POLITICAL JEDI

I totally agree with you. . .but with the understanding that Iraqi's have no experiance with democracy. This is their first run at it. In short, we hoped to change things ( who will be the primary beneficiaries from the policies they advocate ) from the top down. This is/was a total failure. I concede that. But since the surge, we are having a lot of success in "changing things" from the bottom up. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Sunni sheikhs in Anbar form anti-jihadi political party



As to implanting democracy, we support democracy, but do not have to support those who get elected. This accomplishes 2 things:

1) We are no longer accused of hypocrisy, of enjoying voting at home whilst playing one middle eastern thug off the other abroad.

2) It puts the onus on the Middle East to live with what they vote for, and no longer bitch and whine behind the excuse that there is a "militant wing" of terrorists, or that a U.S. backed thug hampers their progress. Look at your example: the West Bank. Hamas is elected and fights Fatah while Israel watches. There is clarity at least as the Palestinians can decide to vote in terrorists and then live under terrorist protocols without blaming others or expecting to get cash as in the past under the "godfather" of modern terrorism: Yasir Arafat.

Paraphrasing the OP, there is a great illness in the Middle East; a tumor that must be dealt with and excised. And in Iraq, Lebanon, and the West Bank elections are the incisions that expose it. There really does need to be a civil war of sorts, where the world sees whether radical Islam is the choice of the people, or whether there are enough brave patriots to go out on the streets of Beirut or in the Sunni Triangle to stop it. We let them decide and then we deal with the result. This war needs clarity and an end to the Middle East dishonesty that "they made us into what we are," or "they won’t let us vote," etc. Let us see who "they" really are, and then either fight or parley with them, depending on the result.

How does allowing conditions to see democracy thrive = imposing a despot on them?

Kandahar you confuse "forms of government" with culture. The Roman and British Empires thought their culture was superior, and in many respects, they were!

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Can anyone doubt that India is better off today without the practice of suttee? Can anyone doubt that American culture (Western Civilization) is better then that of the despotic Middle East?

Then by this logic, how do you explain Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, ect, ect. They had no tradition of having open/liberal societies

This is the "meat and potatos" of the debate. When I read the OP, there is one paragraph that, by far, stands out above all others:

Yes, as in Germany and Japan, the undertaking is enormous, ambitious and arrogant. It may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism. It’s not one man; it is a condition. It will be nice to find that man and hang him, but that’s the cops-and-robbers law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism that we tried for twenty years and that gave us 9/11. This is war, and in war arresting murderers is nice. But you win by taking territory—and leaving something behind.

I invite all of you to view video # 1053 MEMRI TV

This is in no way, shape or form an isolated incident, but rather a common thing throughout the Middle East. Clearly, this state sponsored Anti-Americanism is what leads to the rise of the Bin Ladens, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, ect. Those are serious "chants" that require and demand a serious response. So the question posed: Does neoconservatism embody the greatest hope to undermind the illegitimate governments that do nothing but whip up the "arab street" to deflect their own self-induced misery onto the United States and Israel? And if not, what foreign policy will combat it and put a definitive end to the whole affair?

Do you get the Iraqi "Daily News" delivered to your doorstep in the morning that you can make such claims? Do you read Iraqi newpapers? My guess is no. So with that said, how can you make such a statement without a shread of proof to suggest otherwise?

__________________
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country ~ Abraham Lincoln