In the history on man very few democracys have succeeded on the first try. We are indeed one of the lucky ones! Democracy may faulter in Iraq at first, but if the try is not made it will never happen.

Geart post, Ace.

that Islam is incompatible with democracy, human rights, freedom, and small-l liberal government and self-determination.

Islam as construed by Wahabbis in SA is plainly incapable with at least three of those (the ones in the middle, to be exact). Elsewhere, results may vary.

Bottom line though s that Islam itself recognizes no authority aside from Allah's. If you have a dictator, Oh, well, it's the will of Allah, pray or revolt. The structure of governemnt, unlike in the West, is not separate from religion.

And the more fundamentalist the region grows, the harder it will be to have an Enlightenment (which caused it's own problems in the West, btw, like communism). But a self-determining people can impose an unfree system on themselves, so Islam isn't incompatible with democracy and self-determination.

Turkey's the only Islamic example where the governemnt law (the constitution. protected directly and specifically by Turkey's army) has an identity aside from the religion.

Excellent post, Ace. I share the same concerns, and the same hope.

That which gives me continued hope, however, is the projection that up to 80% of Iraqi's *intend* to cast their ballot.

Be interesting to see how close they get to that number.

Hey, maybe they can get some help from WI and WA election officials to help inflate it? (Sorry, cheap shot)

Democracy is, as a system of government, cultural and sociological. It operates counter to what I believe is our natural selfishness in that we are expected to simply accept the result of a vote - whether our supported person/position wins or loses.

So, are they ready for the same sort of democracy that we have today, which is the result of 200+ years of social and cultural experience? Nope. But that has nothing to do with innate ability, it has to do with experience.

And we shouldn't judge them against the current standard of any other society.

Part of what I really dislike about Bush (aside from his socia-list tendencies) is his worship and insistence on Democracy.
America is not a democracy, it's a republic, and for good reason. The death of Socrates is democracy in action, but it is in no way just.
We were founded as a republic with limited government to protect us against the tyranny of the 51%. Yet Bush keeps harping on about how whatever the Iraqis choose it's their choice. We certainly didn't let post WWII Germany or Japan choose to backslide back into tyranny.

I just find myself wishing that the president (or at least his advisors) would actually read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

Ugh your filter stops C*i*a*l*is even when its in the middle of a word!

I agree with you, ace, it is a gamble. Like you, I hope and pray it works because I don't see what else will turn the tide of terrorist Islam, short of the unthinkable.

This is what makes me so bitter and angry at the left. This is not just a gamble -- it is a gamble where *everything* is at stake. You would think they might put the blame-America-first pitchforks down long enough to help us win. Instead they're doing their damndest to see to it that we lose -- as though the abyss weren't waiting on the other side.

(Maybe they plan on moving to Canada if that happens.)

Europe and America had the Enlightment, and science, and banking, and secure contracts based upon voluntary agreements, and a host of other factors which made democracy and peaceful self-rule work; other cultures may not.

True enough, however these concepts have been floating around now, to varying degrees, for several centuries. Surely that reduces the slope of the learning curve somewhat.

Given proper care and feeding it's conceivable they could take root at a faster rate than history would dictate. I also think the internet and a desire to mimic American consumer culture will be potent force multipliers.

I'm hoping, at least.

Bill also has an excellent post that looks at this issue from a policy angle.

I've always liked this quote from Macaulay:

"There is only one cure for the evils which newly acquired freedom produces -- and that cure is freedom. When a prisoner leaves his cell, he cannot bear the light of day; -- he is unable to discriminate colors, or recognize faces. But the remedy is not to remand him into his dungeon, but to accustom him to the rays of the sun. The blaze of truth and liberty may at first dazzle and bewilder nations which have become half blind in the house of bondage. But let them gaze on, and they will soon be able to bear it. In a few years men learn to reason. The extreme violence of opinion subsides. Hostile theories correct each other. The scattered elements of truth cease to conflict, and begin to coalesce. And at length a system of justice and order is educed out of the chaos. Many politicians of our time are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learnt to swim! If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait forever."

Indeed.

Uh, isn't turkeys military the ones calling the shots behind the scenes? I thought their hold on "democracy" was tenuous, at best.

