So you are in the camp that would rather have left Saddam in power, rather than go after him? I'm less sure than you that this administration has a weak commitment to democracy. On what basis would you say that? You seem to fall in the McCain NeoCon camp, so you would not have gone against our buddy Saddam.

I would rather be fighting the terrorists in Iraq than here. It will be messy whereever it happens. Now, we even have to cope with crazed leftists with rifles who want to kill the president. Of course, our buddies on CBS and the Kerry campaign (along with Michael Moore and Kitty Kelley) have essentially incited them by the over-the-top rhetoric.

If the McCain neocons see no difference between Bush and Kerry, on democracy promotion or any other issue, then isn't the "political" question easily answered for them by voting Republican?

*I would rather be fighting the terrorists in Iraq than here.

This utterly meaningless soundbite has attained significance purely by repetition. It's a response to a debate that never existed.

Fire away.

This is an excellent question, and one with no simple answer. I think we need to do the best we can to promote democracy, but not at the expense of allowing a nuclear armed Islamo-fascist government to emerge. Here, again, we are back to the nuke problem. Pakistan is small potatoes without the nukes. With them, they are a vital interest. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and work with those you would choose not to (Stalin). Baby steps. A democratic Afghanistan will be a good influence on Pakistan, we have little choice but to give it some time.

Russia is another matter. Putin is a thug and a despot in waiting, we should have addressed him long ago. Russia has at best been a nuetral influence on the WOT. They havent challeneged us on Central Asia which is good, but they continue supplying Iran with nukes which is madness.
Putin is a disaster waiting to happen.

Someone advocating promoting democracy in Russia is someone who is promoting democracy on the extreme cheap: with words. Because there isn't one fucking thing that we can do to counter what Putin is doing. What Kagan wrote is deeply silly and is the kind of academic commitment to principles that can get a lot of us killed.

Let me add the following page into the mix. It's just something that came up in a search for 'uzbekistan dictator'. I only glanced at the first part and the page is not endorsed, etc. etc.: Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive.

Talking about Uzbekistan is Liberal Talking Point #493 and the standard response to "Bush wants democracy in Iraq." "But, what about our support for the dictator of Uz.?" liberals coo. So, just something else to consider in addition to Russia and Pakistan.

Jim Bender reiterates the "evil Dems who wanted to leave Saddam in power!" talking point, which (aside from its other defects) jars especially with the post's theme of democracy-promotion.

The idea of democracy is that people deserve to rule themselves, and are capable of doing so.

How does that fit with the idea that the Iraqis were incapable of rising up against Saddam, and needed Uncle Sam to come rescue them? They seem quite capable of rising up against us.

"Oh, but Saddam was a brutal dictator who utterly cowed the Iraqi people!" Please. If the Iraqi people had really wanted to get rid of Saddam -- if millions of Iraqis had been willing to lay it on the line for democracy -- Saddam would have been toast. Saddam's army, after all, was made up of "the Iraqi people."

I think that's the fundamental fallacy of imposing democracy from above. When a nation is "ready" for democracy, they'll obtain it. And the only way you'll know they're "ready" is that they've done so. Anything else seems condescending at best.

Possibly Iraqi democracy will arrive after a long grassroots revolutionary struggle ... against the U.S. and its puppet governments? I guess we could say we "brought democracy to Iraq" then, the way the Brits brought it to us in 1776 ... But I'd much rather spend our blood and treasure on other hobbies, like catching Osama, or inspecting incoming freighters miles out to sea from any urban centers that they could destroy with a nuclear bomb.

Last I read, Putin was elected. He probably has about as much legitimacy as Blowhard.

Transparency. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but really, two Bonesmen running for president. How did that happen? You figure the odds. Hell, take as the sample frame just male ivy grads and the odds against are still astronomical. I say, its the illuminati.

Seriously, democracy is way overrated. But I think Dr. Drezner gives the game away when hell calls for 'democratic governance'. Governance is one of those newfangled terms for the rule of the great and good, with a veneer of democracy. Governance is what's up in Bosnia, where Lord High Poobah Ashdown dismisses the democratically elected officials who dare cross him. Governance is me having to by incease in 28.6 gram bundles, because the EU has 'governed' English measures (ounces) out of existence. You call it governances, I call it technocracy, and say 'the hell with it!".

"*I would rather be fighting the terrorists in Iraq than here."

"This utterly meaningless soundbite has attained significance purely by repetition. It's a response to a debate that never existed."

I think it is actually worse than that. It is a neocon dream to lure everyone with a beef against America across the unprotected Iraqi borders and into an Iraqi killing field. It is really atrocious when you think about it. And is evidence that the US leadership never had the well-being of the average Iraqi citizen in mind. Seriously, how could you possibly drown these people in such a blood bath if your intent was to 'liberate' them. Despite all the work various factions put into digging up evidence of a Saddam/terrorism link, the most they could come up with was 2-3 known terrorists who may be in Iraq. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It was the US that drew terrorists to Iraq. What is the logic of leaving al Queda terrorists who attacked the US in Afghanistan and trying to lure them into Iraq in order to kill them among a civilian population in a country that did not attack the US?!?

The oft repeated statement, "I would rather be fighting the terrorists in Iraq than here," is cowardly, immoral and shames me grately as an American whenever I hear it.

'A democratic Afghanistan will be a good influence on Pakistan, we have little choice but to give it some time.'

Aha, I see it now. A Democratic India next door for 60 years, with a similar ethnic background (and India has more Muslims than Pakistan), a legacy of democracy from British Rule hasn't brought stable democracy to Pakistan.

But Afghanistan, a barely functioning democracy, with no ethnic ties outside of Pakistan's tribal provinces is going to do the magic work of ushering in democracy into Pakistan.

Get real.

Any strategy of democracy promotion will face practical limits. For Pakistan, we face the quandary of whether we want to demand that the state apparatus aggresively move against Al-Queda and the Taliban, or do we demand that it hand over power to parties whose short term interests will include *less* action against Al-Queda and the Taliban? The choice between Bush and Kerry is not one between pure democracy promotion and hard boiled realism. Its between how strong democracy promotion is in the mix of things guiding our policies. Every indication is that under Kerry it will have less influence than under Bush. But even if McCain was president, we wouldn't be able to pursue a pure democracy promotion policy. It has to yield at time to short term needs. Pakistan is exhibit A of that.

