In Muslim nations that go to the ballot box, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, extremist political parties get crushed by voters. Those extremists are not able to earn more than a few percent of the vote. Most people want good government, the electricity to work, the trains to run on time, low crime and so forth. The people are wise, and with a proper outlet to let that wisdom flow to government, superior outcomes prevail. Voters choose secular political parties over religious ones, and moderate parties over extremists.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two best examples of failed states which breed extremist views. Both use the state to advocate an intolerant religious monoculture that is the basis for their authority. To reject the state, dissenters also reject the monoculture by choosing extremism. Lately Australia is establishing the "National Security State" and expanding the "Shadow State". In addition the Australian conservative commenteriat are seeking to establish a monoculture. These place us closer to the conditions that make Saudi Arabia such a problem. Only the principles of Australian Republicanism can save us now.

Got Secularism?

Much attention has been focused on Muslims as the perpetrators of terrorism. This assumes that Muslims are a homogeneous group, dominated by violent fundamental beliefs. This is incorrect, and a lazy stereotype. It is only on the fringes of Islam that there is a conflict with modernism, but this is not unique to Islam, witness the Christian reaction to stem cell research in the United States . Democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments when given the power to vote.

Indonesia contains the world's largest Muslim population in a nation-state. Nearly eighty percent of its 220 million population identify themselves as Muslim. In the 2004 Indonesian elections the Islamic party, Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP), was only able to gain 8% of the vote in Parliament and 3.1% in the Presidential race. In both cases losing out in majorities to secular candidates and parties. The Islamic Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) managed 10% of the parliamentary vote.

Bangladesh has a population of 144 million. Approximately eighty three percent of the population view themselves as Muslim, with Hindu being the next largest religion. In the 2001 elections , the Islamic political parties were not able to gain a majority, with the conservative Bangladesh Jatiyabadi Dal and social-democratic Bangladesh Awami League earning 87% of the vote combined.

Malaysia has a population of 23 million with approximately sixty three percent In the Dewan Rekyat (House of Representatives) election of 2004 the main secular party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu, collected 64% of the vote. The Islamic Party, Parti Islam se Malaysia, managed 15% and the democratic party, Parti Tindakan Demokratik, got 9%.

As the election results in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia show, the people are wise and choose secular government over religious government. The will of the people is translating to the form of government in these democracies. The major problem is many nations that mix religion and state, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is that they are either monarchies, autocracies or non-functioning democracies where voters are given no choice other than the existing ruling party.

Salafism and Saudi Arabia

Salafism or Wahabism is an Islamic movement traces its origins with the theologian, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in the 16thC. Salafism seeks to purify Islam by returning Muslims to the original principles of Islam. Salafism seeks to remove innovations in religious practice and idolatry (polytheism). Muhammad bin Saud established the House of Saud, which today rules over Saudi Arabia. Saud married bin Abdul's daughter, and combined his rule with Salafism to establish wider legitimacy for the Sauds. Salafism was not a widely popular religious movement in Islam until it was propagated by the House of Saud, especially in the latter half of the 20thC with Saudi Arabia's immense oil wealth.

The 1970s saw a different dynamic enter the Middle East, many of the secular regimes, such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq failed in their promise, and became single party states designed to maintain the power of the present leaders. The autocratic governments also stifled all dissent. Opposition was either forced out of the country, driven underground into silence, or into violent extremism. Iran took the third path and a Shia theocracy came to power through revolution. Iran used the wealth and power of the state to expand the influence of their religious doctrine through the Middle East.

Salafism is based on Sunni beliefs. The Shia and Sunni denomination's of Islam are the two largest and represent a sectarian split based on who the successor was to the Prophet Muhammad. In the 1980, Saudi Arabia used the wealth of the state to expand Salafist teachings. From the 911 Commission ;

In the 1980s, awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shia Iran to promote its Sunni fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism. The Saudi government, always conscious of its duties as the custodian of Islam's holiest places, joined with wealthy Arabs from the Kingdom and other states bordering the Persian Gulf in donating money to build mosques and religious schools that could preach and teach their interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

The 1980s saw the expansion of madrassa . These are Islamic schools, most of which teach a non-violent purist Islamic tradition. A significant number, however, act as recruiting agents for violent extremism. Many of the worst madrassa were in Pakistan where mujahideen where trained for the Afghan war against the Soviets.