Turkey has definitely taken a turn towards democracy. In the past the military did call the shots largely to prevent a much feared Islamic takeover. Reading Turkish newspapers (I don't read Turkish but I have a very good Turkish friend who is a proud secular Turk and diplomat) one sees freedom of press in action. Recently the decidely Islamic leaning government had tried to criminalize adultery. There was much democratic argument for and against in the papers. I believe the move was voted down. Turkey's example is s good one to remember. Ataturk started the ball rolling almost 100 years ago. There were some real bumps along the way (like the Armenian genocide). On the other hand, Turks are not Arabs but, interestingly, they are Sunnis.

Bottom line. Any conservative should have as a fundamental principal that there are no utopias, at least not on earth. But you gotta start somewhere and democracy seems about as good as any start.

It is very important that we not try to force our version of democracy on others. I was very pleased to see Bush acknowledge that in his speech. We have a tendency to think out system is transferrable in place to other cultures. Like other posters have said that approach won't work. The other thing is we have to be VERY patient (not one of our finer points as Americans particularly the media) and willing to accept there will be many disappointments on the way.

The answer is YES.

In some ways, Iraq is well-positioned among Arab countries to be receptive to democracy. They have a middle class, good roads and relatively good utility infrastructure, and are fairly cosmpolitan. And we've seen how enthusiastically the vast majority are taking to voting.

Afghanistan, by contrast, has none of these. And yet democracy has begun to flourish there as well.

If it can work in those two countries, it will work anywhere. Also, consider that democracy worked reasonably well in parts of Greece circa 500 B.C. in far more hostile and savage conditions than most anywhere today.

As in Pakistan, the military in Turkey is seen as the defender of the republic or agents of reform against corrupt democrats.

When we in the West say "democracy" we generally mean democratic republics operating under the rule of law, with respect for minority and individual rights, which is what America and Europe are. But the "democratic" part of that definition is only one piece of the puzzle, and even our own Founders believed a government with that piece was worthless without the others.

First of all, you learn it by doing it. You don't screw around with some dictator getting you ready for democracy for fifty years. You learn responsibility by taking it. I cannot think of any way that a country can become democratic except by enacting a democracy.

Some countries fail. Ace, you mentioned Latin America, but it's actually backsliding these days. Bolivia's on like its hundredth government now and there's instability and poverty and corruption.

It's also pretty safe, a nice place to visit, and not at war with any of its neighbors. People aren't summarily executed and there aren't terrorist training camps (unless Chavez is sponsoring some we don't hear about.)

That's all I'm hoping for in Iraq. A Middle Eastern Bolivia. A chance to practice self government and heal some of the damage history's left there. The process will be messy and ugly and ridiculous but it will be better than Saddam ever was. There was no trial and error under Saddam. There was just summary execution.

My other point would be that while these networks and institutions that support democracy took hundreds of years to develop, it's now open-source. Iraq or anybody else can tweak it to fit their culture and their needs. Granted, you can't just drop in the US Constitution to any third world country and turn it in to the US, but I think we're more and more knowledgeable about what can be changed and what's essential to starting up a good government.

Also, consider that democracy worked reasonably well in parts of Greece circa 500 B.C. in far more hostile and savage conditions than most anywhere today.

David Friedman has said even the Vikings had it goin' on, liberty-wise.

Low taxes, baby - like a Viking.

I believe tyranny is, as Reagan put it, "another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written".

There may be a dozen democratic dominoes about to fall; but the crucial one-- Iraq -- isn't quite even tottering over yet.

Wonder why the domino theory was applicable in 'Nam but not here.

With respect,we ALL have our doubts.Who would not.This is a huge gamble,and we are taking it because the options are limited,as was discussed in your prior postings.
This post reminds me a lot of the posts here just before the November election when Bush's win looked debatable.Same advice now as then:
Stand Fast ---- Don't Panic. We are on the right side of history and failure is not an option.

Courage !!!

Bernard Lewis would agree with you ...

One of the problems with the Arab/Muslim world is that they have been cut off from the evolution of ideas that has taken place in the west.
Part of that is political. Part of that is philosophical. In the west there has been a sort of philosophical flexibility which to date has not been present in the Middle East. Perhaps with the liberation of Iraq, and the liberalization of nations like Kuwait, these ideas can flow in and slowly begin to transform those societies.

Ace, first, don't mistake the business of mistaking our attitude towards those two regimes - 'no humans involved' - as our attitude towards building representative governments.

There is an old piece of wisdom my mother used to recite: You can't give people just a little bit of freedom. This is true. The US has spent 18 months creating an infrastructure that will hopefully take the strain. Like you, I want it to work. I think it will, rather like Poland and its big bang.

