“Let ask you something Gellian…what made you think that the US could turn a Muslim country with a thousand year old civilization of it’s own into a western style democracy by militarily invading it?”
Bingo. That’s the magic question, and the answer is: Germany post-WW2.
Let me explain before everyone shoots me down. We live in an age in which Holocaust ‘remembrance’ and ‘never again’ have become litmus-test mantras, and the idea that liberating a country from their own tyrannical leader is considered a good thing. Such at least is the mantra, and in some ways I still subscribe to it. It’s easy for many here either to forget or ignore that Saddam was one of the worst tyrants of the second half of the 20th century–he maliciously invaded Iran and used chemical weapons against them, costing millions of lives of both his own and Iran’s citizens.
I thought the reasoning would be relatively straightforward–we cut off the head, assist the Iraqis to birth democracy as we assisted denazification in western Germany after WW2 and via the Marshall plan, and bingo, the Arabs would want democracy which, they could see from the generally acknowledged material superiority of the west, seems to be the way out of miring poverty.
Clearly I was wrong about that and have underestimated the deep reservations Arab/Muslim countries have for statism in general and democracy in particular. As I say, I’m not a political scientist. On the other hand I don’t think my way of thinking can all be chalked up to ‘neocon propaganda’. I do think there was plenty of propaganda going about, but I still thought the reasoning I outlined above was correct.
Thanks to Jeff Blankfort above for the gracious reply, too.