The promise of eternal reward is to the suicide bomber what stock options and a BMW are to the western corporate drudge. Islam is a compelling worldview, one that won't be easily cast aside by Wharton MBAs designing media campaigns to win the war softly. America's idea of freedom is lost in translation.

The difficult question is whether America's goal should be democracy, or whether it should be liberty.

It is easy to simply allow the people to choose their own leaders and government. It is harder to create the long-term structural changes that allow a society to be able to continue chosing their own leaders and government.

On the one hand there is the clear utilitarian argument: what good is installing freedom now if it leads quickly to that freedom being taken away by some form of oppression? On the other hand, who are we to say that we know what is best for a group of citizens?

Yet we can understand that the people's choice would not be entirely free. Especially if, as in Iran, revolutionary zeal gave way to ultra-orthodox religious fanaticism.

In short, though we could not reasonably dictate a constitution to the people, neither could we claim to have given them freedom without protections against the abuses of future governments.

A quick checklist of general ways to bring stability would include an economy stable enough to prevent future generations of fanaticism, a history of peaceful relations between ethnic groups, a secular military (much as we love the idea of civilian control, Turkey's provides a good example of how secular power can check political extremism) and nationalism strong enough to quell external meddling.

As of now I see none of the above. But the general idea here is to create within a society checks against governmental extremism, which would allow any form of government but also keep it in line.

Erich Fromm provides some compelling reasons why societies willingly subject themselves to totalitarianism in Escape From Freedom. It is indeed the fellowship, and not material that we are really seeking. Hitler offered it to a shattered and alienated German population. Bush is now trying to offer it to an American society that he has for the most part successfully victimized with his endless fearmongering rhetoric

Adam has it exactly right -- it's a matter of what needs to happen first (constitutional liberalism) before democracy can 'stick'. Menand refers to Zakaria, who was kind enough to compliment me on my synopsis of his book, but doesn't articulate Zakaria's point very clearly. The occupation of Iraq is destined to be another Vietnam-type débâcle, because Bush and his cronies have no patience (nor the money in the bankrupt treasury) to put constitutional liberalism in place in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or alternatively, they'll just walk away, and Islamic fundamentalists, or anarchy, or civil war between regional warlords, will fill the vacuum.

Mutual incomprehension? If you know what a cult is then you comprehend.

Menand seems to wrongly assume that the plan is to have democracy and freedom forced by the Americans onto the Iraqis. Of course as his slave analogy shows, it's not necessarily likely to be a success. From Caterina's excerpt it looks like he's attacking a strawman. I find that irksome that he should try that trick. The objective is regime change to delay (hopefully beyond our lifetimes * ) the invevitable or prevent WMD terrorism. Notice I didn't mention forcing democracy and freedom. I didn't even mention Arabs. I'm not ruling it out either and in some measure it will be attempted. Let's just not leave out attrition, murder, cajoling, economic incentives, marketing.

*and our grandchildren will continue challenge the problem

And interestingly enough, Zakaria's pointed critique of the American government demonstrates the trouble even of established republicanism. In Iraq sectionalization could very quickly reach an extreme. With two states that have already been operating semi-autonomously thanks to the US-enforced no fly zone, there is a feeling that without Saddam around to keep individual groups in line, they will have more to gain from pushing their cases now than from waiting. A system already overburdened with continued combat and economic restoration will also have to deal with political huperpluralism.

The good news that some tend to overlook is that (surprisingly, to listen to some conservative commentators) Islam is a remarkably strong social thread. While it certainly won't tie together disagreeing religious groups, within towns and cities it provides the sort of support that may (and this is of course a 'may') prevent future terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is fairly new; far older is the almost Hebrew-like quality of the local peoples to take foreign governance and get by. To deal with problems locally and through existing moral standards, rather than through political protest and violence. Much as we cheer to see the removing of head-coverings throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, it is those same enforced social standards that provide welfare for violence-prone unemployed young men and a moral compass for the region even in times of war.

Islam is a strong institution, having survived invasions and colonialism; if American continues to be percieved as anti-Islam, its efforts will fail. If it can work with existing social structures and develop the country economically over a long period of time, there might just be a chance.

maybe saddam just wasn't relevant to them, just like bush (or any other president) isn't relevant to a lot of us? the power "they" have over you oftentimes is only the power you think they have over you :D

bottoms up!

I read that article in The New Yorker and apart from the fact that it over-glorifies our own democracy - as if there weren't any severe problems in various Western democracies (e.g. a completely corrupt rich businessman prime minster of Italy, the Christian equivalent of an Ayatollah as US Atourney Secretary etc.) I missed something quite important: How is it possible that the power of some of those bad dictators vanished almost over night? Some ridiculously bad dictators were overthrown by their own people. As a German, I remember there'd be no way for East Germany to end communist rule and then it all ended as if those communist had had zero power at all! Probably, that's least understood so, in that case, people might be reluctant to talk about it.

What I also didn't get answered is why do we want to force people to have democratic countries? Isn't that enforcement itself undemocratic? I think we're deluding ourselves quite a bit as to the achievements of our democracies. We might think they offer a lot - even though very vocal minorities in our own societies (think Amnesty International) tell us a lot about their flaws - but other people might not share that view. So why is our view more valid than theirs? There is no universal law which states that democracy is the most enlightened form of government. We're well advised to remember that - regardless of how much we love democracy. Likewise, for liberty.

Oh, btw, Adam, Turkey is a notoriously bad example for a democracy and that's the main reason why they're not in the EU. The "fanatism" of the Islamic parties in Turkey is no worse than what we see here from Ashcroft et al. But what it comes down in Turkey for most people is not to prevent fanatism. I'm sure the Turkish military (and the US which has a lot of influence over that military) wouldn't mind having some Christian fanatic as Turkish PM. The main problem is that we in the West want to equate Islam with fanatism. Until we stop doing that there'll be no way we'll ever understand what's going on - especially with our double standards (Ashcroft, also Tony Blair's almost ultra-religious convictions).

The collapse of communism in Europe shows exactly the power that capitalism and democracy have to states that already have an experience with them, and that live with cultural and historical ties to the West. The history of the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution couldn't be removed by 45 years of communist control. (thus why the further East you went in the bloc, the harder transitions were) The point is that sometimes ideas matter more than power. (This is also true because the USSR was clearly foreign control, whereas countries with their own dictators tend to equate loving them with patriotism) In much the same way, no generation of US control can hope to expel centuries of religious fanaticism, ethnic division and whatnot in the Middle East.(and don't begin to tell me that we are in as bad of shape as the ME. That's why we have a republic: so that religious fanatics, econuts, libertarians and all kinds can have their say, and even when one group dominates the government, it cannot eliminate freedoms or establish its control in the long-term. And that is the point: we trust in elections, and so we will continue to have freedom to get rid of old leaders and find new ones)

Oh, btw, Adam, Turkey is a notoriously bad example for a democracy and that's the main reason why they're not in the EU.

Compated to what? To us? Well of course they are. To Europe? Right again. Now compare to the whole of the Middle East, and consider the country's largely Middle Eastern history. Tutkey's model is simple: the military depends on the West, and it supports secularism. The government would lean toward Islamists factions, but after the last few (always successful coups) they've tempered that. It is a sort of form of checks and balances in a country without a legalistic tradition or a population with experience voting, etc.

While no one would argue that republics are perfect, comparing them to totalitarian regimes is simply silly. You're right in saying it is not the only form of government and perhaps not even the best. Establishing one by decree in Iraq would obviously fail.

Yet what is the alternative? To allow the Iraqis to pick a regime now that will oppress them and not allow them to change their minds tomorrow? That is freedom of choice for a few days and no freedom afterwords. This is why the unfortunate only option seems to be long-term development to lead the pwoplw away from the root causes of their desire for religion-dominated or ethnic-controlled regimes. Is it possible? (shrugs)

"The collapse of communism in Europe shows exactly the power that capitalism and democracy have to states that already have an experience with them, and that live with cultural and historical ties to the West."