I may, of course, be deluding myself.

ACE's trepidations are well-taken. We have undertaken 6 major interventions since the 1920's in Haiti with much loss of life, to set them up with Democracy. Within years, the Haitians have proven themselves unfit.

Care to repeat Iraq 6-7 times if the locals are unfit?

More worrying, the Bush Doctrine is based on the urgings of Anatoly (nee' - Natan) Sharansky, who wrote the book "The Case For Democracy" that Bush is pushing with his associates. Sharansky a former Soviet, child of committed Ukrainian CP parents who participated in the 20's Liquidations of Class Enemies - found he loved Zionism, and became an imprisoned dissident over his love of Israel over his birthplace. Freed to Israel, he has become a prominent Right-Wing Israeli who acted as Minister of Housing and Construction and advanced the Settlements. He has opposed any withdrawal of Colonies. Even Sharon's Gaza pull-out. He seeks another 2 million Zionists to come to Israel from the USA and Russia, to further settle the West Bank and prevent Israeli Arabs from becoming the majority in certain areas of Israel Proper. He says that Zionists must colonize further until or unless the Palestinians become democratic, and Sharansky says a sign they are truly Democratic is showing tolerance for the continued existence of Zionist Settlements and security buffer zones for the Settlers on the West Bank and Gaza. Until the Palestinians prove they are Democratic and accept 400,000 Colonists...though...they don't deserve any Israeli concessions.

This is the guy who is Bush's present intellectual mentor, as Bush begins to make his case to the Muslim World that the "Arab guys" should embrace Israeli Sharansky's style of freedom & democracy...

Bush might have made a case for freedom, but like the rationale for invading Iraq, he comes across as a willing tool of the Israeli Right Wing and bound to get nowhere with the other 189 of 191 nations.

I think we need somthing like Godwin's Law with respect to the Great Jewish Right Wing Conspiracy and its total control of the American government.

I knew the paleotroll would be lured out by this thread.

Anyway Ace, of course our interests come first. But. Reframe the question: Who should get to channel the pent-up yearnings of these middle eastern populaces*? Is it gonna be (1) Their tyrannical leaders, whose main survival strategy is and has been to transfer their people's resentments onto Americans/Jews, while building big bombs to blow us up with; (2) Osama et al., who want to promote dissatisfaction with any sort of civilization altogether, to be played out of course by blowing the hell out of us; or (3) Us?

Where will it lead? I don't know. But we're putting our hand in, as we must.

* I'd guess you agree with Bush that people don't actually -prefer- and enjoy oppression.

Bush's speech works and it doesn't.

He has the right idea, but the implementation is so complex as to make the idealism almost irrelevant. On the one hand, the U.S. should absolutely support democratic movements around the world. Take Iran. It is one of the West's most dangerous enemies, and yet there is a movement present. There is a large swath of people hungering for democracy, a generation covertly fed on Western ideologies. If we'd simply pledge allegience to them, to their struggle, it would go a long way towards giving the confidence, the feeling of self-asserted power, the inertia to press forward.

And Bush's speech goes quite a ways in circumstances like Iran's. Sometimes I think his inauguration speech was aimed directly at the student-democratic movement in Iran.

And then there's Iraq. There are large portions of the population who hunger for democracy. Who wish to vote, who wish to have a say in their government. And yet, I can't shake the idea that we're trying to impress something on the country that we oughtn't be.

Not democracy, mind you. People ought to have a right to self-determination.

Let me explain (I hope this isn't too excruciatingly wrong).

When America was colonized and founded, even in our differences, we were held together by similar traditions. Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, Quaker, whichever. There was an understanding. You do what you want in your commonwealth, and we'll do what we want in our commonwealth. From Massachusettes to Pennsylvania to Virginia, we had an understanding that the people of each realm governed their own realm to some extent.

Only over time were the mutual bonds of self-interest developed among these disparate entities. And even then, after the Revolutionary War, we were still met with various states who wanted to be basically left alone, to govern according to a population different from its neighbors. Hence the Articles of Confederation. It took trial and error and time and war and mess to forge this nation. We didn't all just wake up and go "We're all Americans!" No, we were Virginians and Pennsylvanians first and foremost until it became obvious we either sank or swam together.