I'm shocked, shocked i say! The most secretive and loyalitst administrtion in history doesn't really care about democracy! WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED? When they forgot to plan for post-war iraq, created policies to facilitate torture, put 20-year old hacks in charge of Iraq's economy, made 1/3 of the CPA Bush/Cheney '04 head quarters, continually lied about WMD/Al Queda in Iraq, and quietly stopped talking about Afghanistan -- that must have all been out of their devotion to democracy. So we undo the the one of the biggest American success stories in the 20th century by letting Russia become a dictatorship -- that doesnt mean Dubya don't love a good democracy!

Dan, how many times does Bush have to make you look like a complete idiot before you give up on him? Seriously, you have like battered-wife sydnrome, you just keep coming back for more humiliation. You can get help for it.

The fly-paper theory just goes to show there is no theory too stupid for a large portion of the right to fall for hook line and sinker. Even if this is rationale 45 for the Iraq war, after the first 44 rationales all turned out to be horrifically false.

At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country.

-- Donald Rummsefld, Democracy Promoter and Torturer in Iraq (via delong)

erg,

I appreciate the effort but you're off the mark in your South Asian history/ethnology. You point out (rightly) that India has more Muslims than Pakistan. But how many Hindus has Pakistan? Sikhs? Christians? Parsis? Jains? Okay, enough. Point is, India contains multitudes, Pakistan has lots of poor, illiterate Muslims. India had many ethnic groups, some of whom specialized in intellectual pursuits, some bureaucratic, some business. Pakistan had/has a very large pauper class and a very small landholder class. It has a strong army because that was one of the few things Muslims were thought to be good at--fighting. It's a volatile and backward looking country, and now it has nukes. Yippee.

The closer you look at the region the more you understand that Pakistan is roughly halfway between India and Afghanistan in developmental terms. Can it therefore actually benefit from a stable, democratic (hold the laughter) Afghanistan? Yes yes and yes. Can it benefit from seeing Muslim women learn and prosper (by the way, they don't in India--Indian Muslims are allowed to go their own way, no state interference, bad idea)? Yes again.

Mark is right, Putin's grab for the brass ring in Russia is very troubling, but Musharraf's less so since the alternatives are so very bad and the guy has not done a bad job so far.

Kelli,

'I appreciate the effort but you're off the mark in your South Asian history/ethnology.'

Not to sound snotty, but I grew up in India, and am an immigrant from India so I have more than a passing familiarity with South Asia.

'Point is, India contains multitudes, Pakistan has lots of poor, illiterate Muslims. India had many ethnic groups, some of whom specialized in intellectual pursuits, some bureaucratic, some business. Pakistan had/has a very large pauper class and a very small landholder class.'

That isnt' quite correct. Both countries had and have very large pauper classes and landholder classes. India has pulled ahead now, but that wasnt always so. In any case, my point was there was far greater ethnic and social similarity between India and Pakistan than Pakistan and Afhganistan.

'Can it benefit from seeing Muslim women learn and prosper (by the way, they don't in India--Indian Muslims are allowed to go their own way, no state interference, bad idea)? Yes again.'

That is not correct in several respects. Both India and Pakistan have highly educated Muslim women who occupy prominent positions in politics, movies, other media etc. You seem to make it appear as if Pakistan could learn a lot from Afghanistan in that regard, wheras the fact is that Pakistan had its own female Prime Minister (Benazir Bhutto) and has highly Westernized Islamic women in its cities.

My point is that I think any positive influence from Afghanistan on Pakistani politics/democracy is minimal (outside of the PATA tribal areas).

At the time, it looked to me as if the neoconservatives who backed McCain in 2000 did so because he seemed to know and care about foreign policy, and the neoconservatives who backed Bush did so because he seemed most likely to win.

Both groups were right. In any event it's absurd to argue that the Bush administration is not committed to promoting democracy when it has committed 120,000 troops to doing that in Iraq. Obviously such a large commitment is going to take the air out of efforts to do things like keeping the Kremlin from appointing regional governors who are elected now, not that we could do anything but protest ineffectually about something like that anyway.

There is every reason to think that if Iraq did become a durable liberal democracy it would promote democracy elsewhere far more effectively than anything else the United States might do. I have not been uncritical of the effort -- I don't think the goal is realistic, in fact I've likened it to trying to build a skyscraper in a swamp -- but to accuse the administration of being insincere about promoting democracy is an extremely silly charge even for campaign season.

"This split has persisted in the wake of what's happened in Iraq. However, there's now a deeper question that could really split the neocons -- is the Bush administration really interrested in democracy promotion at all? "

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is far less interested in forcibly promoting democracy in areas that have nuclear weapons they could use against us than in areas that don't?

Say it isn't so!

"How does that fit with the idea that the Iraqis were incapable of rising up against Saddam, and needed Uncle Sam to come rescue them? They seem quite capable of rising up against us. "

"the Iraqis" aren't "rising up against us". Thugs and despots are trying to undo the good things we've been doing, and reimpose their hateful governing philosophy.

"Possibly Iraqi democracy will arrive after a long grassroots revolutionary struggle ... against the U.S. and its puppet governments?"

Um... no. Iraqi democracy will arrive after the U.S. and its "puppet governments" hold an election there. Hell, even if the Iraqis never saw an election, they'd still be better off, and the only thing the so-called "grassroots revolutionary struggle" does for them is get a few of them killed and deprive them of some of the benefits of US occupation.

"So we undo the the one of the biggest American success stories in the 20th century by letting Russia become a dictatorship"

Please enlighten us as to your brilliant plan of stopping them. Remember they have enough nukes to turn this country into a parking lot.

If the Iraqi people had really wanted to get rid of Saddam -- if millions of Iraqis had been willing to lay it on the line for democracy -- Saddam would have been toast.

Yep. And if the Jews had really wanted to end the holocaust -- if millions of Jews had been willing to lay it on the line to end the holocaust -- Hitler would have been toast.

Duh. Really, the left just gets dumber every day.

Ken, On Russia, how about opening his big fat stupid damn mouth instead of treating it like an internal affair? He could start with that.

Let me know when you figure out how forgotting to plan for post-war iraq, creating policies to facilitate torture,putting 20-year old hacks in charge of Iraq's economy, making 1/3 of the CPA Bush/Cheney '04 head quarters, continually lieing about WMD/Al Queda in Iraq -- are a part of democracy promotion -- please do share with us all, becaue I think more than a few of us are confused.

said on Tuesday that the CIA was just guessing when it said the war-racked country was in danger of slipping into civil war.

-- Chimp in Cheif (via tpm).

When you figure out a way how living in lala land is comptaible with democracy promotion, also, let us know.

