Kaplan's incessant demand for a return to realism is a bit like demanding the revival of disco. It can't be done, and you wouldn't want to do it anyway.

"Realism" meant propping up military dictators on the premise that their kind of order was better than no kind of order at all.

Trouble is, all the dictators have gone. Wikipedia provides a handy summary of what's happened to military dictatorships over the last 20 years. Where once half the world was ruled by them, the Wikis reckon there are only five left. Of these, none of them is an out-and-out dictatorship in the mould of Saddam Hussein's.

Kaplan has never explained how he expected Saddam to buck this trend. "Realism" is a dead as disco, alongside the victims of the dictators it supported.

"Kaplan has never explained how he expected Saddam to buck this trend. "Realism" is a dead as disco, alongside the victims of the dictators it supported."

Huh? What does the number of military dictatorships have to do with what Kaplan wrote? Most of the dictators the Wiki article mentions were gone before Bush ever took office, remember, back when "realism" ruled. Bush's policy of invading other countries to impose democracy at gunpoint isn't working out well at all. And, of the military dictatorships that are still in existence, Bush is actively engaged in propping up Pakistan and Egypt and has remained mum on Thailand. If the tide was running so strongly against military dictatorship, why bother to invade Iraq at all? Historical inevitability would have done the work for us without having to spend a trillion bucks and lose thousands of American lives.

Meanwhile, you seem to assume that military dictatorships are the only kind of oppressive regimes. Cuba, North Korea and Saudi Arabia are some of the most oppressed countries on earth, but they don't even make the list of "military dictatorships." Don't they count?

I'm not sure what the statement about "dictators" is supposed to prove. Is Islamic Iran a "dictatorship"? Is Venezuela a "dictatorship"? How about the People's Republic of China, the Yugoslav Republic (or Serbia if you prefer), Suadi Arabia or Egypt? How about Burma? Zambia? Cuba? When the differenc is between those societies and political entities that have democracy and those that don't, "dictatorships" as defined by Wikipedia is irrelevant.

I don't consider Wikipedia as a sole source reference and I don't consider "dictatorships" to be a relevant term if not linked to specific political conditions. A democracy presupposes not just elections, but the allowance and protection of dissent, the firm acknowledgement and protection of individual rights by the government itself, freedom of conscience, a sense of tolerance, inclusiveness and the willingness to compromise and reach consensus. In short, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

The USSR had elections for its entire existence, yet after the first few years and even before Lenin died, no one would have called it a "democracy". The People's Republic of China, Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic Republic of Korea have all had elections throughout their existence yet no one would call them a democracy. The points Kaplan is making is 1) elections do not make a democracy and throughout history, elections have been as much a path to authoritarian government as democracy. The Bolsheviks, the Fascists, the Nazis, the Peronists, Hamas, ad nauseum, were all elected to power. The mullahs in Iran and the "Communists" in China and North Korea have used elections as a means of control and reaffirmation of their dominence. When Egypt recently held elections, the very authoritarian President (one could define his role as dictator), Hassani Mubarrek stopped those elections when it became apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood, a Islamist party, was wiining too many of the elections to be denied a place in the government. Iraq is not now a democracy. It may never be a democracy. Had we not deposed Hussein and created the near anarchy that exists there, it is possible that after his death, the situation would have changed in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been a democracy that arose from the ashes. In fact given the vitality of authoritarian governments, even those dominated by families such as the Husseins of Syria, in the Middle East, there is NO justifable projection or scenario that sees a regime change in Iraq without external intervention. 2) Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't define Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan or Egypt as "dictatorships" but they are most certainly authoritarian governments of one pattern or another, which deny their citizens certain, if not all, the rights expected in a democracy and suppresses dissent and opposition. And we do support them politically, economically and militarily, just as we indirectly supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq from 1988 to 1989 during our confrontation with Iran. Kaplan is quite right about those statements and he is right about the complete shambles the combination of religion, ideology and hypocrisy this Administration has made of American national security and foreign policy.

