Thats not entirely true. Many terrorists are quite well educated, even the suicidal ones.

Our invasion of Iraq to “liberate” its people from Saddam has spread our reputation as imperialists and occupiers around the Arab world, who now distrust us more than ever, and has spurred recruitment of jihadists from all over the region.

Perhaps we are just acting in our national interest to preserve our superpower status and economic prosperity. But, those goals are in conflict with the more noble and Wilsonian goals of spreading democracy, so we only come off as hypocrites.

Long comment:
I do think one of the biggest lessons from the Iraq debacle is to step back and think about what democracy means. We seem to have a very narrow conception of democracy, namely, if some reasonable number of citizens gets to write down who’s in charge and then that person is in charge, then, hooray! we have democracy. Technically, that’s accurate.

However, it isn’t clear that that single mechanism always produces exactly what people really want, which might be termed, self-governance. We want to have control of our own lives and not be dictated, too, or if we are dictated to, at least we had some say in choosing who dictates. Self-governance in that sense is not just voting but is also security, a functioning independent judiciary, rights that no government can take away, and more. I’m not clear exactly what it is yet. But if we always promote voting as the single, only political goal, then people may only get voting and not self-governance. Voting in which you can never leave your room due to maurading gangs is not political freedom. (Of course, neither is a benign tyranny.)

There also might be alternate ways to find self-governance that isn’t based on voting, though I know saying that is controversial. The importance of this is that it is looking for a way for self-governance to build upon native institutions. There may be a self-governing system based upon tribal allegiance, for instance. Or small city-states… Or perhaps even a system in which the local head is not elected but can be removed when not functioning properly. You get the idea.

My main point in all of this talk concerning Morocco is that it might be both morally correct and practical to push for various methods of self-governance without pushing for voting with no care for what follows. It’s always best to push for things that the people you are pushing themselves want. Often the best way to really discover this is help build the local institutions which can give greater voice to those desires.

I think we are, in a broad sense, in agreement.
Currently, though, there is a problem with talking too loudly about spreading democracy. We say ’spread demoncracy’, but the ME hears ‘war’.

The ME has a long memory, and they come from a long history of feeling humiliation and resentment under colonialism, exploitation, and interference (like the Shah episode). So, when we give them advice, no matter how well intentioned, we must be prepared tor resistance to what might be perceived by them as a ‘we know better’ attitude and talking down to them yet once again.

I think our first priotiry should be striving for a non-confrontational, more indirect, way of promoting
ideas. Education is an excellent area where to start. Health care would be another.

Some ideas go down better with a spoon full of sugar and a soft woice. in the current overheated atmosphere, I definitely advise the soft voice.

A clarification on language- I used the word “process” instead of “transition” because “process” has a wider definition.

When Jeb and domajot (and if I were to use it) use the word “transition” I think of a country that has already set itself upon the path to democracy and they are in a transitory period to reach that goal.

I deliberately used the word “process” because while I think the US’s goal should be to encourage the spread of democracy and give the population of other countries the tools which help that coutry develop into and build a democracy, I do not believe it is a foregone conclusion that any will develop into a democracy. Each country has to go through a process (and painful at times) to realize that being a democracy is the right way for them.

As Jeb said in his original post, ‘As Winston Churchill has noted, “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”’

So I do strongly believe that educated countries will want the benefits of a democracy and that country will develop into a democracy. Unless (as Churchill suggests) a better system of government comes along to replace democracy.

BTW: it’s an important tangent on this (and not discussed at all in the media with regards to presidential candidates). While I’m evaluating presidential candidates I look to see how they approach this very topic of spreading democracy throughout the world. I think this is an essential duty of the president. We are, after all, the last superpower in the world and if we don’t spread democracy, who will? Any candidate who does not place some importance on this is off my list. I believe this is one way of making us a stronger and safer nation.

To begin with (and as you might guess from my other comments) I think it’s paramount that the next president be willing to expand educational programs in other countries (it would be too expensive to support education in EVERY country).

But we can’t strong-arm other countries into becoming democracies because that just breeds resentment towards us. We need to approach the situation like a parent rasing a child: provide them with the tools and encouragement needed, but let them develop into who they are. If we as a country set a good example and show them the benefits of democracy, then chances are they’ll come along, sooner or later.

I do think the US should promote democracy (and liberty, justice and all the other values we hold dear) around the world but this can’t happen overnight and most countries will take decades to develop along these lines.

During the process of developing into a democracy there will be set-backs. And even once a democracy is established there will be set-backs (just look at the US under Bush- he has taken us backwards) so it’s important that democracies have the checks and balances to reign in… shall I say “overly enthusiastic” presidents.

I believe the essential first step towards democracy involves education. I believe that educated people generally support democracies (and many of America’s values) than non-educated people. Certainly religion plays a huge role in values, but I think all of the major religions in the world generally call for respect, compassion and understanding of others. The problem is the way most people are told how to practice their religion- the uneducated masses will follow their religious leader’s views and treat his word as sacrosanct with no capacity to think independently.

The best example is how the terrorists twist Islam to attract their uneducated followers. One way to combat terrorism is to encourage people not to join and 95% of that effort is to give them tools (in other words educate them) so they can question the propaganda they are being told. Of course there are exceptions and what drives someone to become a terrorist is complicated. But I think if the Middle East (and other countries) had more educated populations then the terrorist threat wouldn’t be what it is today.

So I think it is in America’s interests to promote education, spread our values (we can start by setting a good example) and not meddle in other countries’ internal affairs. It is a long-term commitment and we won’t always like the process, but we can’t bomb our way into the hearts of our enemies.

I think democracey should be promoted, but the arrival of sudden democracy should be avoided.

To American colonists, the tactics of democracy (putting restraints on rulers) were already familiar from events in English history, such as the Magna Carta. The French didn’t heed the lessons pf a long step-by-step approach .and experienced bloody revolutions as a result.

The danger lies in the suddenness of democracy, as it unleashes all the pent up misery and resentment of long subjugation- all in one fell swoop. That’s too heady a brew in many instances and it’s poor preparation for the responsibility of governance, instead of just seeking revenge.

I would argue for a tranition to democracy, rather than immediate democracy. The ultimate goal should not be subject to Western enlightenment, benchmarks (although we should encourage their learning from it).
Maintaing stability during the transition period would be of primary importance. Instability produces a series of backlash swings, and exposes the population to violent means of resolving differences.

The first step is to curtail the absoluteness of power in monarchies and dictatorships. An independent judicial system would be a good place to start. Another avenue would be the empowerment of regional councils to govern over their own in a ausbstantial way.

My proposal is to promote transition to democracy, with no preset dicta as to what it should look like) rather than promitng total democracy immediately.

BWT, doubts about the uneducated smell too much like poll tases in the USA to exclude blacks.
Besides, uneducated is not the same as unintelligent.