Kreskin, "He said he believes the premise of democracy being an important factor for stablizing the region is incorrect."
It has never been American foreign policy that democracy be installed by force before GWB or since Trueman It was more practical to back a favoured dictator, ideally the one already in charge. The premise that democracies are fundamentally more stable in terms of policy and fundamentally less so in terms of personnel is an accepted fact. The notion that democracy will benefit Iraq in the long term is a fact. The flip side that it will take years to stabilize is common knowledge. The view that it cannot be done remains unproven. The benefits of democracy are well proven.
Showing favour to democracy is a moral imperative. Killing the political oponents of democracy is assumed to be the lesser of evils as long as it doesn't cost too much.
MacKenzie, "With a long history of undemocratic rule they are more peaceful without democracy."
So at times we were once more 'peaceful' under the likes of Saddam Hussein. It took a long time to accomplish our history, and it was bloody. Iraq will do it far faster than we did. It will take a heavy hand. MacKenzie seems to be saying that it is not worth it. The word he breathes against democracy is out of the desire for order, for stability, a word in favour of militarism. We made our minds up on this a long time ago.
Now that real action is taking place in a primitive country, we have the noble experiment that we need to confirm or disprove whether it's 'worth it' or not. If we stop the experiment halfway through the worst days, then we are none the wiser. As for MacKenzie prefering a military dictatorship, I agree with him, but it has to be our military dictatorship during ordered transition to democracy.
If MacKenzie is right and these tribal savages cannot be rehabilitated in 50 years with a trillion dollars, let's not do this again, shall we?
Last edited by jimshort19; Jan 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 AM..Reason: spell