Russia only started to change after they started electing more democratically-thinking Communists, as a response to Gorby's Perestroika. Saudi Arabia may be a monarchy, and we do support it, but that's "realpolitik", which Kaplan WANTS. And we have had an influence on them. But progress there is slow, and at least they aren't actively campaigning against us, which is a starting point. As for the Arab states, and for that matter, Iran, that try to start democratic electoral processes but seem to fail, that's because the "one man one vote" rule of democracies doesn't work well when the idiot, uneducated masses can be rallied by clerics and religious leaders to vote in people who want a Theocracy. It's just as bad as voting in a fascist party that supports dictatorships or voting in Communists that vote for continued party domination and rule of all forces of government.

Democracy is an institution, much like a financial system or a professional military or police force. It must be nurtured along. It must be carefully grown. And most of all, it's application must be understood by ALL that it is for everyone, not just the powerful. I'm not convinced that most of the world "gets it". But to issue idiotic statements like Kaplan does that "God will take care of it himself" is asinine. What does he expect? Fiery thunderballs? Plagues? Or maaaaaybeee God works through his agents, people that are believers. People that get to where they are (aka The Presidency of the United States) so that they can stand up and do God's work. Kaplan is just an ass, crowing just so he can get heard. He doesn't actually DO anything, he's just a loudmouth with a penchant for turning a good phrase or two. Sadly, if he were destined for something more, I'm sure God would have used him for something by now other than being a whining, petulant liberal.

how the hell did i end up in this thread?

putin is sucking china's toes...when he isn't killing women journalists; irradiating brittish citizens; or having flashbacks to the berlin blockcade.

No. See below...

Military dictatorship is a very specific form of government.

Most types of government are undemocratic. In China and Cuba you have one-party states. In Saudi Arabia you have a monarchy. In Iran you have a revolutionary Islamic government.

Although none of these governments is universally popular among their populations, each has much more legitimacy and support than a military dictatorships.

Military dictators use their position in the army to abuse the military's monopoly of force in a society. Their power is not the product of a politial process, even an undemocratic politics, but a military one.

This means they enjoy less legitimacy than any other form of government, and are thus inherently unstable. Hope this clarifies things...

GreenwichJ wrote: "Most types of government are undemocratic."

So why do you conclude freedom is on an irresistible march?

GreenwichJ wrote: "Military dictators use their position in the army to abuse the military's monopoly of force in a society. Their power is not the product of a politial process, even an undemocratic politics, but a military one.

This means they enjoy less legitimacy than any other form of government, and are thus inherently unstable. Hope this clarifies things..."

Are you seriously arguing that the long-standing, extremely repressive regimes in N. Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia have more legitimacy than the current government of the relatively open society of Thailand, which is listed as a military dictatorship in the Wiki article? North Korea is far less free than Thailand will ever be under its military junta.

Not all dictatorships are military dictatorships. Dictatorship is not dead yet. Theocracy isn't dead yet, either. Real democratic republics are more rare. A lot of what people refer to as democracy or a democratic republic isn't.

other forms of bad government.

The place where realism comes in is simple. You ask yourself the question, "If the present "bad' government were gone, what would replace it?" If the answer is that the people are aching for a REAL democracy, you help them. If the answer is that some worse government or complete chaos would be the result, you stand back and wait.

Saudi Arabia's government may not be perfect, but it isn't aggressive and there is reason to believe the likely substitute would NOT be a real democratic republic.

Pakistan's government may not be perfect, but it is being helpful and there is reason to believe that the substitute would not be a real democratic republic.

We have sometimes made the mistake of letting a "bad"government fall and ending up with a worse one. The present government of Iran, for example, is not preferable to the monarchy that preceded it, and is not a real democratic republic.

I must have missed something in those ideology and comparative government classes I took.