It is obvious that the rise of violent extremism arises from several sources. These are;

• State sponsorship
• Governments which derive their legitimacy and authority from religion
• Non-democratic regimes that do not tolerate dissent

It should be noted that the first issue, state sponsorship of violent extremism is not limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. During the Afghan war the United States funded and trained many mujahideen's in Pakistan. This is a classic example of "Blowback" .

Violent Extremism and Saudi Arabia

Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national until Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship. He came from the wealthy and large bin Laden family which has also disowned him due to his involvement in Al Qaeda and terrorism. Al Qaeda came from the mujahideen operations in Soviet invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden established the ideologically driven group to create conflict between Islam and the West. Al Qaeda used terrorism for this purpose.

Bin Laden set up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where it was believed that in the mid-1990s, seventy percent of recruits in the camps were from Saudi Arabia. This may have been related to Bin Laden's offer of mujahideen to protect Saudi Arabia being rejected in 1991 and Bin Laden soon after issuing a self-styled fatwa condemning the House of Saud and demanding Muslims drive American forces out of Saudi Arabia. The high number of Saudi nationals being involved in Al Queda translated into the September 11th attacks with fifteen of the nineteen hijackers being Said Arabian.

The recent Brookings Institute Iraq Index publication has another interesting statistic. Of foreign insurgents killed in Iraq, Saudi Arabians account for sixty eight percent with ninety-four having been killed.

It is estimated that the Iraqi insurgents number approximately 20,000. Of these around 1,000 of them are foreign fighters. In comparison to other nations, Saudi Arabia is over-represented when it comes to violent extremism.

Secular Liberalism

The Saudi Arabian example shows the secular liberalism is not the problem, it is state supported religion and autocratic secularism that is the cause of disruption and disturbance in the world. Saudi Arabia is one of the more extreme samples. Disaffected Saudi's are unable to change the state through voting, their monarchy being totally opposed to any form of popular merit. The Saudi schools teach a non-tolerant form of Salafism, and that is exported by Saudi money to madrassa internationally.

Since the state and Salafism are entwined, those that reject the state must also reject the Saudi form of Sunnism, and often do so by embracing a more radical, extreme and violent interpretation of Salafism. This added to the problem of sixty percent of the Middle East being under the age of twenty-four leads to a massive problem that is having global repercussions.

Once again Indonesia is the great modern hope, through the people voting their will, Indonesia has established a secular democracy that is embracing secular liberal and liberal democratic traditions. It is important to note, that it was the wisdom of the people that led Indonesia to the position. In 1999 the Indonesia people overthrew the Suharto dictatorship through a popular uprising, and then voted in secular, rather than religious parties.

Indonesia wanted good government, and gave themselves the environment to avoid the problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other parts of the Middle East face. When Indonesia was wracked by terrorism, it was quickly squashed through civil trials that were conducted openly and publicly. Terrorism was quickly deemed criminal and not tolerated by the justice system. But rather than military trials which are done privately and in secret, the civil judicial system has popular legitimacy and the involvement of jurors. It is far more legitimate than any military tribunal.

The Anti-Reformation

Labor and Liberalism won in the 20thC. The major parties in Australia are social-democratic. Both left and right continue to expand the state and social services. Under the supposedly conservative Liberal government in Australia the percent of GDP collected by the government in tax has increased from twenty-six percent to nearly thirty-five. Liberalism also won. Multi-culturalism, which is a logical outcome of maximum liberty was accepted, as was economic liberty through economic rationalism.

After September 11th, the United States decided to pursue terrorism as a military problem. The United Kingdom and Australia were quick to follow. All three nations realigned their domestic focus to what appears to a permanent "National Security State". No longer are cities, or nations defined by their society, their culture, their economy or their liberty; they are now defined by how secure they are. Advocates of the National Security State go as far to claim that a city or nation that is insecure is a failed one.

Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have expanded the private space of government by giving new powers to the "shadow state". A Republic comes from the Latin term publis . This means that government occupies the public space, not the private space of the despot, the tyrant or the autocrat. Western nations have used terrorism and the "National Security State" to collapse the public actions of government and hide them from public view.

In the United States, the Transport Security Agency has laws that the public must follow, but cannot read. Laws are now becoming secret . This makes them impossible to follow. The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to act without civil oversight, or the knowledge of the suspect. The Act also enables the mixing of domestic and foreign intelligence; a result of the United States deciding on a military solution to terrorism.

Attacking Speech and Liberty

The United States has not acted to outlaw free speech, but the United Kingdom which has recently faced home-grown terrorism, now is. Foreigners that engage in hateful speech can be deported. From a BBC article ;

New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record. Consultation on the plans will finish this month.

Implied in many of the measures is that multi-culturalism has failed, and that the "National Security State" must be a unitary nation-state with one culture, one central government; and one purpose - security. Australian commentators have lead the attack on multi-culturalism, seeing secular liberalism as the feeding and breeding ground for terrorism. This rabid rhetoric is used as an excuse to establish the unitary "National Security State", Devine writes ;

Kowtowing to the unreasonable demands of intolerant minorities trying to impose their will on the majority is not going to safeguard Australia from "fanatical religious hate, exclusion, death and terror", as Parker seems to think. Quite the opposite.

Concepts of tolerance, freedom and loving one's neighbour as oneself don't exist in a vacuum, any more than "ethics" exist without a moral framework.

Trying to erase the long-established culture of Australia, permanently rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and replacing it with vapid, secularist nothingness is not going to help. It simply creates a vacuum for radical Islam to rush in and fill.

This is the authoritarian anti-liberal nonsense at its absolute worst. Devine's advocacy for one culture and one nation fail, simply because her vision of what constitutes a viable society, culture and nation cannot be achieved without government intervention. Lack of liberty is an unnatural state for a society and requires high energy and cost by the government to enforce. This is why autocracies are always doomed to failure, the more liberties that are taken, the higher the cost to the society and the more energy that is dissipated in maintain authoritarianism.

In the United States, the devoutly Christian Senator, Rick Santorum, was on radio recently discussing his book . Santorum rails against the Libertarian wing of the American Republican party. Like Devine he claims the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only way the United States can remain a viable society and culture. This requires government policy to follow religious doctrine. Like Devine, Santorum fails it, their vision of society is not possible without government's monopoly on violence and coercion to prop it up and sustain it.

Conclusion

Terrorism has been a foreign policy issue for Australia, with Indonesia taking the hits for us. We are fortunate we have such a wise and effective nation as Indonesia as our neighbour. Given the current environment of hysteria from the government and media, I would not be surprised if we bungled the prosecution of a terrorist attack. Creating political outcomes where only the justice inherent in our civil system was necessary.

The more civil liberties that are removed, the harder the state attempts to enforce monoculturalism, the greater the expansion of government into the private space of the "shadow state"; all place us closer to components that make failed states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran such hotbeds for extremist ideology.

The answer to terrorism in Australia is the secular liberalism of Australian Republicanism. Maximum liberty, tempered by individual rights and bound by inclusive and responsive minimal government is the best means to defeat terrorism and the environment that breeds and amplifies it.

cam

Apparently in a town outside of Fallujah, two groups, Ansar-al-Sunna and Tawhid al-Jihad have managed to stiff arm the electrical plants into giving power 24 hours a day, as opposed to the 9 hours a day in Baghdad.

Basically they have established a legitimacy, outside of central government, in their ability to deliver basic services. Though the article says they achieved it by mafia like tactics. That doesn't bode well for any form of vibrant economy, transactions will be dominated by graft and arbitrary appropriation of wealth.

Here's a handy rule of thumb: If you are beating detainees to death, there's a fair chance that what you're doing counts as torture.

.. Julian Sanchez sifts through some detail on the All American Gulag.

