Isn't this different?

Submitted by David (Poland), Apr 18, 2004 at 12:50

You may be right - I am sure you have a deeper insight into Arab and Muslim culture than most. But I would have to think that neither the British nor - especially - Napoleon was committed to democracy, freedom and other values that the US holds dear.

It may be the case that Iraqis are simply not interested in democracy. Or maybe they do not understand it fully, and over time will come to understand and appreciate the benfits. (Judging by the media's portarayal of democracy as one man = one vote, but ignoring other key elements of democracy such as protection of minorities, separation of powers, rule of law, etc., its hard to understand how they could). Or possibly the majority of Iraqis do understand and want democracy, but are being cowed into their current behaviour by a lack of confidence in the ability to sustain democracy and the tactics of various militant groups.

What do you think is the possibility that either of the second two explanations may be correct, notwithstanding the sentiments expressed in your artcile? Do you concede that the American attmept to democratise Iraq is different from any other invasion and therefore COULD succeed where others have failed?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".