A dictatorship is a government in which a single individual who had gained and/or holds power through repressive measures governs a nation or people. Nothing there about the dictator being a member of the military or using the military to gain power. There are and have been military dictatorships. But not all military lead governments are dictatorships and not all dictatorships originate or are maintained by the military.

Kaplan is right in that democracy is not a given, is not the natural state of political governance and doesn't grow from or is represented by elections. His point that this Administration has repeatedly confused the holding of elections with the spread of democracy as a form of government and society and he is right.

His other point is that this Administration, led by President Bush, cannot conduct a rational foreign policy, publically proclaiming its support for democracy throughout the world, while supporting a authoritarian leader who gained power through a coup in Pakistan, an authoritarian, if traditional tribal/clan monarchy in Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian monarchy supported by the armed forces in Thailand, a one party secular socialist Arab nationalist state in Egypt, a one-party socialist authoritarian state in Ethiopia among others while decrying the increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial rule in Russia and Venezuela or the theocratic authoritarian government in Iran or the "Communist" state supported by the military in North Korea or Cuba and ignoring the same type of state in China, while creating the conditions for the success of Hamas in Palestine and Hezebollah in Lebanon and, almost, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In an editorial in the Atlanta Journal Constitution last month, General Sheehan, USMC, Ret explained why he refused the job of "war czar" offered by the Bush Administration. He reluctently decided not to serve his country yet again when he realized how futile the effort would be given the dysfunctional management of national security and foreign policy he found in the Bush Administration which was reflected in a complete lack of a cohesive strategic concept for the region, not just Iraq. He could have justly added that over the last six years, other than sound bites and cliches and a nebulous "Global War on Terror" this Administration has demonstrated a lack of a world strategic concept based on a realistic appraisal of requirements, objectives or resources.

Military dictatorship is a very specific form of government.

Which of the following (if any) is/was a military dictatorship:

The Third Reich

Peron's Argentina

Turkey:

• in 1950s-1960s
• in 1980s
• now

Franco's Spain

North Korea now

Portugal in the 1970s

Pakistan:

• under Zia
• under Musharraf

Amin's Uganda

USSR during the Civil War

Iraq under Saddam

Japan 1937-45

South Korea under Park

Pinochet's Chile

Anxiously awaiting enlightenment.

Cuba? Noriega's Panama? Vietnam under Uncle Ho? Mao"s China?

Why is it that you cannot understand that democracy isn't always an available option. You have to take what is available. I'm sorry, but Benazir Bhutto or some crazy bunch of clerics ending up governing Pakistan isn't preferable to Musharraf and doesn't constitute democracy. Pakistan needs to break a lot of its feudal chains before it could have real democratic elections. It also needs to get power hungry clerics out of line of succession in order to have democratic government. The electorate has to be more educated and freed from vassalage to the traditional inheritors of wealth and power in the country. Without this, it is not democratic.

We aren't failing to try to promote democracy. There are places where the conditions are such that the overthrow of what is there would lead to worse things, not democracy. There are even places where "democratic" elections would lead to a government that would be horrible for the governed and for us.

1) Nazis. No (elected, then "autogolpe")
2) North Korea. No.
3) Pakistan. Yes under Zia. Yes under Musharraf.
4) Iraq under Saddam. Certainly.
5) Chile under Pinochet. Yes.

I'm afraid the other examples fall outside my areas of expertise, but I don't think what I'm saying is particularly controversial. Even communist states allow for a degree of political participation and representation, as well as an ideology to which at least some of the population will subscribe. Monarchies have tradition in their favour. Military dictatorships have none of these things, hence their short average life-span. To conflate the above into a single "authoritarian" morass would suggest that the poster above needs a refund on his comparative politics course (mine, on the other hand, was quite good on this stuff).

Of course, dictatorships often enjoy brief, initial periods of popularity, but these without exception fade, as has happened in Thailand and Pakistan. Both regimes are planning elections over the next year, it's worth noting.