Wars of liberation created a lot of headaches for Napoleon, too

I'm in favor of the United States actively promoting democracy in the world.  It should be primarily in terms of the example we set.  Things like the rule of law, Constitutional government, not torturing people, selecting leaders through competitive elections rather than through the Supreme Court, not allowing corruption to dominate the government, not having the government secretly paying commentators to promote the Party line, not hiring gay hookers to imitate reporters in the White House press corps, heck, maybe even having a press that practices journalism on a regular basis.  Stuff like that.

Seems impossible, I know.  But it could happen.  Really.

On the other hand, the Palestinian election this week reminds us that democracy can be troublesome. And that promoting democracy through wars of liberation in the Middle East might not turn out exactly the way we might hope.  Pat Lang has some thoughts along those lines in The Price of Fantasy Sic Semper Tyrannis blog 01/26/06:

As in Iraq, and with regard to Iran as well, the neocons and other utopians have operated on the assumption that if empowered, Muslim and Arab voters would vote for western style secular liberals, heavily acculturated away from their own people and traditions.  This has not happened anywhere, not in Lebanon, not in Iraq, not in Egypt, not in Iran and now most spectacularly in Palestine.  Nevertheless, the "faith" of people at AEI, Heritage and in the West Wing has not been shaken and we will probably continue to seek the creation of earthly paradise through the mechanism of implementation of electoral reform.  Well, good for us. ...

I live with a very perceptive observer of the Middle East.  She says that the reason we don't "get it" about the Middle East is that we have missed the point that many people in the Middle East really do believe in God and are really more concerned with salvation (look it up) than they are with democracy.

I don't pretend to have a good handle on how "the Arab street" may be processing the Palestinian election.  But I heard Bush saying today that he didn't intend to deal with the newly-elected Hamas.  Do people inthe Middle East see that as being consistent with all this democracy talk?  Not that they believe the democracy talk in the first place.  But still.

For more on the complications Hamas' win causes for Bush policies, see Hamas Upset Rattles Bush Strategy by Jim Lobe; Inter Press Service 01/26/06.

Despite the Republican Party litany of bringing democracy to Iraq, the role of the US in Iraq is in itself an obstacle to promotion of democracy in that region of the world.  Eric Davis argues in his contribution to Patriotism, Democracy and Common Sense (2004):

... that the invasion of Iraq constituted the first step in a larger and audacious process of reshaping the political and economic terrain of the Middle East. I refer to this process as "domino democracy" because it envisions the transformation of Iraq into a democratic polity with open markets and a technocratically and non-ideologically oriented government - a model that the United States would like to see replicated in other Middle Eastern states, particularly Iraq's neighbors. While no one can dispute a foreign policy objective that aims to encourage democratic governance, the real question is what the United States means by democratization of the region and how the policy of domino democracy will affect the citizenry of countries in question. For many Middle Easterners, the stated American goal of promoting democracy in the region is viewed with deep suspicion. They point to past American support for many authoritarian regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, failure to support Palestinian reformists in their efforts to create a Palestinian state based on norms of political participation and transparency, and failure to bring pressure on autocratic monarchies such as Saudi Arabia to implement democratic reforms. Many Arab and non-Arab analysts also view domino democracy as a cover for extending U.S. economic influence in the region, particularly in oil-rich states such as Iraq. In addition, large contracts were awarded in Iraq, often without a bidding process, to firms such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons E&C, and WorldCom. These corporations were closely linked to Vice President Cheney and other members of the Bush administration. The contracts reinforced the view that our foreign policy was seeking to enhance American economic power in the region. (my emphasis)

The benefits of the support for autocracy inSaudi Arabia that Davis mentions may also be declining.  Robert Dreyfuss at his blog explains that the Saudis have started pursuing stronger ties with China because of their dismay at the results of American policy in Iraq in particular (Pushing Saudi Arabia into China's Arms 01/25/06):

Thus – and this is a big, big irony – America’s military effort to secure hegemony over the world’s oil deposits in the Gulf looks like this: Iraq, a mess, governed by Iran-linked Shiites; Iran, angry once again at the Great Satan and looking toward Russia and China; and Saudi Arabia, the big enchilada, starting to learn to speak Chinese. Some hegemony.

You're doing a heckuva job in the Middle East, Dubya!