"Pakistan had/has a very large pauper class and a very small landholder class. It has a strong army because that was one of the few things Muslims were thought to be good at--fighting."

Sounds kind of like texas.

"It's a volatile and backward looking country, and now it has nukes."

There's a sobering thought. Texas with nukes....

Lay off Texas. We're not all crazy. But we do have more outrageous and outlandish rich people than any place in the world but Saudi Arabia.

Anyone who thinks Musharraf isn't in bed with the Taliban is fooling himself:

Musharraf's critics say that he bears much of the responsibility for the religious parties' strong showing. Over mild protests from Washington, Musharraf moved vigorously over the summer to neutralize his secular political opposition, instituting new electoral rules calculated to rule out challenges by [the moderates]. He also required that candidates for the national assembly hold four-year college degrees, eliminating about 40 percent of potential contenders.

But Musharraf made an exception for candidates from religious parties, whose madrassa certificates were deemed adequate proof of literacy and learning. Many of them rushed in to fill the void left by disqualified rivals.

Maybe there's not much we can do about that terrorist Putin, but we can certainly put pressure on Musharraf. Afghanistan will never be peaceful -- let alone democratic -- until we do.

I'm sorry -- I didn't realize the Taliban are now our allies:

The United States has released 11 Afghans held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on suspicion of Taliban links after a request from President Hamid Karzai, an Afghan official says...Among those released was a top tribal figure, Nayem Koochi, who served as a Taliban commander during the group's rule from 1996 to 2001.

...The latest releases come a week after Karzai freed Mawlavi Qalamuddin, a deputy minister of Taliban's feared religious police, officially known as Ministry of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Karzai has been attempting to woo moderate Taliban ahead of the October 9 presidential elections, which the Taliban and their allies have vowed to disrupt.

So the head of the religious police is now a "moderate Talibani?!" Something more for the McCain neocons to think about.

This post seems way off base. I can't imagine anyone arguing that FDR wasn't in favor of democracy, but he did what he had to do at any given moment, which included allying with (and not criticizing) Stalin, who was surely a worse despot than either Musharaf or Putin.

Oh, we dumb lefties!

And if the Jews had really wanted to end the holocaust -- if millions of Jews had been willing to lay it on the line to end the holocaust -- Hitler would have been toast.

Apples? Oranges? Don't compare the two? Hello?

One's an ethnic minority scattered throughout Europe; the other's a discrete nation.

I may be insufficiently thoughtful about the conditions for democracy to succeed, but bad analogies aren't going to persuade me of that.

And on the Pakistan issue:

Has any of y'all who are saying "we have to tolerate Pakistan's authoritarianism as a necessary means to our end of opposing the Taliban" read Steve Coll's book Ghost Wars? Because I just finished it last night, and if Coll's demonstrated anything, he's demonstrated that you're better off using dianetics in Afghanistan than you are using Pakistan.

You can only try the "means to an end" thing so often before realizing that, in fact, your chosen means isn't getting you anywhere near your chosen end. Farther away, in fact.

If you think Coll's full of it, I'd like to hear why.

Let's see what we have so far in this thread. Pakistan is either being betrayed by its leader, Gen. Musharraf, with the connivance of the Bush administration; OR it is being held together by his able leadership and we, the US, are doing all we can to help him. Furthermore, there is debate (mystifyingly) about whether or not Pakistan, under any form of leadership, would benefit from a stable democratic neighbor in Afghanistan.

To those who think restoring what passed for democracy in Pakistan is all that matters, and that the US should stand up to Musharraf, I ask which of the presidential contenders will come closer to pushing toward that end. Go ahead, take your time. I mean, Kerry has admitted (for now) that even Saddam Hussein could have been tolerated. I'm wondering what big stick he would have wielded against a guy who has been accused of no human rights violations (save, of course, in Kashmir) and who singlehandedly prevented a nuclear state from sliding into anarchy, which would almost certainly have resulted in the rise to power of an Islamicist government.

Okay, now to the question of Afghanistan and Pakistan. erg challenges my characterization of modern South Asia, using the dreaded Saidean "I'm a native" defense. You're assuming since I use an Anglo moniker that I am not, likewise, a "native." You happen to be correct, but I am still not ceding the point.

You say categorically that Pakistan has more in common with India than it has with Afghanistan. That's true, but it's less true today than it was fifty years ago, and barring radical reforms within Pakistani society, it'll be even less true in the near future. Pakistan's instability and lawlessness are rooted in the parts of the country bordering on and most closely related to, you guessed it, Afghanistan. The problems of one are therefore unresolvable without successful simultaneous reform in the other country.

Problems like female literacy, which you claim is not so bad as I make out in Pakistan. Well, what does the UN say about female literacy in the three countries? Afghanistan fares worst (big surprise) with literacy for girls in the 5-7% range. But Pakistan is close behind with estimates ranging from 10 to 20%; Indian girls do much better, with a near 50% rate but, there's a caveat! Muslim girls have a much much lower rate (how low? I read so many different figures it's impossible to know).

Well, so what, I can hear some of you say? The point is that Musharraf has a better shot (especially if he has a good relationship with the US president) at turning these numbers around than do any of his rivals. He's interested in the sort of long-term reforms they never had the clout or the inclination to pursue. We can help make it so, and should because it's in our best interests too.

Are we making a deal with the devil here? Sort of, but it's the best offer we've got, and Bush is enough of a realist to take it. And what's more, so is PM Singh of India, set to restart negotiations with the guy.

Bush has managed to do something no American president has ever accomplished: simultaneously improved relations with BOTH major power players on the Subcontinent and the (formerly) minor ones like Afghanistan. Any honest South Asia watcher should be impressed. I doubt Kerry would do half so well.

Yep. And if the Jews had really wanted to end the holocaust -- if millions of Jews had been willing to lay it on the line to end the holocaust -- Hitler would have been toast.

Duh. Really, the left just gets dumber every day.

Explain how this--or the point made above about Saddam's rule--is fundamentally different from Rumsfeld's blithe assurance that sooner or later, when the Iraqi people get tired of being killed, things will get better in Iraq.

Rumsfeld pointed to an uncomfortable truth, namely that a major factor in the end of many wars is simple exhaustion. That's how the Bosnian war ended; for that matter, that's largely how the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s ended. It's most likely why the much discussed domino theory in Southeast Asia ended up being disproven.

It's fair enough to argue that Rumsfeld, whose responsibility this largely is, could have done a better job of preventing the conditions for civil strife in Iraq from arising in the first place. But now that the strife is well underway it could be that he is exactly right about how it is most likely to end.