And so there is Iraq. Sunni. Shia. Kurds. The borders were crafted by the British empire. These groups were forced together. And I don't think they're on the same page. I don't think they see the self-interest involved in becoming one solid, unified democratic nation. That sort of thing takes time. That sort of thing has to naturally develop. To force it upon a populace is to force a resentment of the "other," (the other being whatever majority exists).

I'd much rather see us carve Iraq up than retain it as one sovereign political entity. Let the Kurds rule a country to the north (smooth over Turkey as you will). Let the Shia rule over the Shia. Let the Sunni handle the Sunni. Are not the Sunni the majority of our problems in Iraq? Are we not dealing with a minority that has no will, desire, no intent to handle being a minority in any democracy that may come of the elections?

Just what is it about the British imposed (and culturally ignorant) boundaries that we feel some sacrosanct need to maintain?

Cvil war? Bah. Break it up. That'll cut off a whole lot at the head.

I support the war. I was for it based on the threat Saddam posed to the U.S. But, now that we are marginal control of Iraq, I don't understand this need for keeping the entire nation as one, when it's obvious any attempts at democracy will create a resentment and conflict that could be side-stepped by just busting the country into three.

Hopefully this makes sense. Sorry for the length.

Alternate question #2:

Is France actually ready for democracy?

Just a quick analysis on "four more years with Bush."

Mr Bush represents continuity and not change in the US agenda. The primacy of freedom has been articulated in different ways by presidents as diverse as Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. Nor is this an exclusively Republican, let alone neoconservative, creed in the modern era. The vast majority of Democrats in Washington essentially agree with Mr Bush about the ends of America's mission in the world. The dispute, and it is an important one, is about the means. Senior Republicans, as well as Democrats, have suggested that the White House should amend its strategy in this second term.
To that extent, Mr Bush has quietly been inching towards his opponents. As the careful language he employed two days ago suggests, there is an appreciation that words regarded as admirably plain within the US do not travel easily. In a series of interviews Mr Bush has conceded that some of his phrases have caused unnecessary alarm overseas and resolved to be more cautious. In her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Condoleezza Rice, the incoming Secretary of State, spoke of the importance of a conversation and not a momologue with the outside world and hinted that the balance between the diplomatic and the military aspects of policy would change.
This will not be a revolutionary movement. Nor will the differences between some European governments and the Oval Office disappear. The US will continue to regard the threat posed by radical Islamists, the dangers of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the behaviour of rogue states such as North Korea with more urgency than France and Germany. These countries should ask themselves whether their assessment of these perils is so much more modest because of evidence, or the inconvenience that acknowledging their intensity would entail. They might also ponder what it is about the promotion of freedom that they regard as so alien and objectionable.

I think the point behind democracy is that they have the opportunity to elect those that could return it to a one party/one candidate/one religion state if that is the desire of the majority. Saying that democracy can't be compatible with religion is like saying that laws can make you a better Muslim or Christian or Jew. If that was the case Saddam would have been the best damn Muslim around. Those who truly have faith have it without a mandate from someone else and who the hell would want to be a member of a club that forced others to join at gun point? Those that are claiming that Islam might not be compatible with democracy are discounting the ability of Islam to have willing followers and the right of others to have an opinion on the matter. The farces that exist out there today calling themselves Islamic states are using the quasi-religion of soc-ial-ism and are forcing worship of the state rather than G_d. Friggin' spam blocker, isn't there some way to fix that?

I dunno soc**lism is about as offensive a word as f*ck in my book.

Rob you make a good case for the partition solution for Iraq. However I would like to see us apply the lesson from the many previous adventures in colonialism by a European superiors and let the Iraqi people decide this for themselves rather than have it imposed on by the Great White Father Bush (no disrepect intended). The major task of the new assembly after it is elected (Allah willing) will be to write a constitution. Who knows, it may end up producing a confederation. But they are in a better position to decide than we are.

There are several points to be made here, I think.

1. The most important ingredient in any democracy is a popular, grass-roots demand for democracy. It's popular to say that everyone wants freedom, but that's not true. Everyone wants pride and security for their family. Many modern Russians are starting to honestly think they were better off (more secure, with something to be proud of) under the Soviets. They are reconstructing statues of Stalin in Moscow.

However, the polling data in Iraq looks pretty good, and it seems a lot of people want to vote. I think this one's taken care of, for now.

2. Once they demand (and get) a democracy, they still aren't "ready" the way we or New Zealand are. They need to learn by doing. This has been covered fairly well, so I'll move on. Basically, what Macauley said.

