It is not an argument against democracy. "Overwhelmingly it has had wonderful consequences," he writes, but he is concerned with democracy's "dark sides," with the fact that democracy doesn't automatically equate with freedom or sensible government...Mr. Zakaria is nervous about democracy in the Middle East in general. He opens his chapter called "The Islamic Exception" with a vignette of how President Mubarak of Egypt rebuffs America's entreaties to be more democratic. "If I were to do what you ask, Islamic fundamentalists will take over Egypt," Mr. Mubarak likes to say. "Is that what you want?" Mr. Zakaria doesn't seem inclined to challenge the Egyptian martinet. He does manage to avoid other common mistakes...That said, I finished the book admiring Mr. Zakaria's reprise nonetheless. What its author is making is essentially a plea for republicanism, for constitutionalism, for checks on majority rule, and for moderation--all things that the best of conservatives and liberals favor. [New York Sun, 4/9/03]

The Transition to Democracy report produced for the London conference of the Iraqi opposition in December 2002 proposed that federalism in Iraq be understood as an extension of the principle of the separation of powers--only this time power is being divided instead of separated. Federalism is from this point of view the thin end of the wedge of Iraqi democracy. It is the first step towards a state system resting on the principle that the rights of the part, or the minority, should never be sacrificed to the will of the majority--be that part defined as a single individual or a whole collectivity of individuals who speak another language and have their own culture. Yet this redefinition alone will not redress the mistake of Michel Aflaq, which led to Saddam Hussein's butchery. If the constituent parts of the new Iraqi federation are defined ethnically, we will revert back to the deadly logic of "nationalism is [ethnic] love before anything else." ...The idea must be to have complete freedom of movement, of people and capital, and of property rights, regardless of the region in which one chooses to settle. [New Republic Online, 4/7/03]

Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment. "Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said. "There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back." "The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years." The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.

[Read this story about a similar incident in Castro's Cuba.]

On "60 Minutes" last night I listened to part of a discussion on rebuilding Iraq after the war. It was mentioned that a new kind of government would be set up. It was not said what kind of government. How much will rebuilding cost? Billions.

I do not like the idea of our spending huge sums of taxpayer money on rebuilding other countries. If we were going to install a constitutional, representative republic that protected and enforced individual rights, that promoted and ensured laissez-faire capitalism, that would be great. It would be a step toward Pax Americana.

But given what's been said and done already in the conduct of this war, I shudder to think what a lot of that hard-earned money will go for--even though the world's two best countries will run the show. There will be rake-offs, graft and corruption. Less, surely, than if the UN runs the rebuilding. But still there will be a tremendous waste of money. Plus, the kind of government installed will be based on a moral code as collectivist as its past--no matter whether it's run by Muslims or Christians, no matter what its form.

It does not make sense to spend money and manpower rebuilding a country that never reached a level of civilization that leads toward the possibilities indicated by Ancient Greece. I can see rebuilding Germany and Japan. Culturally, both of those nations had a good understanding of the importance of productivity if not of the individual, despite each country's descent into fascism. But the Iraqis? The ones who really care about creating values and making money have emigrated.

If any such are still in Iraq, then they can rebuild what they want, and pay for it themselves. They have oil fields and there are many men who want to become involved in the country's politics. Some opine that terrorism will return if we just walk away. It will anyway so long as collectivism is operative. It's far better to use our money on us. Reduce taxes, raise military pay and have a strong defense policy. Stomp down hard and swiftly on terrorism the minute it appears. This approach would maintain our peace and security. Present plans will not.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair on Tuesday endorsed a "vital role" for the United Nations when fighting ends, but their plans may fall short of European desires...[Bush] added: "Rebuilding of Iraq will require the support and expertise of the international community. We are committed to working with international institutions, including the United Nations, which will have a vital role to play in this task." Pressed on what precisely the U.N. role would be, however, Bush mentioned only humanitarian work, "suggesting" people to staff the interim authority and helping Iraq "progress." He did not spell out how much power the United Nations would have...In a joint written statement, Bush and Blair pledged to seek U.N. Security Council resolutions to affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure aid delivery and endorse an appropriate post- conflict administration for Iraq. [Reuters, 4/8/03]