Kelli, sometimes we have to deal with the devil --- but shouldn't we at least insist on getting something out of the deal? Or do we just give our souls away for free?

For 25 years, Pakistan has pursued its own policy in Afghanistan, without any real concern for American interests. Why should we believe that the people who enabled the Taliban are now all fluffy and liberal? Why should we believe that Musharraf, whatever his personal inclinations may be, has the power over his generals to break with radical Islamists? Why should Pakistan want to see a democratized Afghanistan when that will put increased pressure on Pakistan to democratize itself, with the risk of a Taliban-like party's winning the elections?

As for Bush's supposedly great relations with Pakistan, he's achieved them the same way his predecessors have: by giving the Paks whatever they want, while turning a blind eye to their nuclear ambitions and their aid to nuclear proliferation around the world. I'd prefer bad relations to that scenario. Hell, if we were going to invade somebody after Afghanistan, Pakistan made a lot more sense.

But the real questions here are perhaps more general: whether "security or democracy" is a real dichotomy; whether security has to precede democracy; and whether America's security is better protected, in the short run at least, by emphasizing security over democracy in places like Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If, as commenters here seem to think, John Kerry believes that security has to come first, I don't see what's so obviously wrong about that. Our democracy itself depends on a basic level of security, and democratization begins at home.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned (or maybe I missed it?) that US support for Musharraf is quite similar, in some ways, to US support for the Shah of Iran in the 70s. And we all know how that ended, don't we?

I was disappointed to read that Zathras seems to truly believe that the presence of 120,000 troops in Iraq is conclusive evidence of our administration's commitment to promoting democracy.

The troops aren't there to promote democracy. The troops are there to prevent the insurgents and the terrorists from taking over Iraq. The troops are there to stabilize the country not for democracy's sake, but for America's sake. That's not necessarily a bad goal, but one should be honest about it, at least.

Does anybody here sincerely believe that we wouldn't accept the installation of a Putin/Musharraf/Shah-like ruler in Iraq, if he seemed capable of keeping the insurgents and the terrorists at bay? In fact, I think that's the most likely "positive" outcome conceivable at this point. And I think Iraqis realize that, too, so they are likely to vote for some "strong man" who will quickly do away with most democratic principles before they can even be considered to have been established.

Hasn't anyone noticed that Bush actually *did* speak up on Russia?

"President George W. Bush said Wednesday he had expressed concern to Russian President Vladimir Putin about "decisions being made in Russia that could undermine democracy."

"Great countries, great democracies have a balance of power between central government and local governments," Bush said at the White House.

"As governments fight the enemies of democracy, they must uphold the principles of democracy."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/15/russia.bush/

One of the most frustrating things about big media is the tendency to let a running storyline overwhelm the actual facts. Its annoying to see it in the blogosphere as well. Bush has spoken up about Russia, he hasn't treated it as just an internal matter, but everyone still just cites the Kagan op-ed as it was still up to date, all because it fits the "Bush not serious/consistent about democracy" storyline.

Anderson,

You ask if the people who fed and nurtured the Taliban can be trusted today. Hell no. You point out that Bush has "bought off" Pakistan. True. But is there really nothing for us in return? Just where have all the high value AQ grabs taken place these past three years? Miami?

Musharraf is not warm or fuzzy, but he hasn't made a glaring misstep since coming to office. That's gotta be some kind of record for post-independence Pakistan!

And I repeat, it is a MAJOR accomplishment for the US to have good relations with BOTH India and Pakistan. Everyone bemoans the death of the MidEast Peace Process, but it died because we, the broker, were the only ones left talking. In South Asia we have a chance to play a positive role and, go figure, are doing so successfully (but quietly, much to the Bush campaign's regret I would guess).

I think it's a mistake to look at the march to democracy as a straight shot. It's a very loopy, tortured process--was for us in the West too.

Musharraf is not the Shah. We thought the Shah had a lock on the hearts of his people; he didn't. No one thinks that of Musharraf. Ironically, it is precisely because his legitimacy is in question at home and abroad that he might succeed. He has no inflated sense of his own invulnerability, not much wiggle room with his allies, and precious little standing between him and his enemies. In short, he hasn't enough rope with which to hang himself, and we're all the better off for it.

*It is a neocon dream to lure everyone with a beef against America across the unprotected Iraqi borders and into an Iraqi killing field.*

Can't agree. The pre-invasion sales job was spun as a quick, decisive regime change from a murderous dictatorship to a peaceful democracy. The neo-cons may claim to approve of the results, but the fact that this "regime change" has become a seemingly endless battle against terrorists was by defect, not by design.

I don't know. I think I'd rather be fighting the terrorists in the US than in Iraq.
Because: a) in the US there is a functioning police force that would be unequivocally on our side and wouldn't run away or join the terrorists as soon as they got into a contact; b) the US population would be essentially all on our side as well, making additional recruitment/support pretty sparse, and meaning lots of tipoffs about terrorist activity which we could follow up; c) I'd be living in a comfortable barracks block or police station somewhere instead of in a dump with no electricity or running water; d) logistics would be a lot easier; e) the existence of cross-border refuges for terrorists is a lot less likely in Canada than it is in Iran; f) morale and retention of troops would be a lot easier if they could see that they were fighting an actual threat to their homes rather than a bunch of ragged insurgents halfway round the world; g) better R&R; h) beer; i) it's unlikely that our supply convoys would keep getting hit by massive ambushes on I-90; j) mail might get to the troops rather quicker; k) better fast-food options; l) less heatstroke and dysentery; m) troops could concentrate on fighting rather than spending time protecting infrastructure repair projects, because the US infrastructure is basically OK, certainly by Iraqi standards; n) no need for spending time on hearts and minds outreach - the population really would welcome us with open arms if there were thousands of jihadis running around major US cities - so that's another distraction out the way; o) much better medical support much closer at hand... do I have to go on?

Plus, as I'm British, it would put the terrorists a lot further away from my home and loved ones than they are at the moment.

Kelli, in the particular case of Pakistan, you may turn out to be right. If the current administration gets another 4 years, I'll have to cross my fingers & pray you're right.

But see today's NYT:

Bush tried to nudge Pakistan into "moving forward with democratic institutions," but did not press Musharraf to keep his promise, the U.S. official said. * * *

The two leaders also talked about how to stamp out the last remnants of the network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program who admitted in February to passing nuclear technology to other countries.

