Replies

You're right. The problem, as I see it, is that Muslim culture just does not accept the idea of a government independent of religion (Islam) and Islam is based on the idea of a totalitarian caliph who rules everything to the smallest detail. Hence, when Muslims are allowed to vote, they vote Islamic, as they did a few years ago in Algeria, and enthusiastically run right back into the very prison from which they have just been released. Thus, as long as Islam is essentially the state religion of any country, the idea of even evolving to a western style of democracy can be kissed goodbye.

The only thing that seems reasonably well to work in such an environment is a somewhat benevolent dictator, like the former Shah of Iran. Such an individual can do the wet work we are loathe to do by ourselves and can often be a reliable ally, provide we are willing to support him, something Carter definintdely did not do with the Shah. Then, over time, it's possible such a society could evolve into a democratic one.

The problem, of course, is well illustrated by what happened in Iran. The mullahs were infuriated by the Shah's reforms that were directed to moving Iran at least into the nineteenth century, took skillful advantage of Carter's perverse and self-destructive fascination with "human rights," overthrew the Shah, and imposed a retrograde regime that has no respect for human rights at all.

Above all, we must not be squeamish about what a leader we install in an Islamic country needs to do to bring order and we must support him. The alternative is always someone who is far worse.