Will democracy cure terrorism in the Middle East?

Somewhere along the line in the so-called "war on terror", democracy or at least so-called radical democratization became the main goal of the "war on terror". For most Americans, the "war on terror" had been intended as an effort to subdue the people and group that executed the attacks of 9/11, namely Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Shortly thereafter, the Neoconservatives attempted to shift the focus to include Iraq and other "states" that allegedly "harbor" terrorism. By the president's State of the Union address in early 2002, the war had been morphed to focus on the so-called "axis of evil", Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Purported weapons of mass destruction were given as the primary motive for subduing Iraq. In parallel, the definition of "terror" was expanded to include not only al Qaeda, but local terrorist groups such as Hama and Hezbollah, which have only been a threat to Israel and not to us here in the continental U.S. Somewhere in there, democracy and "freedom" came to be the main goals of the "war on terror."

The gist of the argument was that a democratic Iraq would inspire a wholesale movement to democracy in the Middle East. In theory, at least.

And, somehow, the spread of democracy would deter and supplant the momentum of the terrorists. In theory.

But now, as each increment of progress in democratizing Iraq is made, it only seems to incite ever more intense anti-American and anti-democracy sentiment among those most susceptible to to the appeal of terrorism.

Even if our democratization efforts were 100% successful, the associated result would be that terrorism would be even stronger in the Middle East than before.

So much for the theory that flourishing democracy is a great tool and strong deterrent in the "war on terror."

Further, a democratic election in Palestine brought Hamas to power fairly, and an election in Lebanon did nothing to sap the strength of Hezbollah. More evidence of the ineffectiveness of democracy as a deterrent against terrorism.

I think encouraging democracy is a wonderful goal and may in fact have some limited effectiveness against terrorism, but let us at least be honest and admit that it has little to do with combatting the type of terrorists who perpetrated the grand-scale attacks of 9/11.

Iran's alleged connections to Hezbollah are a concern, but only a local regional concern of the Middle East (and even then only Israel in particular) and have nothing to do with the security of the continental U.S. Once again, by all means we should be encouraging a more open democracy in Iran, but it has nothing to do with the security of the continental U.S.

In short, democraacy cannot by itself cure terrorism in the Middle East. At best it is only a partial solution, and it may not in fact be the proper starting point.

-- Jack Krupansky