But Bush did not press Musharraf to allow U.S. agents to interview Khan, a point of contention that has irritated the American side.Sigh. I guess there's so much plutonium sitting around in Russia, I shouldn't be worried about rogue (?) Pakistani officers helping al-Qaeda nuke the U.S. But I am. And I would much rather see Khan handed over to the U.S. than see elections this year in Pakistan. If that makes me an enemy of democracy, okay, I'm an enemy of democracy.

Ajay,

Wow, fighting terrorism at home sounds like FUN! Why didn't anyone else think of this?

Anderson,

I may be right? Holy sh*t. Let's hope. Oh, by the way, you're an enemy of democracy.

Kelli, could you clarify your own position on the spreading of democracy and how desirable/important that is? Please reconcile your response with your statement that it's good that Musharraf's legitimacy is in question.

Please also address whether a freely elected government that turns out to be pro-"islamofascist" and anti-American would be better (in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, wherever) than an authoritarian government that is US friendly.

One thing I increasingly note is that an anti-American stance becomes a natural and sensible political stance for many people in the countries mentioned above (and others). So we shouldn't really be surprised if more democracy ends up leading to more anti-Americanism rather than less. ("But we are the ones who brought them democracy!" Perhaps, but we'll be perceived and remembered as the ones who killed and tortured their parents, brothers and sisters and even their children.)

'a guy [Musharaff] who has been accused of no human rights violations (save, of course, in Kashmir) '

Actually, thats not correct. Even internally, there have been human rights abuses under Musharaff. They are not extensive, but they hasve happened.

'and who singlehandedly prevented a nuclear state from sliding into anarchy, which would almost certainly have resulted in the rise to power of an Islamicist government.'

Musharaff didn't exactly step bravely into an anarchic fray. He overthrew a democratically elected, relatively stable goverment, and would probably have arrested the previous PM if not for Western pressure. And FWIW, I think the threat of anarchy in Pakistan is overdone. The country has survived numerous coups, assasinations etc. before.

And lets not forget that Musharaff was directly responsible for starting the only war to date between 2 nuclear powered nations. That could well have led to millions of deaths. Even after 9/11 he continued to support Kashmiri terrorists, running the danger of provoking another war, and even leading the Indian government to deploy troops on the border.

' Pakistan's instability and lawlessness are rooted in the parts of the country bordering on and most closely related to, you guessed it, Afghanistan.'

I disagree. Ask any indepdent South Asia observer what is most important to setting Pakistan on the road to democracy, and hardly any will point to the tribal areas (which have histrically had very little Government supervision) or even to Afghanistan. The number one issue, which overshadows all else is India, relations with India and Kashmir.

'Problems like female literacy, which you claim is not so bad as I make out in Pakistan.'

That was not my point. I was responding to a claim that a democratic Afghanistan would nudge Pakistan out of its dicatorial ways, and would encourage giving more power to women etc. But Pakistan already has a functioning democracy next door, already has highly educated women. They don't need encouragement from Afghanistan.

'Bush has managed to do something no American president has ever accomplished: simultaneously improved relations with BOTH major power players on the Subcontinent '

Bush has not improved relations with India. It was Clinton who was responsible for that, largely aided by the fact that the Indian government started liberalizing, and cold-war era politics no longer made Pakistan a key US ally. But Clinton was enormously popular in India when he visited it too.

'Any honest South Asia watcher should be impressed. '

Not really. If Clinton or Bush Senior had been wiling to spend $3B on building good relations with pakistan, they could have achieved it. It also bears noting that the populace in Pakistan is quite anti-American (the war in Iraq being a major reason). Try reading a Pakistani daily, even a sober English language one, and you'll see a lot of anti-Americanism. It does no good to have fine relations with Musharaff only if the rest of the country doesn't feel that way.

That being said, I do give the Bush administration and the State Dept., credit for calming tensions between India and Pakistan. I give them no credit for making the calming of Pakistan far harder with the Iraq war. [ I give Clinton credit too for defusing the war of 1999. ]

'I doubt Kerry would do half so well.'

Well, Kerry does have a little problem in India. Unlike almost every other country, India seems to split 1/3rd Kerry, 1/3rd Bush, 1/3rd undecided according to a recent poll on whom they would favor as Prsident. Still, even with his anti-outsourcing rhetoric, Kerry is even with Bush in India. There's no reason to assume a good Kerry Diplomatic team would do any worse.

Fairness demands that RD's point (that Bush did speak out about Putin's power grab in Russia) be acknowledged. I would prefer he had done so sooner and in stronger language, and believe a White House dinner with Yavlinsky and other Yabloko leaders would send a fine signal. But it is not correct to say that Bush has been silent.

What is clear is that there are limits to the price Bush (or any other American President) will be willing to pay to promote democracy in a large country where we have other interests and limited leverage. There is a popular school of thought that believes promoting democracy even in places where our efforts are unlikely to succeed is necessary for us to be true to ourselves as Americans, that other objectives are unworthy, and that failure at all times to clearly subordinate them to the promotion of democracy indicates at best insincerity and at worst malignancy of character. In my view this school of thought comes dangerously close to looking on America as a church, not a nation.

A church fights moral battles because it must, because that is what it is commanded to do. A nation does well to fight the battles it can win. Representative democracy is hard; it is exceptional in human history for that reason. It is sometimes within the power of the United States to allow it to grow, sometimes in places where few had thought it possible. But there are many situations where improving foreign cultures and government is beyond our abilities. All we accomplish by mortgaging our interests to the promotion of democracy in places where democracy may be a prospect only for the distant future is to make ourselves feel good.

The price we pay for that good feeling can be measured in men and money, but in something else as well. It isn't wrong to seek for another country a government less bad than what it would have without our influence, even if it is not as good as what we are accustomed to. We reduce our chances to bring such governments into being if we arouse unrealistic expectations as to what we are prepared to do to create Western-style liberal democracies -- or if we describe our objectives in terms so alien to foreign societies that the people we are seeking to influence simply do not believe us. In Iraq today I fear we are doing both.

Democracy begins at home?

So, what about Japan? Not to say that the situation in Iraq is similar, but the Japanese Constitution was written and imposed by Americans. It has never been amended, and Japan doesn't seem to be doing too poorly with regards to democracy and such.

Besides, why don't all those Palestinians overthrow Israel?

Oh, wait. Somebody invented the machine gun and the tank. I suppose all those stone throwing peasants are going to overthrow Saddam. And his tanks.

Chechens? Who are they? Oh wait, 25% of them are dead. But they are free, right? Oh, wait. Maybe not. Maybe Putin will simply kill any of them who mount a serious resistance.

