Consider what Iraq was, not simply in A.D. March 2003, but in 2003 B.C. Both historical frames provide instructive lessons in the obvious. Iraq, as ancient Mesopotamia (the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers), seeded Abraham's Ur and Hammurabi's Babylon. The region was the Eden of city-states, the consolidator and exporter of the Agricultural Revolution. It is also the center of a predominantly Muslim region where -- to paraphrase historian Bernard Lewis -- something "went wrong." Lewis was addressing the "fossilization" that began to afflict the Middle East at least six centuries ago, a cultural, intellectual and, yes, political ossification and decline.
Yeah when you really think of it, the Iraq area had a big head start over other civilizations which took the lead over it in terms of development. It seems that the only really advancing Muslim empire that I can think of at the moment was the Ottoman Empire, and that peaked in the 16th Century or so before lingering on in its shell for the next few centuries. This was also interesting from the article:
In January 2003, I argued that toppling Saddam's tyranny in Iraq would do two things: begin the process of fostering political choice (democracy) in the Middle East and bring al-Qaida onto a battlefield not of its choosing.
This is a very positive way of looking at it, an analysis which you couldn't buy these days in the main stream American media. Unfortunately, I wonder if it is more difficult to help instill the desire for democracy in the Middle East than it is to place that choice before them.
instill [/i] the desire for democracy in the Middle East than it is to place that choice before them.
I would say the latter because there are many strong forces against it and trying to prevent that from happening. It's not the majority of the population, it's the power that certain groups possess (just look at their media influence!). IMO, the desire for democracy is shared by most. There's a lot of evidence of that.