Well, first, I need to challenge your assumption that people in the Middle East only respect violence, either because of the environment they live in, cultural factors, etc. As I’ve mentioned earlier, it’s not logically correct, historically accurate, or thoughtfully fair to lump all Palestinians or Arabs into one innately hostile group. I can explain further how each of the radical groups are different from each other, how they’re much different from moderate groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or how majorities in Arab countries disdain violence if you’d like. In any event, I think you need to read more on the subject, and I mean that as respectfully as possible. I have been studying and working on the region for years, and it is still fascinatingly complex. You’re using logical leaps between disparate examples to try to justify your positions, which is fine, except that for that to be credible, it must be backed with a stronger grasp of the situation.
For example, yes, Saddam Hussein used force to maintain control. But, equally important he relied on clan and regional loyalties, as well as preserving the Sunni yeoman tradition instituted by the British (see Charles Tripp’s excellent history on Iraq for more). Force was undoubtedly a component, but how do you maintain loyalty in the military to a dictator? What incentives need to be given in a divide-and-rule society? These are more important questions, and examining them provides better insight on how Iraq under Saddam functioned rather than a simple “force ruled all†mentality.
I can also tell you that you are absolutely wrong in your prescription that a transition to democracy must require the complete destruction of a former regime. Germany, Japan – post-WWII these countries still had a strong tradition of self-government and respect for the rule of law, however altered that may have been during the war. And those were essential building blocks for creating stable societies, along with a host of other factors. Nation-building in Bangladesh, say, notably did not involve the widespread destruction of government bureaucracies, nor was this true of Egypt, Taiwan, Russia, and most other countries. In fact, complete destruction of the regime is often counteractive to promoting democracy. What fills the void of old institutions while new ones are being built? What happens when you disband the army, and they go and become insurgents because you took away a huge source of livelihood? Of course, certain institutions must go to allow for democracy. Opening up the political process, liberalizing economics, etc. are needed. The critical question is which ones to dismantle, which ones to gradually transform, and which ones to preserve.
Finally, you’re assuming that brutality equates to necessity (or success). This is not historically validated either. Brutality has never coincided with long-term aims towards democratization. Indeed, if a democratic country gives sanction to inhumane treatment, then in what way have the occupied’s lives been improved? What impetus do they have to push for democracy? Vietnam was not lost because the military didn’t have free rein. Vietnam was lost because the gradual brutality and indiscriminate attack of the French and then US military alienated the population, forcing them to choose between a foreign occupier who evidently didn’t care about protection of civilians (in certain cases) versus irregulars who advocated self-determination (albeit under communism). Not an easy choice, but one in which the US should have been able to win the hearts and minds, but failed.
As applied to Iraq and Israel, you can see the degenerative spiral of occupation, and why nation-building is simply so damn hard. The occupant must maintain public support, it must be shown to be competent, and if the normative aim is democracy, then it must do so through democratic means. Otherwise, you could just as easily end up with an Iran (remember, the Shah wasn’t democratic, and the CIA toppled the leading indigenous nationalist figure in 1953) as you could with a Japan. And who wants that on their border or as a threat?
Also, you use counterfactuals, which is a really iffy method. For example, when you talk about Germany suppressing Nazis prior to WWII, you assume that it could have been done, that if it had been done it would have avoided Nazi aggression, and that we are in a much worse state because it didn’t happen. All of this could be contended, and you couldn’t give any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, how could you? It’s all speculative.
Ultimately, you’re not a realist. That’s just a mantle you adopt to buttress your idea that people are bad. A true realist sees all the factors and understands how they come together. It is complexity that defines reality, not brutality, and genuine realism must encompass that. The lesser side of human nature is a part of this, but so too is the better aspect. And the paucity of your view leads you to say, in the case of Iraq and Israel, just destroy the societies and governments, then pick up the pieces or let them rebuild. But you forget that the Israelis must then live with whatever result occurs, and there is all the more reason that that result will be inimical to Israel. In Iraq, you forget that the government does not have the capacity to support the country now, partly because the US destroyed some pretty key institutions, partly because the Bush administration did not plan for the post-war situation, and partly because the push for democracy has released underlying, antagonistic social tensions which make Iraq an extremely fragmented state. You could take the Edward Luttwak approach and suggest that a withdrawal will force the various factions into working with each other. But that’s a big gamble, and not one I’d like to take on a region where my country imports a major portion of their oil. It’s not going to be a puppet government (the political problems in Iraq already attest to that fact). It will be chaos, and it almost is chaos because of the overemphasis on purely instrumental, and not existentially focused, military force.
