Comments on: Middle East Democracy Meets Middle East Craziness

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:35:03 +0000

Since when have brutal dictatorships been particularly amenable to logic and reason? All they care about it power: keeping it and expanding it. One doesn’t need to be the smartest, most logical cookie in order to be a ruthlessly successful dictator. Witness Kim Jong-Il.

Installing brutal dictatorships is just playing Russian Roulette with a fully-loaded gun. Which is why a partition of Iraq, if it comes to that, is probably the best remaining solution.

By: Roach

Roach — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:10:56 +0000

He was, but, unlike his neighbors, he proved far less rational and far less amenable to ordinary incentives as demonstrated by his refusal to withdraw from Kuwait in 1990. He also began to seek operational alliances with Islamic terrorists more and more as he became isolated in the late 1990s.

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:40:15 +0000

“Brutal, anti-jihadist dictatorships…” Wasn’t that Saddam Hussein at one time?

By: reagan80

reagan80 — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:23:20 +0000

I used to be one of the administration’s “true believers” when it came to this democracy experiment in the Middle East, but I’m getting very, very cynical and worried now. I fear that we’re going to inevitably lose this war because of these Wilsonian policies.

Installing brutal, anti-jihadist dictatorships in the region might be the next most humane option that we have if this thing in Iraq completely falls apart.