The War on terror has been in full blitz for quite some time now, and one of the most central ideas that this war espouses has become covered in the dust and debris.  Should the US democratize the Middle East?  If so, why?  What gives us the right?  If not, then why?  Why shouldn’t the US step in and democratize?  I could use all sorts of fun words here that would illicit responses from the knee-jerkers out there, however, rather than do that, let me define a few terms first.  In the course of research of this issue, I’m going to use some language that has become buzzworthy in the media, and is, therefore, rather emotionally, if inappropriately, charged.  Democratization is the process by which the invading country (the US) ends the current form of government and installs a democratic system in its stead.  It is also, the ideological symbol for Americanization that will happen as a result of democratization.  From the standpoint of the United States this is considered to be an emancipation of the Middle Eastern peoples; whereas, the view from the other side may not be so positive.  There is debate on this issue going on on both the foreign and domestic fronts, with political rights activists howling for the cessation of American Efforts in the Middle East as well as some religious activists in the Middle east howling for the same.  The American Presidency and the Cabinet croon for the freedom of the Middle Eastern and the betterment and increased safety that the War on Terror will inherently bring.

What is the American Citizen to think?  What are the moral and ethical issues involved in choosing a system of government for a country other than your own?  Where is the line that says that intervention has gone far enough and allow the people of the country in question to decide for themselves?  The very idea evokes images of an unruly teenager being punished for various and sundry misdeeds, who is shouting and asserting his rights, his maturity, his autonomy.  I am not yet at a point where I can sufficiently prove my views on this argument, but I will state my side of the argument, in a purely ideological fashion, and will be gathering evidence in order to prove (or disprove, if the evidence shows contrary) my theories regarding this matter.

I’ll come out and admit early that I tend to lean to the right in my political views, so now, at least, you won’t have to be surprised by what is to follow.  My views are, actually, pretty simple.  First, as an American it is my duty to support the President.  This does not mean that I have to agree with everything he does or says, but ultimately, he is who he is—the executor of the Law.  It is, therefore, a moral and political imperative to support the man making the decision.  As such, regarding the current War on Terror, I give the President my support.  I happen to think that men such as Saddam Hussein are a threat to the world, and though there will be no end to men of his kind, ridding the world of just that one has made the War a success.  Knowing everything that we know of the conditions of the people in Iraq during his reign, it seems to make sense to me that despite the current war, things can only improve from that which was.  The US Government, needing to aid the rebuilding of Iraq both physically and socially, can only do so in a manner that it understands.  That happens to be democracy.  Because the US knows and understands democracy, that is what they offer to the Iraqi people.  It only makes sense that what is offered is something that is understood and can be implemented, so democracy makes the most sense.

Should the people be allowed to form whatever government they choose once stability has been established?  Yes.  It is their right to govern themselves however they wish, but for now, the American system is not a bad plan because it can be nurtured by the very nation from which the term comes.

In short, the democratization of the Middle East, specifically Iraq, is not a bad thing.  If after the US ends its reconstruction the idea of democracy does not satiate the needs of the people, then so be it.  For now I support the fact that the US is trying to create a sense of stability in the way that it best understands and is best able to help.