more repressive state. Yet, unlike Georgians or Ukrainians, the Russian people do not appear to be protesting. The WSJ carried an interesting op-ed piece on the Russian people's acceptance of the sliding tyranny in its Friday issue. See FR post here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1356039/posts
I'll give Sharansky credit for not being psychic and leaving the Ukraine comparison out of the book. However, I do believe the Georgian experience had already existed. So my question is, if all people want freedom, why aren't the Russian people on the street?
He has spoken of how important Sharansky's book has been to him, and Condi acknowledged she has read it as well. I think it is a great vindication for a courageous man to be taken seriously by the President, this President especially... Interesting how history arranges such a crossing of paths at crucial times.