Jonah Goldberg says that we should have installed liberalism in Iraq, not democracy. There is a confusion between the two, and as he points out, introducing democracy in an illiberal society will not necessarily provide helpful results.

...many on the left see no problem singing the praises of leftwing regimes which put "equality" ahead of democracy. As Derb once put it, "Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy." But regimes which put liberty and the rule of law ahead of democracy and the like are always immediately derided as dictatorial "strong-man" regimes. I'm not saying that such criticism isn't sometimes accurate. After all, democracy is good and tends to innoculate against tyranny and without democracy enlightened regimes often go bad. But I would still have preferred to live under Pinochet than Castro or Lee Kuan Yew instead of Hugo Chavez (or, heh, the Hapsburgs than the Soviets).

As someone who still considers himself a classical liberal, that makes a lot of sense to me, given the often ugly choices of the real (as opposed to ivory-tower) world. It's easy to overrate and overemphasize democracy. As Churchill once said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others.

We are now beginning to witness the rise of a new Taliban in Baghdad. Clerics who attack men without beards and women without veils.

Reminds me of the story about this depressed psycho killer whose depression prevented him from murdering anyone, until a doctor helped out by giving him Prozac.

Saddam was indeed an evil monster who needed to be removed. Even the Clinton Administration had regime change as its official policy. That said, to instill western secular classical liberalism (not modern Massachusetts liberalism) is a far more difficult task than merely removing Saddam.

Before we invaded (if you recall, Rand) I was going nuts that we would be going in too lightly, without the follow on resources needed to win the re-construction. Sadly, that may be exactly what is happening.

Today? We CANNOT cut-n-run otherwise Iraq will devolve into yet another fundie-Islamic state. Soldiers are no longer sufficient. Reconstruction money is needed (perhaps a trillion dollars worth over the next decade) and civil affairs officers and so on.

= = =

Or we allow partition and let the Shia Arabs in Basra undermine Tehran by appealing to the Shia Arabs in Iran chafing under Persian rule.

An Iraqi Kurdistan will also begin pulling on Iranian Kurds, undermining Tehran.

Democracy is a feature, not a system; it requires Rule of Law, which requires Peace (aka monopoly of force).

Trying to skip a step is asking for trouble, and you can make a case for tolerating regimes that are solidifing one level and making positive noises abou t the next.

Trying to skip a step is asking for trouble, and you can make a case for tolerating regimes that are solidifing one level and making positive noises abou t the next.

I agree