Within days of President Bush's speech articulating a vision of democracy in the Middle East after a war with Iraq, a sobering reality set in.
The powerful security forces of the authoritarian government in Pakistan delivered the most important catch to date in the war on Al Qaeda: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the possible mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
They were able to do it because Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has put everything on the line to back the U.S. war on Al Qaeda -- even though it means challenging the passions of significant portions of his public.
Similarly, in the Arab world, most authoritarian governments, whose populations are overwhelmingly opposed to such a war, have decided to cooperate with the American effort anyway.
And it is the very absence of democracy that has enabled these authoritarian governments to respond to Washington's unpopular requests.
In contrast, Turkey -- the one Muslim democracy in the Middle East, a member of NATO and usually a staunch American ally, a country offered billions of dollars in American aid to say yes -- said no to American forces on its soil.
The reason was clear: Even its Islamist-supported government, which backed the presence of American troops, could not persuade the democratic parliament to overlook the fact that nine out of 10 Turks oppose the war.
Democracy spoke.
These trends are symptomatic of the history of American relations with the Middle East, which often have inclined Washington to follow policies that had the consequence of bolstering authoritarianism.
Whatever the intent, a war with Iraq is likely to perpetuate repression in the Middle East, not spread democracy, at least in the short term.
The pattern is clear. As we pursue policies that are highly unpopular in the Middle East, we ask, indeed insist, that governments support these policies.
To accomplish this, those governments unleash their security forces to prevent dissent, to contain public demonstrations, to limit freedom of speech, to disrupt any potential organization from undermining their stability. In the case of war in Iraq, the regimes fear that passions could be inflamed if there are many civilian casualties, so they plan ahead with particular ruthlessness. More and more of their resources go to keeping the security forces strong and happy -- resources that are enhanced by the deals that we make to gain their support.