Looks like Iraq will be exited with a policy of " controlled chaos ". Just about everyone wants it now, the American Democrats do , the Iraqis do , the US military does ; and just before the 2006 Congressional elections - the American Republican Party will want to as well.

However, no-one really wants to put a formal date on when the running begins. The Iraqis decided on;

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

John Murtha, an American Democrat attempted to put forward a resolution that stated;

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The US military has sent in a withdrawal plan to Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld;

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

For the Army and Reserve, it may become imperative, Iraq is breaking their back in the same way the Vietnam did thirty years ago. The American Republican Party is being more stoic about it, though the Senate put forward a resolution for a "speedier handover" of Iraq, though not an immediate withdrawal, which suggests the Senators are nervous of public opinion.

President Bush is still using the rhetoric of "stay the course", but his approval ratings are in the thirties, and have been for a while. While Bush does not have to get elected again, through term limits, Congress does every two years - and they are facing elections next year. Congress can put legislative pressure on the Administration to start withdrawal of troops, an example being Murtha's resolution.

The American Republican Party has done nearly everything else in the last five years to a political timetable, I expect a withdrawal to be no different. Once public opinion means that representatives will lose their positions, and hence power, the normal drib-drab of commenteriat will start putting it forth in op-eds until it becomes accepted, and then it will be left to the hysterical media of Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter etc etc to claim that was the plan all along, and that anyone claiming otherwise is unpatriotic and defiling the troops.

The Australian has a pre-release discussion of it. No mention of the report, or its impending release from the defence website media room .

From the article;

The Prime Minister all but gave a guarantee yesterday that cabinet will soon approve a continuation of the 3per cent real increase in the defence budget beyond 2010, which will mean billions of extra dollars for the military.

That will probably only stave off inflationry pressures. IIRC the ADF gets about 17 billion a year, so a three percent increase comes in at 510 million. To put that in comparison, last election the money that was "found" in the budget and used for electoral bribes was 6 Billion.

The update envisages that new military capabilities -- including a larger, more mobile and better protected army, together with the navy's new amphibious ships and air warfare destroyers -- could contribute to coalition operations further away from Australia's neighbourhood. The blueprint details regional military trends, including China's military modernisation, India's rise and the US's future military posture in East Asia.

So the Navy is getting their 30,000 tonne LHD behemoths. I am interested to see their strategic and doctrinal justification for both the LHD and AWDs.

He said any new Australian commitment to Iraq would depend on Japan, Britain and the views of the new Iraqi government after this month's elections.

America will make that decision for us. Iraq is becoming politically untenable in the US. It will leave us no choice.

Prior to Muhammad, Arabia in the sixth century were dominated by tribes held together by either blood bonds, or a strong tribal leader. Islamic monotheism was the technology which enabled the higher level of social organisation amongst the Arabs necessary to conquer and control the Arabian Gulf. After Mumammad's death, Abu Bakr put down any insurrections to his caliphate but faced a problem. He had a military-agrarian complex. For socio-economic stability he chose to keep his army intact; expanding the Islamic Empire into Syria and Iraq by conquest.

Seventh century Arabia was tumultuous with tribes constantly warring against each other. The desert trade routes were far away from the order of the Byzantine or Persian empires and were in constant danger from brigandry. The region developed multiple monotheistic religions at the time, of which Islam was the most successful. Muhammad emigrated to Medina where he was able to build a supra-Arabian identity through Islam's egalitarian umma that ultimately defeated the Meccans and all the other tribes in the Arabian peninsula.

Islam had served as a tool for social organisation which had military benefits. By the time of Muhammad's death in 632, the Muslims had the most powerful army in Arabia. With Abu Bakr taking over as caliph he put down numerous insurrections and rebound the tribes to himself and Islam. He succeeded in restoring order, but at the cost of the society containing a form of agrarian-militarism. His army was many thousands, and if disbanded, many would end up in brigandry, causing disruption and social disorder. As a consequence the armies remained. They marched on the Byzantine and Persian empires, in Syria and Iraq - defeating those empires despite smaller numbers of troops.

