Rich, I respectfully disagree. McCain’s 2003 speech is insistent on the purported imperative of ”meeting our strategic objective of building a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world.” He adds:

Iraq’s transformation into a progressive Arab state could set the region that produced Saddam, the Taliban, and al Qaeda on a new course in which democratic expression and economic prosperity, rather than a radicalizing mix of humiliation, poverty, and repression, create a new modernity in the Muslim world that does not define itself in ways that threaten its people or other nations.

That is to say, the problems in the Muslim world are caused by humiliation, poverty and repression — Islam is not troubling at all, much less causative.

The speech is fine as far as the need to defeat al Qaeda is concerned. But I don’t think we are fighting to build a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world, as much as we might like to see such a development. I don’t think there’s been any demonstration that “Islamic democracy,” however unlikely, would increase American security, nor do I think the American people would ever see the quest for it as a sufficient reason to commit American forces to combat.

As I’ve argued before, if you like the democracy project, you’ll love President McCain. If you think it’s an ill-conceived blunder, prepare for more of the same. I hasten to add that both Democrats would be just as bad, or worse, on this score — the only thing they really have against the democracy project in Iraq is that it is a Bush policy. It’s otherwise exactly the sort of thing they’d be doing themselves — which is why candidate George W. Bush was effective in arguing against the use of the military for nation-building in 2000.