I son't see how this statement applies to Russia, say. Russia itself has had no serious experience with either democracy nor capitalism before communism fell down. Also, before Russia became communist it was basically an agricultural state. Capitalism and democracy certainly seem to have an appeal for people - however, I think we're quite mistaken to believe people want to get the deformed democratic systems we have.

Turkey is a notoriously bad example of a democracy. Of course, it looks better than, say, Uzbhekistan. But that's not the point. But that's not what I meant. As a democracy, Turkey is as close to being a sick joke as you can get. And in your assessment of the situation in Turkey you forget to mention the actual subject of democracy, namely the people. There's no way for anybody to "temper" Islam. If you want to try religious feelings or organizations start in the US. You'll have a lot of fun. Basically, what you're implying is, adapted to the US, that the US military should temper the influence of all those fundamental Christians who've got som much power here. Sounds absurd? Why doesn't it sound absurd when a country is concerned with an Islamic majority? We can't seriously want to try to "lead the pwoplw [sic!] away from the root causes of their desire for religion-dominated or ethnic-controlled regimes" and, at the same time, have one at home. That doesn't compute. And people note that. That's why they resent us, not because we got two TV sets and cars. Or those "freedoms" they're supposed to be envious of. And we also can't make all those grandiose speeches about how we'll show Iraq how to be a nice democratic state and, at the same time, pamper some of the worst regimes in the world, our useful allies like Saudi Arabia, say. That also doesn't compute. If you got ideals and principles that's fine. But applying them selectively just won't fly. People abroad are very good at spotting those double standards.

What irks me the most about all that talk about Islam, though, is this kind of feeling of superiority. People don't really say it openly but they mean it. Basically, what they say is that Islam and democracy are incompatible so we have to teach them how to do it.

And argueing about Iraq like this doesn't make any sense. If we say they can get their democracy as long as they don't vote for Islamist then the whole purpose is already defeated. Those people realize those double standards fairly quickly. Iraq has a large very well educated population. Those people aren't stupid.

But of course, now we got the problem at hand and it needs to be solved. It better get solved in a meaningful way for allthose various reasons.

I son't see how this statement applies to Russia, say. Russia itself has had no serious experience with either democracy nor capitalism before communism fell down

Exactly...which explains why East Germany and Poland are EU members while Russia is an oligopoly occaisonally challenged by an organized crime syndicate.

actual subject of democracy, namely the people

This is the difference between a democracy and a republic. You'll notice I constatnly say republic. A democracy does what the people want, when they want it. A republic doesn't: its goal is to establish a stable society by placing political groups in opposition within a conservative framework. Things happen slowly, for sure, but it prevents abuses of power.

After all, what good is democracy? Simply doing the will of the people is not inherently good, whether from the genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany to the assault on secularists during the Iranian Revolution.

In short, absolute freedom was never the goal I had in mind. Good results are the goal.

To say that this is a nation of 'superiority' is absurd. I'm Catholic and I acknowledge that until the Reoformation, Christianity and democracy did not mix. For better or worse, we have to deal with the situation at hand, which is that there is no history of separation between religion and politics in the Middle East. This is a threat as long as multiple religious groups inhabit the region: whether in internal oppression or military action, states allied with religious sects are simply less stable than secular ones. (You incidentally make this same point with the far-right wing of the American government, and I certainly agree with that characterization)

As for the issue of voting for Islamists. I have a good friend who recently went through a break up, and she understandable was feeling bad afterwords. She decided she wanted to get back out and dating some losers, just because she still felt bad. Now as a friend, I could have observed her freedom of choice, or I could understand that her choices were being clouded by past events in a way that would sour the future. Doing the latter, of course, smacks of the white man's burden; but better final results are better final results.

Iraq has a large very well educated population. Those people aren't stupid.

The French and Marxist Revolutions were also predominantly led by intellectuals. But even the smartest idealism gives way to abuses of power.

Voting for Islamists would be the last free political choice the Iraqis would ever make. Is this the freedom we came to bring them?