The US Constitution? That's democracy, right? Oh, wait. It wasn't ratified by all the colonies. So, the dissenters just kept doing business the old way, right? Oh, wait...

Security over democracy? How many people have died from terrorism on US soil since 9/11?

Seems like domestic security has worked pretty well. Not to say we couldn't improve it, but don't act like its been sacrificied to go gallivanting around the world.

As for Iraq, the whole process is way too fast. It will take a lot longer than two years for things to settle there. A continued US presence is important.

Might be expensive, but so are all the old people. Its too bad they couldn't take the time to plan for a way to support themselves. Although, the aren't doing too bad, living off other's work. Cause like, you know, all the money in SS comes from those years they spent working, right?

Our tacit policy toward post-Soviet Russia has been to make it as weak and non-threatening as possible (as Havel said, better a sick Russia than a healthy Soviet Union).

That won't cut it anymore. A sick Russia means a WMD candystore that, via Dubai and other preferred Russian mafiya havens, can supply neighboring jihadists and their sponsors in Tehran. As Iran goes nuclear, we *desperately* need an effective Russia, which means first and foremost a coherent, effective Russian state. Democracy is the least of our concerns regarding Russia now.

Kagan's article was absurd. The spraqling collection of bandit fiefdoms that is today's RF has next to no chance of being truly democratic in our lifetime. Or even capitalist, for that matter. (Hint: you can't have capitalism without a real banking system. Nearly all Russian savings are either sent abroad or stuffed under mattresses). To argue that our first task is helping Russia become democratic is like suggesting one's first priority for a neighbor who's self-destructive, armed to the teeth and drunk to the gills is to convert him to evangelical christianity.

Bottom line: Russia is a failing state; they've got nukes, the nukes are unsecured, and they're right next to Iran. Pakistan North, if you like, only with white faces and black shirts, and the traitorous security services are called FSB instead of ISI.

In fact, most of the FSU is failing (and in Ukraine's case, already failed). The big problem for Russia, hence for anyone who deeply cares about containing a nuclear Iran, is that the Russian state is not only criminalized but colossally incompetent: it cannot raise a halfway effective army, collect taxes, pay pensions, pass laws or enforce them, protect the borders, put down a mickey mouse rebellion in the heart of Russia, or secure the nukes. At the current rate of self-destruction, this collapsing state is likely to revert to a functioning Muscovite core surrounded by bandit fiefdoms to the north, east and south, and with a separate Chinese-dominated puppet region beyond the Urals and in the Far East. The only thing propping it up is $40/bbl oil.

We desperately need Putin to succeed. And that means 1) reining in the criminalized and incompetent elements in the FSB; 2) restoring some coherence and competence to the Russian Armed Forces; 3) using the security services to secure the WMD stocks, control the borders and crack down on the islamized insurgency in Chechnya, Dagestan and elsewhere.

And we need to buy off his nuclear industry ($5-6B should do the trick) and arms export industries and offer any and all WTO fast-track and other carrots (access to US markets post-Nov for Russian steel, investment guarantees for XOM, ChevronT etc to develop Sakhalin and other reserves, etc) needed to seal the deal.

If Russia fails, we're screwed. Stabilize Russia an d secure the nukes first. Worry about democracy later. Much later.

"Aha, I see it now. A Democratic India next door for 60 years, with a similar ethnic background (and India has more Muslims than Pakistan), a legacy of democracy from British Rule hasn't brought stable democracy to Pakistan. "

Oh, I'm sorry. I could have sworn India and Pakistan have gone to war half a dozen times in the last 50 years. I seem to remember one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world being between them. Maybe that has something to do with it? And Pakistan has at least had some experience with democracy which is better than their Arab brethren can claim. To compare India's influence on Pakistan compared to the much more culturally entertwined Afghanistan is absurd. As your say, get real.

'Oh, I'm sorry. I could have sworn India and Pakistan have gone to war half a dozen times in the last 50 years. I seem to remember one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world being between them.'

Just curious, but what do you think the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is like --- a bed of roses ? And there are good roads, bus services, even plane services between India and Pakistan. Unilike Afgahnistan. Until quite recently, outside of Kashmir, it was not unusual for certain familiies to have some members in border Indian villages and bordern Pakistani villages.

' To compare India's influence on Pakistan compared to the much more culturally entertwined Afghanistan is absurd. As your say, get real.'

Anyone who claims that Afghanistan is "much more culturally enterwined" with Pakistan than India clearly lacks any knowledge whatsover of South Asia. Other than a few border provinces (most of which have been historically largely indepdent from Pakistan, and have rarely had Pakistani army troops there), the cultural affinity between India and Pakistan is much greater. The cultural and political elite of Pakistan come from Punjab. the Sindh and the like, areas with heavy ties to India, not from Afghani border provinces. Mushraff himself used to live in India and on one trip to India recently actually visited his old home and his old nurse there.

Indian movies and film stars are very popular in Pakistan. Indian TV channels are popular in Pakistan, and Pakistani channels are shown in India. Both counries share and compete in common sports like field hockey and cricket (cricket stars are very well known on both sides of the border). India and Pakistan also share common languages (by contrast, only a few tribal people in Pakistan speak the language of Afghanistan, i.e. Pashtu).

It need hardly be added that Pakistan like India, has many of the legacies of British rule, including heavy use of English etc.

The point I was making is that its completely absurd to assume that nascent democratic steps in Afghanistan are going to have a big influence on Pakistani democracy internally, when a large functioning democracy next door has not. I will point out that Pakistani papers did bemoan the ease with which India changed governments recently democratically, compared to the messy process that Pakistan always goes through -- so its not like rivalry with India has made responsible Pakistanis also shun democracy.

We can't afford that. Didn't you hear, Iraq is important enough to spend $200 billion plus on, but Nunn-Lugar nuclear non-proliferation is not important and should not be funded fully.

I had thought that actually condemning Putin's actions would count as something more than a non-response. (Don't you read the newspapers any more? Bush said "I'm also concerned about the decisions that are being made in Russia that could undermine democracy in Russia.")

And I'm not sure what the criticism is supposed to be on Pakistan. "Democracy" as used generically in political discussion isn't usually thought to mean just that. It means a system of limited government, accountable to the people, providing ordered liberty. That's the goal, not simply giving people what they want at a particular moment in time. The question for the Bush administration regarding Musharraf is whether his continuing in office promotes those goals or not. It isn't whether a majority of Pakistanis want him to continue in office at a particular moment in time.

