Yes, that's true...that's why it's a war on terror. It is going to take a while. And maybe a democratized Iraq (which is a ?) could make a huge difference. Wasn't Sharon the first to officialy advocate a separare Palestinian state? And just recently he negotiated a cease-fire (although he decided to continue Hamas killings). I think the worst thing for long-term stability is to continue to go down thise "road map to peace" which is only emboldening Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Arafat, etc. Re-occupation is necessary, followed by negotiatons when the Palestinians realize how much they have to lose. That's my opinion, and if Israel continues to negotiate, I hope I'm wrong.
That raises another fundamental problem. Bringing in western democracy before you bring in economic development has often resulted in disaster. Look at east Asia, most, if not all of the economically prosperous (singapore) countries or rapidly developing (vietnam) countries, brought in western style capitalism while maintaining an authoritarian state which largely prevented theft and held official corruption down to an acceptable level (though not ideal) while their economies developed. Again, let's look at a counterexample. Eritrea is a recently independent (from Ethiopia) state. It's not a very rich country, and its leader is not very tolerant of dissent, but it's one of the few places in East Africa, probably the only place, where you can park your car and have it still be there when you get back. Contrast that with Russia, whose democracy was followed by an all you can steal shopping spree by the gangsters who now run the country, or one of any number of African examples. Democracy followed by endless civil wars. Democracy is without question great, but democracy without economic development is a recipe for disaster. Now, that raises another issue: Iraq's reliance on primary products. (oil). That's another huge problem. Historically, in the 20th century and beyond, countries that rely heavily on primary products (oil, minerals, agriculture) etc, are poorer and less stable than countries that don't. So by developing Iraq economically, it does not just mean "build up the Rumalia oil fields". Example: Angola has extremely well developed, and lucrative offshore oil rigs, courtesy of exxon-mobil. However, it's a hellish nightmare-world of a country; you or I wouldn't last 1a day on the streets of Luanda without getting beaten shot and mutilated. It's a much longer term project than just building up the oil fieldst. Is it even possible? I hope, but in the short term it seems like a Sisyphean ordeal and I don't believe the American public is wiling to pay the price, especially with the impending budget disaster, thanks to the fiscal games of chicken being played by the hooverites in congress and beyond.