It is unfortunate, but we must apply our principles selectively in the short term, because we believe in them in the long term. I do, absolutely, believe in the power of free choice to shape a people's destiny. But to achieve that free choice in the future, sometimes we have to sacrifice it in the present.

Adam: Your writing belies your age. Now get to work on your own blog. We're expecting great things from it ;-)

Islam is a remarkably strong social thread.
Islam is a strong institution.
There's no way for anybody to "temper" Islam.

Can we please not talk about "Islam" in this way? Islam is not a "social thread" or a "strong institution" or any such thing; it is a religion, one that is embodied and interpreted in very different ways in different places. There are skeptical, cosmopolitan Muslims in cafes in Baghdad and Damascus and Cairo, just as there are skeptical, cosmopolitan Christians in cafes in New York and Paris and Moscow. There are nominal Muslims who know the prayers and feel themselves to be part of the Islamic world but basically live their lives without its much impinging on them, and there are fanatical believers. There are countries where Islam is woven tightly into the fabric of society and government, like Saudi Arabia and the Comoros, and there are countries where it's much more unofficial and free-form, like Indonesia and Turkey. There are Muslims who believe in rule by mullahs or ayatollahs or imams, and there are Muslims who believe good Muslims should have no truck with politics. Unless you've done some pretty deep study of it, pretty much any statement you make starting "Islam is..." or "Muslims are..." is going to be wrong. So can we detour around the red herring and talk about the problems of Iraq in more relevant ways?

Aside from that, this is a most interesting discussion!

LanguageHat: of course you are right in saying that we deal in generalizations. Nevertheless, I encourage anyone who can to read Kaplan's "The Ends of the Earth" which describes the underbelly of the Middle East. His fundamental idea is really fairly simple: in a region of the world where governments seem to falter and economies never grow, the countries that will succeed are those where the impoverished still live orderly lives with hope and purpose and devotion.

Interestingly, Kaplan finds significant contrasts within the Middle East. In Iran, poor citizens live in organized communities of shacks with local leaders and bartering systems. In general, despite poverty, the area is remarkably safe; the old and young are taken care of by the community. Contrast this with his experiences in Saudi Arabia, where unemplyed men live alone on the streets where they are easy targets for extremist demagogues.

So clearly there are contrasts within Islamic countries. In the future, of course, we can expect an Iran to emerge that is much more stable than Saudi Arabia. When a country continues to fucntion even on the lowest levels despite political turmoil and poverty, it clearly has a strong enough social/moral/religious fiber. That is fundamentally the point I was trying to make: Islam is not (as many would argue) antithetical to democratic society. But in order to maintain stability in Iraq, American leaders will need to tap the peaceful and moderate side (and when I say 'side,' I really mean: great majority of people who simply do not have much of a political voice currently) of Islam. If violence can be reined in by social stigma and progress can be made on a local level, there may just yet be a chance.

I'm curious - where exactly in the Qur'an does anyone find democracy, at least in the sense that we're trying to impose it on Iraq? I've always understood a religious state to be a basic, indeed inextricable, element of Islam. Islamic traditions are numerous but none, last I checked, embraced anything resembling modern western democracy.

Surely, religions adapt and have always adapted to changing times, but at some point one's interpretation of them moves 180 degrees from the intentions of founders. This is how, if nowhere but in his own sorry mind, George W. Bush can be a good Christian.

Carlos: The locus classicus is Sura 49, al-Hujurat, which focuses on social ethics. Verses 11 and 13 (in the Muhammad Asad translation, which I highly recommend for its thorough notes, citing the traditional commentaries) read:

(11) O you who have attained to faith! No men shall deride [other] men: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves; and no women [shall deride other] women: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves. And neither shall you defame one another, nor insult one another by [opprobrious] epithets: evil is all imputation of iniquity after [one has attained to] faith; and they who [become guilty thereof and] do not repent -- it is they they who are evildoers!

(13) O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.

