I just listen to Bush’s speech about the success of the election in Iraq last week. As usual he appears to be a strong leader. He still firmly stands on his conviction that his decision to go to war with Iraq is right.

This time he gives every reason he leads this nation to war with Iraq but the link between Saddam and the September 11. When he decided to go to war, he addressed the nation that Saddam had something to do with those terrorists (even though most of those hijackers were Saudis).

This administration believes that the election will warrant the democracy in the Middle East. As a result, the Middle East will become the region that is more stable and less dangerous to the world (or the United States’ Interests). If that a case, how about Iran, they voted and they have an extreme leader who, I am sure, will cause a conflict in the Middle East soon.

Voting in a country that the majority of people have a low literacy might create bad results than good. They might not vote according to their own best interest but the ideology or by bribe. As a result, the representative they get might be even worse than their former regime.

I believe the democracy is the best form of governing the country. However, to press the democracy to some countries without considering their history, culture and religion context, the democracy might fail terribly.

The Neo Cons believe Iraq will be a model to the democracy in the Middle East. I hope so too. But I wonder can the Iraq hold this fractional country together after the troop leaves?

Will it be like the Yugoslavia after Tito die?

Time will tell.

Tae Athikomvittaya