As I've said, I'd feel a lot better about the Bush Administration's obsession with "regime change" if I had more confidence the hawks have anything other than optimistic pronouncements about what'll happen after Saddam is gone. Shrugging the task off on the UN does not seem like a particularly good idea, but then again, I'd imagine that robust UN support--including the vocal and enthusiastic support of neighboring Arab countries--might help diminish the perception of a post-Saddam regime as a US puppet. Then again, is such support from such non-democratic regimes as Saudi Arabia and Egypt likely to be forthcoming? Might they see a democratic Iraq as more of a threat than a weakened Saddam?
And of course, establishing a true democracy entails a serious commitment of US resources and personnel--think of Japan and Germany. if the US overthrows Saddam, I think it's essential . However, the Afghanistan precedent--where we know what can happen in a power vacuum, and yet seem to be enabling one again--is not exactly encouraging. I couldn't agree more that what the world desperately needs are working Muslim democracies, but we should be establishing one in Afghanistan, and I simply don't see that happening.
(via Counterspin Central)