Asad's note on the "nations and tribes" bit says:
"I.e., know that all belong to one human family, without any inherent superiority of one over another (Zamakhshari). This connnects with the exhortation, in the preceding two verses, to respect and safeguard each other's dignity. In other words, men's evolution into 'nations and tribes' is meant to foster rather than to diminish their mutual desire to understand and appreciate the essential human oneness underlying their outward differentiations..."

Of course, this is not equivalent to the preamble to the Constitution, but if that's what you want, you'll have to look at post-Enlightenment political writing, not ancient religious documents. This comes as close to "all men are created equal" as you're going to get in the latter, and is an excellent basis for democracy if you want one in the Qur'an. And it is quite untrue that "a religious state [is] a basic, indeed inextricable, element of Islam"; in fact, throughout most of Islamic history there has been a deep distrust of religious Muslims having anything to do with secular power. Ayatollah Khomeini was going against centuries of tradition when he promulgated the revolutionary doctrine of the "guardianship of the jurist" that justified his own seizure of power.

Also, "the intentions of founders" are impossible to know and are a red herring. All we can do is interpret the texts we have in the light of tradition and current circumstances. Christians who want to justify either democracy or authoritarianism (or anything else) can find suitable quotes in the Bible; same goes for Muslims and the Qur'an. There are many Muslims working (bravely, in some cases) to support the idea of democracy in Islamic countries using local (Islamic) texts rather than imported ones; you can find some of them here. There are many good books on Islam and politics, such as Eichelman and Piscatori's Muslim Politics and Piscatori's Islam in a World of Nation-States. And for a general sense of what it's like to be a Muslim, to grow up and study and think in those terms, I highly recommend Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet.

language hat, in no way did I mean to give the impression that I think direct rule by clerics is essentially Qur'anic; I was simply referring to the legacy of Shar'ia as the basis for Muslim life. Insofar as a Muslim society observes it, I think it's fair to say that society is a religious state.

Can a government truly be "secular" without strict, constitutional separation of religion and state? This is, as you point out, a very late development, even in our own corner of the world, as is our idea of separate selves, civic and spritual. In most places and at most times these have been inseparably interwoven, in the same way, say, that art has almost universally been indistinguishable from the stuff of daily life. And those strands are not easily unwound; the past hundred years or so says a lot about what that's done to our own culture.

Thanks for the suggested readings, which I'll certainly look into.

Can a government truly be "secular" without strict, constitutional separation of religion and state?

Well, sure. I'm a pragmatist in these matters; I don't care so much about "strict, constitutional separation" as about whether society is in fact being run on religious lines. If the shura or whatever the ruling institution is wants to have prayers before sessions, that's fine with me, as long as they don't force people to fulfill religious obligations, impose religious qualifications for office, &c. I think any Muslim democracies that develop (for instance, in Iran, if they can get the iron grip of the ayatollahs off their neck) are going to look quite different from Western (Christian) democracies in many ways, and that's fine. What's important to me is that people be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, and there's nothing inherent in Islam that makes that impossible. (Bear in mind that medieval Muslim societies were far more tolerant than medieval Christian ones.)

Don't get me wrong, language hat, we're in agreement on the preferred outcome. I'm not a religious person, and place a high value on freedom of conscience. Still, I respect the right of the people of Iraq to self-determination, and think we're kidding ourselves if we believe we can coerce them into functioning democracy. The impulse has to come from within - and if not, that's not democracy anyway, now is it?

You're right to point to the example of medieval Islam. Muslim Spain in particular is, I think, an excellent model of diversity. But even there, non-Muslims were forbidden from holding office, and paid taxes, where Muslims paid none.

Ultimately, people being "allowed to live their lives as they see fit" should be our desideratum. But if those people elect Islamic law, as they appear inclined to, further US intervention is morally (and legally) groundless.

And I'd add that this brings us right back to the point of the Menard bit that Caterina posted..

But Carlos, why is it that democratic self-determination is now the accepted standard of all good? If the people vote for a strictly Shia form of Islamic law that punishes members of different religious groups in the country, should we accept that?

