Nineteen

Regarding Iraq. Let's just assume a democratic government arises in Iraq. It's safe to presume this government being representative of a majority Shiite population will have increased diplomatic ties to Iran. It's safe to presume that this nation will try to reaasert itself as a leader of the Arab world and rearm to solidify this role. Logically, this would also mean Iraq would have to confront the major antagonist in the region (despite what the media would have you believe) Israel. This confrontation wouldn't necessarily be hostile but it would require a sort of detente situation which would lead to an arms race. Possibly weapons of mass destruction in the arsenal. As a democratic nation they would presumably have the moral high ground to develop nuclear arms. Iraqi's would also have to ensure energy security which means more and more of its vast oil reserves would be kept for domestic use with less going to its western allies.

Not by any stretch of the imagination can you imagine the US tolerating let alone supporting any of the circumstances I described. But you have to assume by the general law that any democratic state would pursue the national interest of its citizens that those circumstances would likely arise or be pursued by a responsible democratic Iraq. So a democratic Iraq if you follow my logic is anathema to the US interest. The line that the goal of the war was to bring democracy to Iraq is a farce. The goal, by logical extension, is to create a client state for the pursuit of American interests in the region.

I know this isn't a radical perspective. It is pretty basic common sense knowledge among the intellectually honest observers. Just thought I'd put it out there.