Democracy Will Not Stop Terrorism

Foreign Affairs has a long article about how there is no empircal evidence that democracy leads to a reduction in terrorism. In fact, the article surmises that democracy in the Middle East will only lead to more Islamicist rule in these countries.

I have a couple of comments. 1) I don't think this argument coincides with the American Left anti-war position, which mostly had to do with the UN opposition to the war, and not the movement towards democracy (which most anti-war folks would probably embrace) in the middle east. To me, there is a major difference between these two positions.

2) That being said, this is one of the more convincing reasons for arguing against the Iraq war, that doing so will not make the US any safer, and backing it up with evidence.

3) This "security" argument can also be coupled with the fact that invading Iraq gives incentive for Iran and North Korea to develop nukes - which they are both doing. This is very concerning.

4) Despite these legitimate concerns, there are a couple of legimitate counterpoints.

a) I don't think Islamicists gain power through legitimate elections is inherently a problem for the United States. I think we could deal with a modern Islamicist state better than a secular autocracy like Hussein's Iraq. The problem is most Islamicist states tend towards authoritarianism, but the history of the Islamicist movement has not always been so radical.

b) Autocrats are a major reason for turning towards extremism - because there is no space for the individual to have or exercise liberty. Just read about how Arafat ran Palestine - 30% of Foreign Aid went to his and his crony's bank accounts. Another 30% went to "security," the rest to the infrastructure of the country, ministries, jobs, etc. Twenty years of corruption, during which time a state could have been built, schools, roads, businesses. Arafat was known as being "generous" because if people asked him for money, he would give it to them, to attend school, medical care, whatever...in return, he was known as "father" to many Palestinians. He treated his people like they were children and they consequently behave as such, refusing to take responsibility for their own lives and believing in lies about their land being stolen, and perpetrating conspiracies about Israel and the Jews and so forth. This is what happens under Middle Eastern autocrats, and because there is another rich tradition in the region, that of Islam, people turn towards the alternative, and sadly it often takes the radical form. How can a young Arab man have pride in himself? By begging men like Arafat for money to send their kids to school? Or by joining a prideful, successful group like Hamas or Al Queda. You tell me.

c) The point of democracy in the region isn't that it will necessarily curb acts of terrorism, but I think it will empower individual Arabs to take more control and responsibility over their lives. If this were to occur, I would suspect that we will enlist millions who will seek to stop terrorism with us, instead of the passive Arabs who distrust America, Israel, their own governments so much that they don't care to make a stand against terrorists - because the alternatives are no better. We would see writers, businessmen, teachers, lawyers, doctors emerge as alternatives to beggers and terrorists - and yes, there would still be terrorists, maybe even more, but there would also be more formidable opponents of terrorists in the region. And that is when Islamic terrorism won't just lesson in frequency but be eliminated.