Democracy is a bad goal. America sensibly attempted to prevent democracy in South Vietnam which would have brought the Viet Cong to power; the communists demanded that kind of democracy. Democracy in Lebanon and Palestine brought to power Hezbollah and Hamas, respectively. Democracy brought Iranian-backed Shiites to power in Iraq. The enemies should be quiet, not democratic. It is a delusion that democracies do not fight; the US fought Vietnam and Iraq, and democratic Nazi Germany fought democratic France. Affluent countries often do not find it worthwhile to fight, and affluent countries are often democratic; the equation does not work other way around: democratizing a country doesn’t make it affluent and wary of war. Democracy is a product of affluence, not a means to it. An affluent population is less violent because low-level violence does not pay much. Affluent societies are relatively safe and do not need the harsh enforcement of public safety measures best provided by totalitarian regimes. Affluent societies, thus, need not the security-optimal autocracy and opt for democracy, which is responsive (not responsible) to their wants. In poor societies, violence pays, and is consequently widespread. Security is poor, and so authoritarianism is a preferable order. A relatively lawless autocrat can better rein in competing groups and stop them from threatening outsiders and endangering the country.