Well Dan your "p. 0.6 candidate" is now suggesting that Bush has a secret plan to reinstate the draft if re-elected. I wonder if his old campaign team or new campaign team told him to come up with that absurdity. I've also noticed I don't hear much about the "competence" meme from you these days. I wonder why?

At least he will (probably) win Illinois, so you won't have to be the only one in that polling station pulling the donkey lever.

Sigh.

erg - Very interesting post in response to Mark Buehner. Another area that Mr. B. doesn't quite grasp is evident in this statement from his post. "And Pakistan has at least had some experience with democracy which is better than their Arab brethren can claim." Pakistanis, along with Afghans and Iranians, are not Arabs.

Jon J,

We can't afford that. Didn't you hear, Iraq is important enough to spend $200 billion plus on, but Nunn-Lugar nuclear non-proliferation is not important and should not be funded fully.

Necessary but far from sufficient. A band aid, really. The real problem goes much deeper: again, post-Soviet Russia is a failing state. No amount of non-prolif money will overcome the core problem of a criminalized FSB, a criminalized state generally, a criminalized economy.

btw Dubai is just across the Gulf from the Iranians' nuke facilities. Dubai, you may recall, is Mafiya Tsentral. The candy store is wide open, and a few billions more for Nunn-Lugar won't close it again.

Zathras (regarding your 9:57 9/21 post) You state," ... to accuse the administration of being insincere about promoting democracy is an extremely silly charge even for campaign season."

How do you explain the fact that the orignal plans for Iraq included "installing" Chalabi as the leader of Iraq. You are well informed. You must know that Rumsfeld trained, and equipped 700 of Chalabis INC supporters. That he wanted to do more but the army balked, claiming that resources were needed for US soldiers. In fact, during recent senate testimony, Rumsfeld stated that he had hoped to train and equip more of the INC Iraqis prior to going into Iraq. Further, the US military transported Chalabi and his US equipped cronies into the region when the initial push started. There also also numerous quotes from Cheney, which stopped after the latest Chalabi charges related to spying for Iran, saying that 'this mess wouldn't have happened if we had installed Chalabi like we planned.'

So, yes, I think a reasonable person can clearly doubt the sincerity of the Bush Admin relating to the promotion of democracy in Iraq. Democracy was a fall-back rationale. Democracy promotion was not a planned strategy, it was a half assed, cobbled together idea after things didn't happen as planned.

Speaking of India and Pakistan -- I've noticed that the senior diplomats, spokesmen, and politicians (India) and generals (Pakistan) tend to speak with very similar accents. I at least cannot distinguish between their accents at all. I suppose its a byproduct of the public school systems in each country, which apes the Brits.

God Bless the British Empire. If the American Pax Imperium can last half as long before the Chinese Empire takes over, I'll be thrilled.

hmm I think that bush may be picking his fights.

I do agree with you that putin is bad, but i think that bush may be waiting till he has somthing a little more tangable than a power grab.

if they term limits gets overturned, i bet bush comes out against it.

Bush II doesn't care about democracy in Russia any more than he cares about democracy in Iraq -- or in Turkey, or in the US, for that matter.

Bush II doesn't care about democracy in Russia any more than Bush I did back in 1990, when a neo-Stalinist coup tried to overthrow Gorbachev. Bush I Admin officials did absolutely *nothing* then -- no, I take it back. Bush I Admin officials did do something: they announced that the US would recognize the neo-Stalinists as the legitimate Soviet Government.

Contrast that with the second attempted coup a few years later, when Clinton was in office. The Clinton Admin publicly announced its support for the democratically-elected Yeltsin, and said it would withhold diplomatic recognition of a coup-imposed government.

Anyone who thinks the Bush Family cares about democratic governments has been out in the sun too long without a hat.

Matthew Cromer: Well Dan your "p. 0.6 candidate" is now suggesting that Bush has a secret plan to reinstate the draft if re-elected. I wonder if his old campaign team or new campaign team told him to come up with that absurdity.

The "absurdity" is all on your end. Kerry was asked by someone in the audience in Florida whether he thought that Bush might bring back the draft, and he replied:

If George Bush were to be reelected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you.

Our eminently competent media are putting all sorts of funny headlines on this newly identified story - "Kerry raises spectre of a return of the draft" and even, completely unwarranted, "Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush" (from ABC News, no less - but the quote of what he said is identical to the quote above).

But I just realized that you must be conflating two separate news stories - the "secret plan" story (and these are again words the media put in Kerry's mouth) is already a few days old and refers to the anticipated call-up of more reservists and National Guard units after the election. Kerry didn't just make this up either - it comes straight from John Murtha, D-PA, the "top Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and a former Marine who served in Vietnam".

It's quite interesting to see that now that Kerry is taking firmer stances on the issues the right-wingers are immediately coming out to distort them in all sorts of ways. David Brooks' piece in the Times yesterday was particularly amazing.

CaseyL,

Bush II doesn't care about democracy in Russia any more than Bush I did back in 1990, when a neo-Stalinist coup tried to overthrow Gorbachev. Bush I Admin officials did absolutely *nothing* then...

Contrast that with the second attempted coup a few years later, when Clinton was in office. The Clinton Admin publicly announced its support for the democratically-elected Yeltsin, and said it would withhold diplomatic recognition of a coup-imposed government.

What on earth are you blathering about? There was no "neo-Stalinist coup" in 1990. The only attempted coup in that period was on August 18, 1991, while Gorbachev was on holiday in the Crimea.

Also, neither Yeltsin nor Gorbachev was committed to democracy, so favoring these men hardly constitutes political bravery. Gorbachev ordered the slaughter of 15 peaceful Lithuanian protestors in Jan 1991. Yeltsin presided over the criminalization of the state, the piratization of Russia's national assets, and a vast and unconstitutional expansion in presidential power. Both of these non-democrats were fabulously incompetent and are reviled today by large majorities of Russians, especially Gorbachev.

For some bizarre reason, that bumbling fool Gorbachev, who presided over the Soviet Union's humiliating and total collapse, is still viewed by western leftists as some kind of great white social democratic hope. Nonsense: there is no social democratic or trade union or workers' movement of any size or coherence to speak of in Russia, and has not been since the Civil War of the last century.

Your parochialism and misunderstanding of Russia are typically American. The truth is that neither Bush 41 nor Clinton had much impact on Russia's tortured development. Russia is not and must not be viewed as yet another reflection of parochial American domestic disputes.

Yes, I got the year wrong. Doesn't matter. It was a group of neo-Stalinists, and Bush I said he'd happy to recognize them.

Gorbachev was the one who let the Cold War end, and the Soviet Empire, with nary a shot fired.

