Following Brad R’s lead at Sadly No!, I too have always wondered why the neo-cons seemed so intent on the idea that democracy in the middle-east would automatically be good for us. As if badguys couldn’t figure out how to win elections. They can convince young men to give up their lives for a bunch of older men who clearly haven’t done so, yet they can’t put up a few damn posters at election time? Whatever.
Yet this is the key to the entire Neo-Con Agenda (excluding Cheney’s oily fantasies). All their Iraq hopes were pinned on it, yet it doesn’t take much to understand that “the will of the people” doesn’t need to match anything wholesome or pro-American. Hell, you’d think the election of GW would have been enough to convince them that The People don’t necessarily pick the right guy, but I guess they didn’t think that applied to them.
Hamas is the most recent example, but we’ve seen many more like it. Chavez, Allende, Chirac; the list of anti-American leaders picked democratically goes on and on. Overall, people will vote for who they want to vote for, and that might not be good for us. Especially if we think we’re supposed to use our economic and military might to jerk everyone else around. As usual, the devices we most rely upon for protection are the very ones that made that protection so necessary; which is just a fancy way of saying that the neo-cons are fucking up shit so badly that only a nutcase neo-con could possibly save us. But I suspect that deep down, whether they know it or not, that’s the whole point.