The idiocy of two arguments

So here I am reading an article on the Foreign Affairs web site, and this guy is attacking a statement President Bush made during his 2006 State of the Union address (yeah, its an old article...I was bored):

"Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer--so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."

This guy in the article (F. Gregory Gause III, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont and Director of its Middle East Studies Program), "Beware What You Wish For", writes that Bush's logic is flawed:

"There is no evidence that states ruled by dictators produce more terrorists or more terrorism than democracies. Moreover, al Qaeda and its affiliates and imitators see democracy as a Western innovation leading Muslims away from government based on Islamic law. They would certainly not give up their jihad even if all Muslim countries became democratic, particularly if the democracies proved to be the kind that the United States would like to see: tolerant, pluralist, pro-American, and at peace with Israel."

The man makes a few good points, but fails to see the forest through the trees. This is so because later on he states, "Washington should also recognize that non-democratic institutions that are generally supportive of U.S. policy goals (such as the military in Turkey and the monarchies in Morocco, Jordan, and the Arabian Peninsula) can serve as very useful breaks on the power of elected parliaments, and can even moderate Islamist political groups over time."

First off, many of these Al-Qaeda terrorists (including those on the flights on 9/11) were from the Arabian Peninsula...Saudi Arabia to be precise. A country run by a large royal family that reaps the rewards of its oil fields but does little to share the wealth. Watch a little bit of the movie The Kingdom, and you will get an idea. These royal families in the Mideast horde the wealth and do little for their people. THAT is what creates terrorists. These countries that in a sense are dictatorships which keep the wealth of the land among themselves.

While I don't agree with the war in Iraq, democratic governments would be a good thing in the Mideast. But here is the rub: it is their democracy, not ours. We shouldn't go invading and pushing democracy on countries. But if a country wants democracy, ACCEPT their choices. Otherwise it isn't much of a democracy. If the country wants to follow Islamic law, so be it. It is not the choice of the United States or anyone else. So to say a democracy would pull the muslim people away from Islam is a shocking statement to make. If the people want that result, it is the people who will decide. Not the institution itself that pulls them away.

What the US must understand is that we lead by example and perhaps the carrot, but not by the switch and the gun. We can advocate democracies and help those countries form one if they decide they want it, but that is where it ends. We can not force our morals, our values, and our way of life upon these people. It wasn't forced upon us in 1776, and it shouldn't be forced upon them now. But to support the current military and monarchical governments of these countries is akin to supporting the juntas and military dictatorships in Latin America in the '70s and '80s. Something that didn't work out quite well and we are now dealing with the mess and the hatred.

The War in the East, or West, or Mideast, or...

So there is a war going on out there. One, shockingly, in which the United States is not a part of. One which perhaps the US should be taking more of an active role in. One which, if you believe the current administration, the US should be in. One which John F. Kennedy himself said is a war we should take part in, during his inaugural address:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

Georgia is a democratic state. One of the first in the region following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Georgia is the most West-aligned state in the region and one which the West courted and pushed to become a member of NATO.

In the first instance in modern history, a democratic country (Russia) attacked and invaded another democratic country (Georgia). Though its hard to say that Russia is a legitimate democracy; while the institutions may be present, its interesting to point out that Vladimir Putin left the office of President (after term limits prevented him from staying longer) to become the Prime Minister, and yet he still holds the same power he had before. Russia's current president has been made to look ceremonial at best, which seems to be Putin's plan. Russian President Medved sits on TV and talks with his defense minister, giving him ceremonial orders, yet it is Putin who is seen at the front, directing Russian forces, and sending out the strongest language against Georgia and the United States.

But what could the US do to prevent any further escalation? We did nothing. It was the French president who went to Russia to work out a deal to cease hostilities, yet it was with Medved. As we can see, the Russians continued. Only this past Wednesday did the US send Rice to the region (first to the French Riviera) to hold discussions. In a smart move though, we did send US forces to Georgia in a humanitarian mission. In reality, this is a move to tell Russia we are supporting Georgia, and that with US forces there, any action upon them will look like an act of war against the US. The forces there are basically a trip wire...bait, perhaps. Ideally, with the presence of the troops the Russians will back down so as not to accidentally attack Americans, but should they, the US will be drawn into the conflict. No one wants that, so its quite a deterrent.

Why, though, doesn't the US push any further in protecting Georgia? It is clear that Russia is flexing its Cold War muscles, sending a message to all of the former Soviet states that Russia is the hegemony in the region and that any more actions with the West should cease. Does the US really want to get back in to a Cold War scenario at this time? With two wars being fought and the economy in recession, Putin picked the best time to make his move against the US.

So the answer to my initial question as to why the US hasn't joined in the fight to protect a country that we assured we were friends with is because we can't. We are fighting two wars that have drained us in every way. Our economy is in shambles. And with our focus on fighting Iraqis and terrorists, we let the Russians slide right underneath our radar. Russia is back on the block, and now we have to deal with it.