3. Necessary Institutions. This is my main point.

As Ace pointed out, Iraq's social institutions are either not as robust as the West's were at democracy's birth, or simply non-existent, destroyed by Saddam or never created. However, I don't think this will be the problem others do.

There is a real difference between the requirements of a nation that can create and sustain democracy without any support (and often, the active enmity) of foreign powers, and one that attempts the same task surrounded by supportive republics such as our own. Iraq today is facing the opposition of Iran and Syria, but they've got the United States and the United Kingdom in their corner. They'll also have the WTO, supportive democratic neighbors like Turkey, Israel, and India, a market to sell their oil and agriculture into, etc. etc. Iraq is not alone and does not need to have social institutions of the same strength as 17th century Pennsylvania.

[Actually, Iraq is in a better position than Taiwan/Japan/ S. Korea were. There were simply no Asian democracies before WWII, and none of the Asian social institutions (i.e., Confucianism, Bhuddism) had been tested for "democracy compliance." The same is not true for Iraq. Iraq will be able to tap the experience of Indonesians, Turks, Israeli Arabs, and Indian muslims for how to adapt Islamic practices to a democratic setting.]

Also, there is a real difference between a nation that can "hold it together" while inventing democracy and a nation that can "hold it together" while implementing a functional model of democracy. It was a huge leap of faith for the American founders to ratify the Constitution (it might not have worked), but it will be much easier in Iraq. We've already paved the way. I've read their Constitution, and it's really good - because we helped them write it. It's not a Xerox copy of ours (it has been adapted to local circumstances), but all the major parts required to make it work are there. Any nay-sayers can have the American experience pointed out to them and hear the words "See! It works, I tell you!"

So, to answer Ace's question, they're "ready enough" to try democracy-with-help-and-borrowed-experience.

CedarTroll wrote: "We have undertaken 6 major interventions since the 1920's in Haiti with much loss of life, to set them up with Democracy. Within years, the Haitians have proven themselves unfit."

CedarTroll, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Please cite the 6 major U.S. interventions in Haiti by date and casualty figures.

Second, your attempt to make Bush appear to worship Sharansky is disingenuous at best. This speech given by that Zionist-in-Training Bush seems to show a foreign policy that does not resemble what you have invented to justify your personal pogrom. Although in your alternate universe this may simply be an indication the Zionist mind control satellites were briefly off-line.

Is the Middle East ready for democracy. No. Is any Middle Eastern country truly a possible breeding ground for democracy? No, at least not at this time.

I'm sorry but all cultures are not the same. In Somalia multilating your daughter's clitoris is considered to be a good thing. In Saudi Arabia raping the gardner's son is considered to be an acceptable thing as long as the rapist is discreet and restricts himself to servants. It's a cultural thing.

Societies, like people need a chance to grow and the culture of the Middle Eastern countries hasn't reached the needed point yet. Maybe, in 100 years but not now. This is a closed clannish society where women are chattel and all men are not equal. It is also a society where ignorance, illiteracy and superstition run rampant.

There's another thing, too. Islam and democratic ideals don't go hand-in-hand. In order for a Middle Eastern country to become a modern democracy the practice of Islam in that country would have to be softened. What are the odds of that? Yes, Germany was 90% de-Nazified and yes, WWII Japan was forced to give up it's feudal ways but both of those cultures had other things going for them before the insanity of WWII.

We have to remember that many people in the Middle East, particularly the important people like things just the way they are.

At this point, you've nailed the question. I'm not sure I agree with your answer but if peace (democracy) isn't something that can be attained, all of our WMD hunting aside, we should be planning an alternative plan.

Where does the Vegas Sahara have the odds?

Good question. But maybe the answer is easier than it appears. 60 years ago it would have seemed nearly impossible for Japan and Germany, among others, to move toward democracy. And in the last 20 years or so there has been a democratic revolution in the world.

It might take 100 years, but the Middle East won't remain in the dark ages. The sand hillbillies can't stay isolated forever. At some point widely available modern conveniences, education, and freely available information (internet, old media) are going to take a toll on backwards ass country-fuck ways.

Iran is a good example. The many who received an education here in the 70's and 80's are beginning to run the country. Theocratic domination is under attack and won't survive.

The mullah system will give way to the moolah system.

(ba-dabum)

Liberty and capitalism are more desirable and ultimately more important than democracy.

