An interesting comment and while I agree that, scientifically at least, "replicating an experiment involves more than replicating the process", I also believe the writer is losing track of the main thing - the democratzation process is not a scientific investigation into a non-human proccess.

It is outcome directed - that is it is working towards a goal, not dispassionately observing some static process for its inherent qualities. Adjustments can and will be made along the process, incrementally moving toward the desired outcome. Anyone who has ever completed a home project knows that while it may not yield an absolutely perfect result - outcome oriented processes do work.

So I see the hypothesis as flawed. If there is a question to be asked, and if the author wants to ask it, the question to be asked is "is the desire of people to be free and determine their own destiny a universal one or is it only a western value?"

The successes of democracies worldwide in the immediate past century would certainly indicate it is a universal desire. Indeed, to claim otherwise is to racistly insist that peoples who do not possess this desire are somehow inferior.

-Murrel

I disagree that the question to be asked here is the one you posit. My point, as author of this opinion post, is that we can't expect things in Iraq or Afghanistan to track the same way they did in Germany or Japan simply because it's Western countries involved in a liberation of a country from brutal rule. There are complexities of culture and tradition in those countries that are substantially different from Germany's and Japan's. I'm sure historians of G & J could point out great differences in the way democratic ideals interacted with those cultures too. And I'm hardly suggesting that any human endeavor has the controllability of a scientific experiment in a lab - I know better. But some are presenting Germany and Japan as final proof that similar govts can evolve in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm saying - it's unlikely.

I'm not quite sure how you suddenly lept to "racism". There are various forms of democracies that are experiencing various levels of success throughout the world, and I'm not "claim[ing]" otherwise nor suggesting in any way that any ethnic or racial group doesn't want self-determination (or individuals, for that matter - I don't look at race as a monolithic thing). All I'm saying is, look at how the culture of one African country caused problems when western means of "getting ahead" were encouraged. It's not meant as a derogation of the country's culture or the western means. It rather points to likelihood of unintended consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan as the US and its allies work with the people and governments there, and we need to be aware of that potential so the eventual outcome is a net gain for the people. Any association with racism is emerging from your own biased view.

I really liked the original post, and the links. Excellent pieces, much to think about there.

Susanna

Thank you for this post. Especially the piece by John Lloyd.

I knew John 30 years ago, when he was a journalist covering technology, telecoms etc for the Financial Times. No-one works for the FT unless they are good. He was accurate, in touch.

He went on to be editor of the New Statesman, the leading left-wing weekly in the UK. After he left, he carried on as a correspondent for the NS.

But over Iraq, he "walked away" from the left-wing view, and wrote a vitriolic column explaining why the left-wing had totally lost the plot.

Somewhere on Command-Post his article was linked - about 10 days ago.

May I recommend everyone to GO BACK to Susanna's post, and follow the link to John Lloyd's latest article. Read it slowly. John is well-known in international journalism - and writes well. His new piece is an excellent overview of the state of UK politics, and attitudes to the Iraq conflict.

Again - thank you Susanna. It is important that we here in the UK should read US writers. Likewise, Americans should read the kind of stuff John Lloyd writes.

Thanks on a very thought provoking post. John Llloyd's piece is definitely worth reading by all especially since it does an excellent job of framing of what I think is the key issue of the war.

The second article, though, left me a little flat. While the author made some inciteful and interesting observations, I was very disappointed that at the end he came to the conclusion that "Good intentions are certainly no guarantee of good results." What am I supposed to make of that? Should I not try because things might not work out? Should I not bother tyring to be a good parent because my child might turn out bad, anyway? Rather, some kind of attempt to recommend alternatives would have been more appreciated.