Not to get into semantics but what is meant by "worse"? More crime, less stability, etc? These are things that always accompany freedom in the beggining. The liberated and independent U.S. was remarkably more unstable in 1786 then it was under British rule in say 1754 (before the 7 Years War). Creating a free, constitutional republic is always an unstable process and always has growing pains associated with it. It takes time. It wasn't for nearly 25 years that the U.S. even emerged as legitimate country and it wasn't really until 1815 that this country gained legitimacy on an international scale. That's a long ways away from 1783 when the War for Independence ended.
I'd argue that it took us even longer to achieve international legitimacy but that's moot.
Is your suggestion that Saddam have shaved, given a nice suit, and put back in power? All so that things would be less "worse"?
Nope. There's another thread where I believe I rather stealthily mentioned the name "Santa Anna" but sadly no one picked up on it.
Most of the time, totalitarian and fascist states are more stable because anyone who does anything different or anything to create instability is immediately killed. Instant obedience is the goal.
This is why they are referred to as "police states."
The best example of this that comes to mind the New York vs. Tokyo police force. Tokyo has a remarkably lower crime rate and a remarkably higher conviction rate for crimes than New York. The reason is because Tokyo police aren't governed by the same concern for civil liberties and individual rights that those in America are. For instance, cops in Tokyo can wiretap any phone without a warrant, set up cameras everywhere, go through people's belongings/homes/cars etc. without any probably cause. Of course if American officers were given the same access they would catch more criminals.
An excellent point. You'd make a pretty good sociologist.
It comes down the fundamental question of whether you would rather live on your knees or live with the potential of dying on your feet.
And here comes my problem: I don't remember anyone ever asking the Iraqis that question. The question you're talking about comes back to self-determination, which is a tough one for us, historically.
I mean, after all, didn't we fight a measure of self-determination by subduing the South? Granted, we were fighting slavery, which denied any form of self-determination to the slaves; but still, by invading, defeating, occupying and then re-admitting to the Union the rebel states, weren't we effectively removing their self-determination?
If I had to put my finger on it, our debacles in Vietnam and now in Iraq ideologically go back to the Civil War - where we fought against self-determination but for democracy. Back then, the cause was righteous and good, and above all else we got lucky - Lee told his troops that when the war was over, the war was over, which prevented a ton of guerilla-warfare we might have had to deal with in the occupied South. Anyway, re-admitting the South to the Union wasn't going to be that hard. The institution of democracy already existed there and didn't have to be altered all that much.
Sorry, I just finished Graham Greene's
The Quiet American and it got me thinking about the difference between spreading "democracy" and spreading "self-determination."
