Just as much you can't have an extremely socially conservative country like Saudi Arabia without the moral police to enforce the social mores. You're more likely to have also dictatorship or monarchy in this kind of situation.

Patrick: For your question about Iraq and Afghanistan, I think there's a case to be made for a strongman or a democracy. Without knowing more about the exact social situation in both, it's hard to tell. But generally, if the government is expecting an extreme following of a strict social code (such as sharia), only a strongman would be able to effectively enforce this.

I do know that for Afghanistan, anyway, an already rather conservative society was made even more conservative when the Taliban come along. They were good at what they did while in power, even if not necessarily accepted. In a country embracing a more liberal social culture, the Taliban would have no power.

Look at Iran. We know for a fact that the younger generation at the very least is looking for some sort of change. If the Mullahs are not worried now, they should be. When the generation leading this summer's rebellion starts to gain power of their own, the Mullahs will lose power, and perhaps the theocracy will become a democracy of some flavor.

A good imperialistic government is probably better than a bad Democracy, and so on.

Unless you happen to be one of the suckers who will be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the empire, or you happen to be the poor schmucks who lives in the area said empire is expending into…

. Related to this has been the “Latin American model” of authoritarianism (more generally).

That's what happens when the top 3% of the population own 90% of everything and the other 97% own nothing… It's really hard to prevent someone in that bottom 90% from deciding to take a gun and getting some of the stuff that is owned by that top 3% especially if they have seen a few members of their family die of starvation or other easily preventable diseases…

2. I've always believed that the western model that would be applied in the Middle East would be some form of fascism (collectivist and highly authoritarian, with a good deal of dictatorship included — which is to say, much like what has been true there for ages, simply with modern Western technical means and concepts). Related to this has been the “Latin American model” of authoritarianism (more generally).

But we have to be careful how we define a successful democracy. An Iraqi democracy, an Afghani democracy, or an Iranian democracy will not resemble OUR brand of democracy. I think, however, the biggest portion of our government expects it to – and they shouldn't.

Many people in the world are simply not concerned with political machinations, because they are too focused on merely SURVIVING. Intellectual awakening will come in time, as living standards improve. This WILL happen, though perhaps not in our lifetimes.

And as an aside, no culture that effectively enslaves half of its population will change easily or painlessly. Over time, it will change, but not without much turmoil. The Ismamic mores on women and society are doing more to hold back their people than anything the West could ever do.

There will be exceptions. A good imperialistic government is probably better than a bad Democracy, and so on.

The problem with getting Democracy in the Middle East is three fold:
A) The borders were imposed by outsiders and don't make an incredible amount of sense.
B) All the left wingers (would be Socialist & Communist) have been killed at our urging, therefor the only meaningful resistance to the state left are the Religious Nut Jobs.
C) Were the Middle East a Democracy, a permanent state of war would exist with Israel until it was kicked out of the Middle East. (which is pretty much where we stand today without Democracy)