The American government unwisely urges the democratization of Muslim societies. In those undeveloped societies, Islamists are the only opposition to corrupt regimes, and free elections invariably bring Islamists to power. Civilized countries like Iran eventually develop semi-secular alternatives to mullahs, while Palestinian peasants can only replace the Islamists with a civil war between gangs. Democracy is a simple, self-evident form of government. Where it didn’t develop, it was for a reason. It is astonishingly arrogant on the part of the US administration to imagine that in Iraq, Ukraine, Lebanon, or Palestine locals don’t know about democracy, but that when taught, they will embrace it. Most societies, especially the poor, discontent, and fragile, do not need democracy.
Take Turkey, where the popular approval ratings of America have sunk to a mere 2%. Would it be better if democratic elections in Turkey bring Islamists to power? Is there a freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Who needs democratic elections that result in an Islamist government that bans democracy? Yet America and the EU constantly criticize the Turkish military for influencing the country’s politics. A friendly military government is better than a democratically elected Islamist government; if that’s not self-evident, learn it from the done deals in Lebanon and Palestine. A democratically elected Islamist government in Turkey—the seat of the caliphate and the most prominent Muslim empire—would hold enormous credibility among Muslims worldwide. A strong, heavily militarized Islamic Turkey at Europe’s borders would repeat the Gates of Vienna scenario: it would be defeated, yes, but at a great cost.

The main peddlers of democracy in the Islamic world are Western leftists who cling to the old socialist doctrine of destroying the old world and consciously building a bright future on its ruins. So far they have done well at making ruins. Islamic democracy is the leftists’ best hope. What their darling Stalin didn’t achieve, democratically elected nuclear mullahs and Pakistani sheikhs can do. They can rend the Western world; they cannot annihilate it, but they can inflict tremendous damage and possibly clear the scene for leftists to build a new, rationally designed West. Russian Bolsheviks likewise cooperated with Germany during WWI. Socialists need devastation, and Islamic governments can deliver it.

The West cannot uphold oppressive regimes in Islamic lands indefinitely. Foreign-sponsored regimes failed in Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, and plenty of other countries. Common Muslims resent Western support for their oppressors. Nasser and Khomeini took power in two major Islamic states despite Western wishes. Foreigners cannot stem the tide of social changes. Whatever support is offered to Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood will come to power in Egypt. The problem is not democracy or the absence thereof. The West must wage a three-pronged war on Muslims: a propaganda war against Islam (as the US fought communism in the minds of the Soviet people), military containment, and economic boycott (Osama says the oil is underpriced, so let him drink it; buy Russian oil).

Any other policy would end up in Reconquista.