Here is the rub: there is always a balance between formal and informal, de jure and de facto. Usually in a conflict one side holds one kind of power, the other the other kind.

Take Jim Crow, in which de facto informal power was favoring segregation and the outsiders were trying to enforce de jure desegregation.

Do we want a 'realist policy' that says "blacks will get treated like servants" and does nothing about it? That is, in fact, the equivalent of what the author seems to be suggesting.

No, we find what de jure leverage we can and try to change the situation.

Similarly, there are conservative causes in which there is an attempt to find de facto or de jure leverage to encourage abstinence before marriage and lower abortion rates, or lower divorce rates, or responsible drinking practices.

Perhaps the only handle we have in the middle east is de jure, so that's what we try, despite de facto informal resistance. It's not naive, and its not futile. In fact, acting like laws matter is part of what makes them matter. Sometimes, pretending is the first step to being.

BenK-- Jim Crow raises a good point. Nonetheless, there is something quite arrogant in your thinking. Presuming you are American, the Middle East is not your eminent domain. I read a certain disrespect for Islam, which is a rules-based faith. What isn't noted in Mr Cook's article is that serious crime--i.e., murders, rape, and property destruction--are relatively non-existent in Cairo when compared to any US suburb, much less a city there.

I repeat my posted reply of a few moments ago to BigSky's thoughtful comments here:

The article is an excellent and needed contribution to a debate centred on too-often arrogant faith in US institutions (not so much European ones). Also, the reply from BigSky hits well on this latter point.

I would challenge, however, how deep the commitment to imposing democratic institutions in the ME really is within the Bush-Cheney regime. To the extent there is still any adherence to the Monroe Doctrine, the ME is not Washington's priority for behaviour modification. My Latin American colleagues will wince at my reminding anyone in Washington that they once claimed such responsibilities.

The real strategic objective behind the current catastrophic fiasco is security for Israel and for critical energy resources. In the planning, one of the ways of pacifying the local populations in the wake of "big action" was to quickly introduce US-style consumerism through shopping malls, Procter & Gamble products, Hollywond entertainment, and Visa cards. These initiatives have succeeded. Watch Iraqi television. Countries across the Gulf have, indeed, succeeded in this respect. While their populations are strongly opposed to US hegemony, they complain over Starbucks coffee in their malls.

Nonetheless, most people are good and, as Stephen Cook describes, life goes on, and often amazingly well. I would rather cross Cairo's streets than try to figure out how to be a pedestrian anywhere outside of a handful of US cities. I will also note, as Ste^phen has not, the Cairo's streets can be more interesting than most in the US, where malls are the better choice.