Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
In my view, this strategy would involve having Western nations invade additional muslim countries. While I don't have any sort of moral objection to invading autocracies and transforming them into democracies, I have to say that there are some significant practical barriers to this strategy. To begin, some democratization efforts are bound to fail: witness how much faster western efforts are proceeding in Afghanistan versus Iraq. If we were to attempt to democratize, say, ten countries, I think the odds of at least one dreaded "quagmire" occurring are better than one would hope.
Furthermore, the West simply lacks the resources to conduct so many invasions. I fear that the United States and Co. are simply incapable of pulling off such a transformation. And if you think that invading one or two countries would set off a chain reaction of democratization in the Middle East... well, at the very least, it takes several years.  |
We agree that the solution of Western invasion into all those places is impractical and undesirable. That's why the ideal resolution would be for the goverments of the individual countries to decide to make those changes without such taking place. Libya is a good example of what I have in mind; shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Libya started making noises about coming clean on some things. Naturally, talk is cheap, but if the threat of invasion and instillation of new goverments, i.e. ones that will not harbor or foster terrorists, is the motivation for internal change, then the threat must be real.
And as for the chain reaction taking several years, that's undoubtedly so; I become frustrated at times by what looks to be slow movement in Afghanistan and Iraq, but then I remember how long it took to get Europe stabilized, and it seems the progress that is being made in each place needs to be measured not daily or weekly, but in yearly increments.
And I yearn for the day when we are completely out of that region!