Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The key to a sustained democracy is a strong and prosperous middle class. If you create a democracy, but the country does not prosper and the middle class disappears you will lose the democracy. If you have an authoritarian regime, but it creates growth, you end up with a democracy that is stable - Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Spain, Portugal etc.
Saudi Arabia - Every day the middle class in Saudi Arabia gets bigger and more educated. That means Saudi Arabia is headed in the right direction. Yes the system produces some crazies but they have need other countries to leverage their craziness. In the long run Saudi Arabia does not worry me.
Lebanon - Lebanaon is growing. The middle class is getting stronger all the time.
Egypt - that is tougher because Egypt is not growing that robustly. We need to put more pressure on Egypt so it adobts better economic policies.
Algeria - same goes for Algeria.
Syria - Syria is a kleptocracy just like Iraq was. The middle class is not getting bigger nor is the population becoming more educated. Either we get them to change or regime change will be in order.
|
To your Singapore, South Korea, etc. I put Iran under the Shah, China, and Iraq (before its isolation in the 90s).
The approach of putting economic pressure to develop and open up simultaneously can work (see South Africa) or can have very different effects (see Iraq under Hussein, see Iran). Those economic pressures used against Egypt and Algeria could cause either or both of them to go the way of Iran.
Ultimately, the question is priorities and judgments. If Iraq was more important than Afghanistan ( I don't think it was), then maybe we should have focused on it, and provided the Generals with the troops they wanted. In each case, we're taking resources we could use for economic development elsewhere and putting them into munitions. Would $100 billion have been more effective spent in Mexico?