Your goal is exactly right:

allowed to live their lives as they see fit

But this goal must apply to citizens individually, not the nation as a whole. To priviledge larger ethnic groups or religious sects with absolute power over smaller ones is clearly a failure.

It fundamentally comes down to the same political debate: how to balance the interests of the individual and those of the common good. We must distinguish between Iraq as a whole picking Islamic law and Iraq as a majority portion of the population forcing it onto the remainder.

Democracy is one thing; liberty is another.

Adam - let me make sure I understand you: You propose disenfranchising the collectivity in order to guarantee the liberty of the individual? I'm sorry, but that just sounds like a different kind of tyranny to me.

Why should we accept what the majority wants? Well, why do we accept it here? Why do gay people have to go to Canada to get married? Why is the US the last country in the industrialized world with a death penalty? Why don't we have guaranteed healthcare? Because the American majority is conservative. I'm not thrilled about any of the above, but I'd never endorse subverting the will of the people to have things any other way.

Carlos - The majority instating oppression is just as oppressive as a tyrannous dictator.

You are not free because of democracy, because of voting. People vote in Zimbabwe, and give popular mandate to a ruler who destroys personal freedoms. People vote in Nigeria and turn out in droves to elect politicians who pander to individual ethnic groups. This is democracy, but not freedom.

You are free in America precisely because the majority only has so much power over you. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain of your freedoms, the Constitution limits the power of the government, and representation rather than direct election dilutes the policy-making power of the majority.

You are right, completely subverting the role of the majority would by tyrannous. But so would allowing 51% of Iraqis to kill the remainder. Freedom is not in individual choice (which is merely anarchy) or in majority will (with is the tyranny of the mob); it is in the balancing of the two.

Adam, if voters in a democracy make mistakes, it is their prerogative - and responsibility - to correct them, not ours. We conquered Iraq under the pretext that there were WMD's there, not in order to oversee a change of regime. The post-conflict emphasis on regime change is - to put the Dubya team's buzz phrase of the month to proper use - "revisionist history." And who is to say what is oppressive, anyway? Where do we begin? Where will it end? In my last comment I cited 3 examples of American realities many in the civilized world find oppressive. Are they then to come to Washington tomorrow, and write new laws for us, based on their own, self-defined moral superiority?

What you're suggesting is not only I believe fundamentally undemocratic, but has dangerous and costly implications for this country. Not only have America's efforts to install or endorse "friendly" governments been unsuccessful in the past (Saddam being one of them), but if we pursue such a policy of promoting "selective" democracy, we'll surely make more enemies than we're already faced with, while continuing to erode our credibility with our allies.

I have never supported the idea of holding democratic elections and simply excluding one party. I have never supported the idea of allowing democracy and then curtailing its power.

My point was simple: to allow the Iraqis to decide their fate now, whether just or not, would result in chaos and bloodshed. It is my honest belief that the US will leave the country and largely ignore the domestic situation and that soon Iraq will once again be "free" (as you so eloquently continue to describe national self-determination that will inevitably lead to continued instability) to destroy itself or choose a new blood-thirty dictator.

Democracy is simply not a choice now for the country. I earlier mentioned that the only possible way to pursue stability would be a long-term plan of economic modernization, social stabilization and gradual political autonomy.

I am tired of making the same arguments in many places. They are here.

Note to Caterina -- I absolutely dislike the idea of linking to my site from the comments section. It feels, I don't know, just silly. I posted that article because I cross-linked it to a couple of places I comment on. If you feel it's inappropriate here then I am sorry and please remove it.

This business of aum shinrikyo, subsuming one's self, and totalitarianism reminds me of an excellent book I just finished, SOMERSAULT by Oe Kenzaburo. I've been recommending it (& everything else he's written alot lately.) Groups of people = scary.

I heart Louis Menand. In my pantheon of current NYer hearthrobs, he's right up there.

Er, when I said "countries where Islam is woven tightly into the fabric of society and government, like Saudi Arabia and the Comoros," I meant "like Saudi Arabia and the Maldives." These damn little archipelago countries all look alike...

And yeah, Menand is a wonderful writer.