Any democracy that isn't totalitarian and militaristic will be weak in the face of the strong triumphalism of Islam and its more extreme militant fundamentalism.
We run the great risk of reenacting the Weimar Republic in Baghdad. Indeed our stated aim of secularizing the Arab world works like propaganda for the fundamentalists. If democracy were ever to truly take hold in the Islamic world, it could easily become the catalyst for the destruction of Israel.
Regardless of what we are trained to believe ideologically, freedom is only meaningful in the context of a relatively peaceful society. Thus, no matter how much one, suckled at the teat of our own democratic triumphalism, may hiss at me for my heterodox statements: the fact remains it doesn't mater that Bagdadeans are free to vote today if they are not free of being blown up tomorrow. One has to have a stable liberal[in the classic sense] society BEFORE one can have a liberal democracy (and even then it's still a throw of the dice if it will stay 'liberal').
And, incidentally, neither post WWII Germany or Japan work as test cases against my theme. Because in the example of the former the society was relatively liberal and the threat of the soviets proved to be a great stabilizing element. As for Japan, the tradition of societal obedience to the Emperor meant that once he declared surrender there was no psychological grounds for resisting the occupation.
For all these reasons Bush is wrong. I still voted for the republicans [for that matter I voted for him both times], but only because I couldn't stand to see the dems win. That sentiment can only energize so many voters though.
You have nailed it! I fully agree with your assesment of our predicament.
-"Any democracy that isn't totalitarian and militaristic will be weak in the face of the strong triumphalism of Islam and its more extreme militant fundamentalism."
There are many of us on the right that have fallen into some 'ideolgical' trap of kneejerking ourselves into the opposite extreme of the Left's carping, just to stay opposite of them.
However, we need to take a sober assessment of what has transpired in Iraq, where we are, and where we are headed. Bush had a noble, albeit naive goal, but it's not working, and more importantly, he's mistakenly (and dangerously) tied this effort/"victory" to the "war on terror".
I completely disagree with this notion. In fact, by taking on this strategy, we have dangerously 'elevated' the importance of "victory" in Iraq (whatever that is) which has caused us to become stakholders in this campaign directly.
I would say that we have the SAUDIS and IRANIANS (not the Syrians) become the STAKEHOLDERS in the Iraqi equation. The Saudis can become the counterbalance with the Sunnis vs. Shiites versus the Iranians. For God's sakes, you have to leave the Syrians OUT!