1. Shelley said:

Ted, I remember many years ago in a rare moment of clarity, declaring to a group of my friends that Islamic countries could not be democratized because Islam was not democratic. A Jewish friend agreed, the others were hopeful. Since then, I have become enamoured of the idea, partly because of George Bush's efforts, but mainly because what the hell else are we going to do about the problem.

I think Mark Steyn has asked the question many times, has anybody else got any ideas? This is an even more important question now because of the results of two elections in the Middle East which have brought Islamic governments to power. If nothing else, it proves that the law of unintended consequences still works.

The best other idea yet is the effort the West must make to ween ourselves off of oil, to the extent that we won't need Middle Eastern oil. Anybody else got any other ideas?

2. archduke said:

its easy - target the mullahs

"Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam-- begging to have their blood shed for Islam."

-Ayatollah Khomeini

3. jim said:

The author defers the logical conclusion: "...the cause has been defeated....and (the) true believer (and his cause) is DESTROYED.

4. Bill Narvey said:

Ted,

I am always leery of bold statements to describe some aspect of the human condition that admits no exception.

It is in that regard that I find incorrect, both your comment and the position of Eric Fromm, assuming you have correctly and succinctly stated it.

I do believe that Bush and Sharansky on the one hand and Eric Fromm on the other both are correct provided there is a whole lot of wiggle room in between. In other words, both have expressed truths that are like the impressions on opposite sides of a coin, but most of the metal or truth lies between heads and tails.

With the Iraq election we witnessed formerly repressed, oppressed, and suppressed Iraqis, exercise their right to vote. They were engaging in a freedom not previously theirs and it is significant that they risked death to do it.

Not only history, but our own experiences and our observations of other and different societies leads one to conclude that while every individual in all societies want various freedoms, we also want or feel the need for various lawful and societal controls and limits on those freedoms.

The extent to which freedoms are controlled and limited in differing societies is much dependent on the culture within which people have been raised.

In our Western Judeo Christian societies, people have come to expect the greatest amount of freedom, infringed upon by the least amount of controls. In Islamic society, individual freedoms are far more limited and controlled than in Western societies.

Whether it be individuals in Western or Islamic societies, freedoms is understood in keeping with what their respective cultures have taught them to expect and what they have become used to.

That is not to say that freedom in the minds of Westerners or Muslims is a static thing. With knowledge of Western culture, influences and the freedoms it has offered, Muslims in Muslim countries have began demanding more and more freedoms. While Muslim leaders have managed in the main so far to suppress reform within their nations, those leaders are under increasing strain to reform and allow their people greater freedoms.

While Eric Hoffer's contention in his book "The True Believer may have at one time held pretty true, times are changing in the Muslim world as the vague idea of democracy linked with the notion of freedom takes hold on more and more minds.

While Victor Hanson is one of the best writers I have come across, I cannot accept his thinking, reflective of Bush and Sharansky that rapprochement between the West and the Islamic world will be achieved through democratizing the latter.

The Bush Sharanksy view flows from certain assumptions:

1. Democracies do not generally make war on other democracies;
2. If the Islamic world became democratic, it would be more like Western
democracies and with that bridges to understanding and tolerance could be
more easily built and achieved.

As for the first assumption, it is dependant on the success of the second assumption.

The second assumption however is not without great doubt.

The culture within which Western democracy grew was based on Judeo-Christian principles. The Islamic culture is far different in so many obvious ways, not the least of which is that it is a religious based society and that religion has many aspects to it, including mores, values and laws that are antithetical to Western Judeo-Christian societies.

If democracy were to ultimately take hold in the Islamic world, it is entirely conceivable, if not probable that in spite of functioning in similar fashion to Western democracies, parties running for election would offer their alternative platforms and visions of the future devised within the context of Islamic culture, just as competing Western democratic parties offer their electorate platforms framed within the context of Judeo-Christian culture.

A democratic Islamic world therefore does not necessarily mean that it would be compatible with our Western Judeo-Christian world.

Finally, even if Bush and Sharansky are correct, it is going to take generations for Democracy to develop in the Muslim Middle East.

The conflicts between the West and the Islamic world are already close to the critical mass point, when it won’t take much more at all for the conflict to explode into a full scale war of civilizations.

5. Ted Belman said:

The preponderance of opinion is that Hanmas won't change because it is their creed. Islam demands the destruction of israel. Similarly to think that Islamic society will change because of the allure of freedom ignores that freedom is inconsistent with islam which means submission. Muslims must submit to the will of Allah. Anything less is not Islamic.

6. Eric Kossian said:

Bill, I agree that Bush/Rice are placing all their bets on the power of democracy. The problem is 2 out of 3 (Afganistan, Iraq, Gaza) have CHOSEN governments that follow the islamic law which is antithetical to democracy, which believes in the rights of the individual (as ordained by the Creator). There is also two major events happening that make this all the more precarious...while many in the world (including muslims)are becoming more secluar and materialistic, the muslim world is simulataneously growing and growing more fanatical at least in realtionship to Israel, as eliminating Jews is part of their religion.
It is scary to wait and see who wins this war within Islam over the next 30 years as it seems the most dangerous period is now with the clash of culture and religion being pushed by Isamic leaders and the vast majority of Islamic religious leaders have been financed and installed by the Saudi/Wahabi crowd. One would be hard pressed to find any Muslim area in the world that is not rapidly becoming more violent at the same time that you have huge numbers of youth whom are all the more influencable. So the biggest danger to world peace is the "religion of peace".
The west is slow to respond to the fact many within the Islamic world is already at war with the west, they just don't have the means to carry it out. That too is changing as we see in Iran as well as the increasing arming by Saudi and Egypt, and possibly WMD now in Syria or Bekka Valley via Saddam. Part of the reason we are slow to respond is that that really effective options are very limited or nonexistant short of military options which would not only be very costly but threaten world war 3 senarios, as any attack on Iran will cause an attack on Israel. So Bush is left with pushing democracy as the be all end all. Unfortuanely, if there really are people out there who really are trying to kill you, the sooner you kill them the better. The really tough part is separating "civilians" from Soldiers when in many cases the cilivians are the ones carrying the bombs and both celebrate the religion of death.

7. t said:

how about this analogy? The drunk driver just killed a family, is he no more responsible than the islamic madman?

8. t said:

The rich jewish elite , in hollywood politics etc, says that the Israeli s should give up"land for peace" my question to those fortunate lottery winners is this, would u give up your home in malibu or the hills if someone or plural was threatening your family???????? Lwt me answer that no u would hire a top security firm!

9. Leonard said:

The Sharanky formulae on democracy has been proven to have been essentially flawed. You cannot introduce it overnight to a primative society that has been conditioned for decades into a culture of hate and blindly following religious demogogues, where there has been no freedom of press, where women have no rights, and where moderates have been murdered en masse & labelled collaborators, where the intellectual educated segments of your population have either been forced into exile or murdered. Such a society isn't ripe for democracy and you need a benign dictator like in Pakistan or Egypt to prepare the population for democracy. Neither Germany nor Japan became a democracy overnight.

In response to "t" the Land for Peace formulae is now absolutely discredited in all thinking circles with the ascent of Hamas. Handing over land to Terror simply ignites & encourages more terror.