George Bush was right. Bringing liberty and freedom is a worthy goal. Democracy may be the best means of delivery, but other forms of government will do; the key to liberty and freedom is that it has a prerequisite: self-rule and self-determination.
Bush will be gone soon- not soon enough, but soon; and we will be in control. What next?
The 20th century colonial model of imposing democracy generally failed. Successful transitions usually have occurred through intermediate stages, through authoritarian or communist governments, even monarchies- but in any event, through existing governments.
Failed states, such as Somalia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq, provide no internally generated framework for making the transition possible.
Imposing a framework does not work- at least, not without a horrendous expense of lives & treasure. It cannot be done through military force. (Unless the military occupier delivers overwhelming force, as in the cases of Japan & Germany after WWII; even in these cases, the framework was arguably in place). The governmental framework must come from the culture, through an organic process.
I believe we should withdraw from Iraq. But it is not enough to just call Iraq a bungled job, and wash our hands. Democrats will sweep 2008- we will take the Presidency, and possibly build super-majorities in the House and Senate. A Straussian "War on Terror" or an insane Crusade against Islam is simply not a viable strategy after 2008, nor is it worthy of our values and highest ideals. We must think about how to create a successful approach to the problem of failed states in places such as Iraq.
Bush had it right. We need to advocate freedom and liberty. But we must be prepared for the consequences. Advocating freedom and liberty does NOT mean putting "our" guys in power. In countries like Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, we need to develop an approach which brings them through this transition under their own power. This means accepting the establishment of regimes which may be anathema to our sensibilities in the short-term. Unlike failed states, fundamentalist anti-historical regimes at least offer the possibility of being a transitional stage, with Iran possibly being the first to make the transition. Exposed to western cultural values through trade, technology, & culture, their young people will leave the anti-historical firebrands no choice. Religious fundamentalism may provide identity and restore a sense of national self-respect, but in the long-term, mere self-esteem will not be enough.
We cannot make them do what we want. We can, however, help them do what they want, and model the appropriate behavior. Development of Islamic cultures respecting Human Rights will take time, in the same way Christian cultures advanced beyond their own religious fundamentalism. Think of it as a national advance up Maslow's heirarchy of needs, or advancing up Kohlberg's moral heirarchy. That will happen, because Muslims will inevitably want to help themselves to the benefits of technology, and they will inevitably recognize an anti-historical version of Islam cannot make it happen. Availability of information belying religious fundamentalism will lead to self-actualization on a nationwide basis.