Wow. That's very well written, and mostly well reasoned, but it's plagued by several basic follies.

First, there's the idea that promoting democracy will make everyone like us, and, even more basically, that pushing our ideas of ideality on others will do the same. The essay fails to point out that large portions of the reason that many Arabs dislike or hate the United States and the western world in general is due to the failed attempts to Westernize the Middle East, from the 40s -- likely earlier -- to, probably, now. In addition, many of the stated reasons also have to do with US interference in their world, from support of Israel's often incorrigible attacks against their neighbors, internal and external, to the total support of the Saudi ruling family.

Second, there's the idea that the democracy we promote would be egalitarian. We've blatantly put people in power before. There's no reason to think that we wouldn't encourage certain factions while repressing others. He points out the cordon of soldiers protecting the members of the ``proto-democracy'' in Afghanistan. While it's true, they were also keeping out others.

Third, the idea that, somehow, we can annihilate all the bad people is ludicrous. There will always be some nutjob that thinks that he can and should destroy us all. It's happened throughout history, and it's unlikely to stop because we want it to.

He does make a good argument as to why attacking Iraq is not pre-emptive, though. It'd be nice if our administration could put it in such terms to us and the rest of the international community, instead of just rattling sabres.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk