... Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

When anti-war elements righteously seize on the concept that launching the war in Iraq has caused terrorism in Iraq, they are almost explicitly making the case for the management of global terrorism via the support or supportive ignorance of the most tyrannical and bloodiest forms of government. Ironically, this is a similar brand of realpolitik that influenced America's third world foreign policy during the Cold War and spawned so many of the hypocritical proxy regimes that helped incite the left's hatred of their own country in the first place. Many of the same individuals that viciously malign the United States for aiding the rise of Pinochet in Chile relish the CIA's report of increased terror in Iraq as a crutch to attack the policy of the Bush Administration.

Of course, terror was largely subdued in Iraq because:

A. Saddam Hussein only selectively used terror that was perceived to achieve state and personal interests.

B. He eliminated unwanted and uncontrolled terror within Iraq by supporting the interests of foreign terrorists, through the domestic intelligence infiltration of an Iraqi police state and the brutal intimidation and mass detention and execution of unwanted elements.

In short, a little genocide and mass detention can go a long way in lowering a country's production of domestic terrorists. The ones not employed by the state, that is. But terrorism is also diminished by fully realized political freedom and stability, which requires foreign support and resolve to nurture a nascent Democracy through the intermediate stage of vulnerability.

As an example, Iran was on the road to the intermediate stage a few times in the past 200 years, as the Russians and British tried to maintain a rapacious grip on its resources and territory, while the United States actually tried a few times to shepard it towards Democratic reforms against resistance from the Iranian upper class. During periods where the United States lost interest in pushing freedom and just reforms tied to economic and military aid, and instead simply ignored Iran or focused on placating autocratic rulers as a practical tool against the USSR, Iran slid back into the conditions that generated unrest and eventual Islamist revolution. The repression handed the extremist clergy the power to direct the actions of an angry populace.

In a similar fashion, support or apathy for the existence of repressive societies, especially societies preyed on by radical Islamist ideology, is a strategic formula for the continued generation of terrorism and instability. Unless all of those societies are brutally repressive enough to emulate horror shows like Hussein's Iraq and North Korea, that is.

In a much starker example of the critical need for foreign political and economic assistance, Iraq's Democracy is very nascent and vulnerable, and their guidance to a position of strength will require a financial and partial security committment of at least 5 years in order for freedom to have a real chance of taking permanent root. Probably 10. And the spread of freedom in the greater region is a generational struggle.

This is the main reason why I supported President Bush's re-election, and why I can't fully grasp the endorsements of Kerry from any regional scholars and supporters of Democracy like Thomas Friedman. Bush's Iraq policy may be riddled with flaws and has a chance at failure, but rational analysis of a potential Kerry Administration always led me back to the same conclusion: there is no way that John Kerry would have maintained the personal political will to sacrifice for Democracy in Iraq as support for the war dipped below 50%. In addition to his extraordinary tendency towards naked political opportunism, he would have been a first-term President planning for re-election - disengagement from Iraq within 2 years (or less) would have been a requisite political strategy for the Kerry camp.

Iraq needs willpower and support to achieve stability, and assuming that Bush doesn't backtrack and betray his promise to see the job through, and assuming the State Department starts pushing reforms amongst intermediately repressive allies, then we've bought four more years to try and nurture strategic success in the region. I'd say that it's worth the shot.

Good luck, President Bush.

UPDATE: This analysis tends to be superficial: "U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations." Advancing freedom does not call for cutting off relations or alliances with all repressive regimes, because such an action is not only ineffective, it's a practical impossibility. Spreading freedom relies on using an arsenal of tools that include free trade, economic aid tied to reforms and the spread of free media, among other things. Now, I have little doubt that the Bush Administration's "rhetoric is seamless, but the policy is very muddled," as Thomas Carothers from Carnegie mentions in the article, but expecting a "seamless" policy from any administration is an unrealistic goal; it's a constant, delicate balancing act that cannot be rooted in tactically consistent, pure morality. The consistent morality lies in the strategy. I realize how that sentiment may sound, but it's true: in some specific situations, the US will always have several distinctly impure policy choices that require a decision which can be selectively criticized by political opponents searching for opportunistic cracks in "seamless rhetoric." What's ironic about this is the fact that Bush's execution of foreign policy is probably more morally consistent than any of his recent predecessors, and the incarnations of this consistency (the refusal to deal with Arafat, for example) are also roundly criticized by the media.

To me, realistically, the portion of Bush's vision that seems truly flawed and hypocritical is the anemic overt non-military funding for Democratic reformers and alternative media outlets in repressive regions. This needs to change. Now.

UPDATE: Apologies if this is a rough entry - stream of consciousness and no time to edit. Wa.