Centerfield

You make a good point in your final paragraph. Far more than religion, the problem that these countries have is cultural.

Cultural norms which are at least minimally functional for desert nomads are going to have to be adjusted (not scrapped wholesale, but definitely adjusted) if those people wish to live in an urban, technological environment. If they are willing to forego urbanization and technology, of course, they can probably keep their culture unchanged. At least until the flood of their young people to the cities leaves them with too few people to carry on.

And stream to the cities, they will. The glamour of the primitive life sometimes fascinates the comfortable children of an urban civilization. Children who grew up in the country don't have any of those illusions -- and therefore no real desire to return to rural life if they can possibly get away.

I don't think the issue is democracy as you can not have democracy when people do not even understand the concept of pluralism, which the author alludes to. Having elections does not mean people understand or appreciate political/religious pluralism.

Europeans and Americans had to learn this by war...Europeans over and over again until the 30 Year War and actually up to WWII. Eventually they killed so much of each other they got tired of the intractable fighting and learned from prisoners dilemma...

In South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and one can argue even Singapore there was no democracy in a Western sense, however each leader (Park, Chiang, Lee, (forgot the Thai one)) focused on education, infrastructure, stability (rule of law), and attracting Foreign Direct Investment. Once there was a middle class that was solid and educated they were pretty much forced to open up the political process and it has been relatively stable (but for Thailand...but Thailand is the least economically developed of the bunch). This is risky I know because instead of a Kim or a Lee you can get a Suharto or a Marcos...but...the point is democracy in many developed nations does not always a great nation.

In many of these nations it is a joke as they are so tribal and clannish votes are easily bought off and tribe/clan leaders pretty much tell the people who to vote for (usually them)...there is little to no sense of nation in most of these states. Most of the MENA states are just large extended families with guns and/or military juntas they are not nation states as we think of them in the West.

Sure Sunnis in Iraq want freedom and democracy...for them so they can lord over the Shia and Kurds. Shia want freedom to commit genocide on the Sunni for years of oppression. Kurds want freedom to have their own state and to be free of Arabs...there is no national identity that trumps ethnocentrism for most of the population, no matter what Westernized elites try to sell the people vote with their feet.

Education is key also to economic development. Having a relatively uneducated population limits the type of investment you can attract and what type of industries you can develop.

The educated class they do have in MENA (and also Pakistan) suffer from unemployment/underemployment as there is no economy to support their skills.

Even relatively wealthy countries like UAE and Saudi have high native unemployment as they bring in foreign workers (blue and white collar) and buy their people off with welfare from oil revenues. Saudi, especially does next to nothing to diversify its economy away from pure oil production to value added products that can produce good paying jobs.

The only place in these nations (because most of them are so repressive) to gather and talk about change is the Mosque because even the autocratic leader is scared to look anti-Islamic. So they go to the Wahhabi Saudi sponsored Mosque and learn radical Islam, but it is the only voice they have and the only leadership they can have.

Some argue that if radical Muslims (Islamic Brotherhood, etc) get elected to office they will fail or moderate themselves when they are faced with running a country and if they do not leave power their will be war as the people will rise up against them (as many Afghanis did against the Taliban before we even came there) however in many MENA nations that will never be allowed, the area is too strategic (location and fossil fuels) to take chances on instability. So they will never be allowed to "fail".

The Conundrum...notice Bush is no longer pressure Arab states to promote democracy after Hamas won the free and fair Palestinian elections...they already know Muslim Brotherhood will win any free Egyptian election and Jordanian...they know radicals will come to power in the majority of Muslim nations in MENA and some in South/Central Asia...who will be fundamentally anti-American...

Shia want freedom to commit genocide on the Sunni for years of oppression...there is no national identity that trumps ethnocentrism for most of the population, no matter what Westernized elites try to sell the people vote with their feet.

...actually, the Westernized elitism runs the other way. The Western media elites are making things up. Check out a poll or three. In fact, most Iraqis of all ethnicitiies think they're Iraqi, want Iraq to succeed, and most Iraqis want peace and are against ethnic cleansing.

We're seeing ethnic cleansing happening because of a stunning failure of planning and energy by Rumsfeld and his appointees. Somehow they missed the bit at West Point where they explain that occupation means providing internal security. Or, likelier, just got intellectually lazy. Gangs of extremist ethnic thugs have grown without check over the years since the US takeover and are conducting the ethnic cleansing. It took until Petraeus to start a crackdown.

Some argue that if radical Muslims (Islamic Brotherhood, etc) get elected to office they will fail oWr moderate themselves when they are faced with running a country

You especially hear that from the dictators. All these countries in fact DO have moderate oppositions, albeit often undercover. Think it's a coincidence Musharraf outlawed all the opposition parties OTHER than the Brotherhood? Pakistan still has its moderate parties from the democratic eras, also largely undercover.

Now, it's true that not EVERY problem spot can be solved by democracy. Palestine's leaders don't like democracy (tiny democracies are often unstable and troublesome); pro-democratic leaders have few followers. Because it's so small, the financing that normally goes to moderate parties is overshadowed by the terror group funding.

"We're seeing ethnic cleansing happening because of a stunning failure of planning and energy by Rumsfeld and his appointees. Somehow they missed the bit at West Point where they explain that occupation means providing internal security. Or, likelier, just got intellectually lazy. Gangs of extremist ethnic thugs have grown without check over the years since the US takeover and are conducting the ethnic cleansing. It took until Petraeus to start a crackdown."

I do agree with this. they relied on the militias for internal security but the militias were ran by ethnic/religious extremists. (sigh)...we would never have allowed any other nation we occupied to provide their own security in this way...I have no clue what Bush was thinking.

I often wondered