You can say Reagan had him backed into a corner, but any other Soviet Premier (say, Brezhnev) would have sent the tanks rolling rather than lose the Warsaw Pact countries. Maybe you're too young to remember, but I remember watching the borders open, the Soviet Empire peacefully dissolve, with something like awe.

The Soviet Union was the nation's bogeyman for most of the first half of my life: it would always be around, always be the world's other geopolitical pole. No one ever thought it would end with less than a bang; most people thought it could only end with a holocaust of some sort. The nuclear nightmare was real.

And it ended the way it did because of Gorbachev. He deserves every bit of gratitude and admiration he gets.

Again, Gorbachev did indeed fire shots. He is personally responsible for the cold-blooded murder of 15 Lithuanians in 1991.

You can say Reagan had him backed into a corner

I can and will, because top Soviet officials (from the USA-Canada Institute and other top policy thinktank equivalents) believe this, and told me so in 1991-1992.

I would recommend that you travel to Russia (and get outside of StP or Moscow/Babylon) and see the utter devastation wrought upon that country by communist misrule, the legacy of which today is the complete absence of anything like an effective civil society to fill the gap left by the rotten, criminalized state's collapse. Any Russian you talk to will give you an earful about how Gorby and Yeltsin bear a large part of the blame for Russia's utter humiliation. Gorbachev spends most of his time among gullible westerners because he is universally loathed and scorned in his home country.

When the oil price crashes again, Russia will crash. And this time AQ and Iran's other proxies will look to exploit the opportunity. (Think: dirty nukes + containers = nuclear strike on a US port.) Democracy in Russia is all but irrelevant to the above.

What makes you think I'm defending 70 years of Soviet rule? I'm not. You've gone down quite a tangent from my original point, which was simply that neither Bush is interested in democracy.

As to the consequences if Russia "crashes," all I can say is "Gee, isn't it a shame that thanks to Bush, we're in no position to do much about that."

I note that AQ has now been designated "Iran's proxy" in the neo-con mind. Apparently the neo-cons are getting their ducks in a row to justify military action in Iran. I'm still wondering what army you guys plan on using for that.

I'm still wondering what army you guys plan on using for that.

The one that's right next door, right now. (Sure, people will be rotated in and out, but a lot of the logistics is in place already.)

After the elections (both US and Iraq), some event in Iran will be played up instead of (as so far) played down. Then Iraq will be portrayed as basically in charge of its own fate now and Iran will be portrayed as the new "not-quite-imminent-but-could-become-real-imminent-real-soon" threat. Hey, maybe the newly elected puppet government in Iraq will even _request_ American assistance in pre-emptively "defending" itself against the "gathering threat" next door.

I actually consider the above scenario to have a likelihood of less than 50 %, but I think it is becoming more and more likely. And if it happens, it will definitely happen relatively soon (fall or winter of 2005), because it will take the Republicans some time to recover from the public backlash when they also screw up Iran and to build the case for electing yet another one of theirs in 2008.

I really hate posting on threads that have expired, but gw asked some good, direct questions and if no one else reads it but him/her it'll be worth writing.

gw,

You ask how I reconcile my advocacy of spreading democracy with the remark about it being good to question Musharraf's rule. Simple: because he is on rather tenuous ground--having been "elected" but after the fact of his coup and by referrendum only--he does NOT have complete freedom of movement, but rather must act within fairly limiting parameters. In other words, he can't fuck up TOO badly because he'll be attacked from all sides. This has its problems: he cannot hope to purge the country of terrorist or Islamofascist elements, nor can he attack all of the corruption and societal sclerosis that keeps Pakistan impoverished. But it has its good sides too: he must keep on good terms with the US because (among other reasons) we share mortal enemies AND his country is bankrupt. He has to keep Pakistanis more or less content with his rule--no easy task, given the divisions there. He is like a graduate student who has to meet periodically with advisors to prove that she is getting her work done. Without those review sessions, it's just too easy to get sidetracked.

But as far as the desirability of democracy over other possible systems (benign dictatorship, for instance) I would make just one point. People want democracy but mistakenly believe the process itself will magically "throw up" great leaders. When it does not, they tend to become disillusioned. I would say that, in a nutshell is the heart of the crisis in Russia today. One need only compare it to neighboring Georgia, where originally "democracy" only threw up Scheverdnaze (no one was too impressed) but then gave them Shaakashvili, who people were willing to go the mat for.

Right now in Iraq we're not sure what "leadership" a democratic election might give, so we're (rightly) nervous. But in Afghanistan, the first free and fair election ever looks likely to return Karzai to office because he offers true leadership.

Democracy doesn't always give us leaders(e.g. Sharif and Bhutto in Pakistan). And sometimes leaders come to power undemocratically. Flexibility and principle are key. Its not cut and dried. But that's my take anyway.

erg,

We turn out to not be so very far apart after all. Look forward to next time.

lex,

Awesome.

Casey,

Neither Clinton nor Gore took democracy in Russia seriously. I will remind you of Gore's famous response to the CIA report documenting Prime Minister Chernomyrdin's massive corruption (he owned a big chunk of Gazprom, which controls about a third of world natural gas reesrves). note that Gore just recently gave a speech in St Pete praising and justifying Putin's latest move toward dictatorship. So much for the Dems' love of democracy promotion in Russia.

I know you're off on your anti-Bush screed, but if you look at this objectively it's pretty hard to come to the conclusion that Gore and Clinton have not been more, not less, ruthlessly realpolitik and anti-democratic than the Bush pere and fils.

"Gore and Clinton have not been more, not less, ruthlessly realpolitik and anti-democratic than the Bush pere and fils."

(Sound of coffee spraying at high velocity across the room)

Jeez, Lex! Warn a girl before you come up with comedy gold like that one!

The level of knowledge of South Asia on this comments section is abysmal, apart from erg.

PK is culturally much closer to India than AFGH. Democracy in AFGH will have little to no impact on PK, other than in FATA.

US support of Mush-man is demoralazing to Pakistani Liberals and democrats, of which there are a lot. It contributes greatly to the (correct?) impression that the US prefers a pliable dictator that abuses the population to a democraticlly elected leader.

Mushurraf was the man behind Kargil, sabotoging democratically elected Nawaz Sharif's attempts at making peace with India. He is not "the last best hope for peace".

And finaly, there are plenty of potential secular and mildly religious political leaders in PK to replace Musharraf. I continue to be amazed by how Americans with next to no knowledge of Pakistani domestic politics espouse such firm and wildly incorrect opinions. Kelli, Mark Beuhner?