Democracy v. Terror, round 2

(Macchiavelli. It'll make sense below)

In an earlier post I mentioned that religious governments may be easier to control. Some commenters had some interesting questions based on that statement, and the post in general.

First, I'm not assuming that a more religious government would provide a high quality of life, at least as we understand it. However, it would be what the people want, and therefore a positive move from that perspective.

Some friends of mine got into an interesting discussion in their political economy class, where the teacher said the US (specifically under Pres. Ike) supported military dictators for the sake of modernization. That simply doesn't make sense. The US, at least as I understand it, has always been about supporting their own goals in this region, and modernization falls far down the list under stability for the oil supply's sake, and a united front against (past) concerns of Soviet "expansion."

The expansion concern is done like dinner. But when I talk about what the US should support, I'm hardly ever saying what I say because I want to help the people in the region. I know that sounds draconian, but actually it's more Machiavellian (expediency, although not necessarily deceit). If the US considers democracy and stability key parts of its foreign policy in the Middle East, than maybe it's time to support potential Islamist governments, to some degree. Not for the good of the people, but for the the sake of US policy priorities and possible a better relationship with said countries.

When I said religious governments may be easier to control, I meant since they're working off almost a prepared script, it should be relatively easy to know what they're going to do. The problem is that we may not like what they want to do, so that's where control comes in. and control is based on a proper understanding of the situation.

Just perused a book here - Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statescraft. It's overblown and pretentious, but it says that diplomats in general (and US diplomats in particular) need to factor in religious issues and angles when dealing with foreign policy to a country where religious plays a center role.

I'll take that one step further - the US should not only factor religion in its diplomatic efforts, it should actively recruit and pursue elements of a religion - ones that may be friendly to the US and its interests. Those contacts would be invaluable if a democratically-elected religious government takes power. And, even if it doesn't.