The problem is that neither lasts very long without democracy. Once they are hooked on liberty and capitalism the incentive to master democracy will take effect.

Is the Middle East Actually Ready For Democracy?

We are spinning and we will be spinning to that point where consciousness meets desire in Middle East. The outcome of this will be obvious. How they interpret it and what they choose will define the peace in world.

Fortune cookie?

It doesn't matter if the Mideast is ready for self-governance. It doesn't even matter that the chances of Bush's daring long-shot gamble on changing the dynamic in both the narrow Mideast or the larger Islamic world has a slim chance, or no chance, of succeeding.
If we had done nothing at all, or if this gamble fails, we shall see an all out war of civilisations between Islam and the rest of the world, probably within the next ten or twenty years. It will come right after the mad mullahs of Iran, or some other bunch, equally implacable, get their hands on a batch of nukes and a system for delivering them.
If Bush's gamble works, we avoid this. If it doesn't work the survivors can, as they look over the ruins and the hundreds of millions of dead and dying, say that we've done everything possible to avoid this as the world falls off into the new Dark Ages.

We won't know for many years whether Bush is a hero or a goat.

But look at the positive early signs; the Afghans flocked to the polls, in the face of horrible risk. That in itself is encouraging.

Maybe democratization can eventually help to reform Islam (and reform is inevitable; they won't survive otherwise) and reconcile it to the modern world.

Let's not forget that in the 18th Century, our model of governance was guaranteed to fail by eminent scholars of the day.

Japan was "rocky soil" in 1945.

The attempt is the first step, at least they desire it and will get a taste of it, no democracy is perfect - not even ours.

According to the Washington post article the Iraqis are showing their desire for democracy at an incredible 80% rate. That's in the face of threats that we all know aren't idle. We have liberals here complaining about 2 hour waits to vote, think how they'd be crying if that wait included a good chance of a bombing or beheading. And we don't get anywhere near an 80% turnout. I think that answers whether or not they are ready, if we don't help them at every chance we will have failed them, ourselves and the whole world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24674-2005Jan20.html

Rob: No way. They have to learn to live in a pluralistic world -- might as well start at home.

The yearning for democracy is inherent in man; the practice of democracy must be learned over time.

Isn't the real question (about a solution to the "Islamic" problem ...and similar problems now unforeseen, that WILL eventually arise): what is the alternative?

And didn't the "previous alternative" eventually result in 9/11?

And haven't we - yet - realized that 9/11 was merely the prelude to a "previous alternative" outcome (that a "non-responsive" response) [that] would have eventually led - in all probability - to nuclear conflageration in a real WORLD war against armed Islamic nations, emboldened by the confirmation of Bin Laden's (ONLY-NOW-PROVEN to be erroneous) beliefs, of a "rotten core" at the heart of American might?

Weren't we made absolutely positive that day in September that the practice of realpolitick may be a fundamentally flawed state policy? Ya' think?

How many times are we going to have to reminded?

The last speech before the Big Game begins isn't about tactics and plays ...it's about inspiring the players. Those kinds of "situational speeches" are about emotional underpinnings, not about rational implementations.

That speech was a retroactive indictment of the US response to Hungary in October 1956, and Czechoslovakia in August 1968 ...and it was aimed specifically at the Iranian dissidents of - hopefully - 2005.

Democracy in one form was formally reintroduced by the Founding Fathers over 200 years ago. They did NOT get it "quite right" (Civil War, anyone?) ...and we're STILL working on it.

But the concept & practice of democracy is malleable. And that malleability is the core of its robust strength, its astonishing adaptability, its situational applicability ...and its hope, which is all our hope, to be able to raise our children in freedom.

No matter what our particular debasement at the hands of the tyrannical.

It was a great speech, comparable to Lincoln's of November 1863, though it wasn't a speech for a sundered nation grieving at the loss of its young men dead by the thousands on a Civil War battlefield.

It was an invitation to the oppressed of the world. "Join us in freedom."

...and it sure as hell brought a fiercely proud tear to MY eye, and inspired me.

1. Most people in the region want democracy.
2. We don´t have enough time to wait till they themselves build a sound foundation for democracy over decades. We have no other choice than to remove dictators (using a broad array of means) and to impose democracy upon the people. We need "Nation Building". It certainly needs to be done better than in Iraq. But we´re just learning...

Democracy is the only form of state that can guarantee stability and peace!