This self-reinforcing imperial feedback loop is not unusual. During the second world war the industrial might of the United States bent its back to the task of beating Germany and Japan. The US started the war with four aircraft carriers; by the end of the war they were producing one a month. With the surrender of the axis powers in 1945, nations such as Australia quickly demobilised their forces. In 1945 Australia had the world's fourth largest air force, and nearly half a million troops deployed in the Pacific. By 1946 Australia was a military non-entity.

The United States however, found itself facing an increasingly hostile Soviet Union who rivalled the US for military power, and opposed the west in ideology. Where Australia demobilised, the US continued to mobilise, developing its military with greater and greater spending, technology, systems, capability and projection. This inter-dependency is known today as the military-industrial complex. Dwight Eisenhower warned of its influence in 1961 ;

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

This was the same political, economic and social influence that Abu Bakr faced from his regionally dominant Arab military in the seventh century.

In the 1980s the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War was over. Russia was bankrupt; fiscally, economically, socially, politically and militarily. It could not feed its people and its client-states, such as Poland, were in open rebellion. The United States was left as the world's dominant economic and military power. Without the military strength of the Soviet Union to push against, and justify the large budgets the Pentagon was used to, many in the US looked for new reasons to continue the funding of American military power.

Al Gore argued in 1997 that the global reach of the US military was the insurer of order between nation-states. He told American troops in Tokyo ;

The peace and security of the Pacific region rest on your backs.

The American people were not convinced. They saw US troops all round the world in bases and nations which were intended for the Cold-war that had ended close to a generation prior. Not only was it an extravagent taxpayer expense - it was time to bring the troops home.

But how does a government stop the military-industrial complex?

Whole regions were dependant upon the hundreds of billions the US pumped into its military. Whereas Washington DC and many of its satellite cities which contain defence industry companies would suffer measurably if the military budget was cut; many smaller cities like Portsmouth New Hampshire or Fort Campbell Kentucky would suffer immeasurably. Not just regions in the US, but globally as well. Nations such as Germany, Japan and any of the forty-seven other countries the US is deployed in were all dependant on US military dollars. The 650 billion the US spent on defence in 2005 is part of a global industry, not just a domestic one.

Abu Bakr was a neo-con. His domestic and social stability were far safer if the soldiers were off doing military things. He kept his army occupied by sending them into Iraq to conquer the Persians. America in the late 1990s faced the same conundrum. Congressional representatives were elected on platforms of keeping the military pork in their districts. There was also the problem of this massively effective and dominant military. No-one really wanted to give it up, or even decrease this enormous power. Well known American neo-con Irving Kristol wrote in 2003 ;

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-a-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. ... And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

Ronald Reagan's kalipha , George W. Bush came to the same conclusion as Abu Bakr - and sent his Army off to Iraq too.

cam

An ACNielson survey discovered one in five Australians ranked terrorism as their biggest concern in the next six months. This is in comparison to the United States and Asia who ranked terrorism quite low in their concerns.

According to the survey, five hundred Australians polled ranked in order of concern;

• 20% Terrorism
• 19% Job security
• 16% Health
• 15% Economy

The 20% figure was up from 7% in the previous ACNielson survey. By comparison, five percent ranked crime as the biggest concern, three percent political stability and two percent war.

Why are Australians so suddenly fearful of terrorism? The arrests in NSW and Victoria occurred in this period. Both of which were played to major political advantage at the federal and state levels. Apart from this, the Liberal government constantly plays its "tough on terrorism" card, while Labor harps on about Iraq making us "less safe".

By comparison, only seven percent rated terrorism as their main concern in the Asia-Pacific region. The global average for terrorism was also seven percent. We appear to be a very fearful society at the moment. The globe ranked the economy higher, with 22% claiming it as their main concern.

Gallup has a study on the greatest concerns of Americans . They break down as;

• 26% Iraq
• 24% Economy
• 10% Government/Politics/Administration
• 5% Crime
• 3% Terrorism

It is interesting that Australia's and America's perception or concerns of Iraq and Terrorism are almost exactly opposite.

Hardt and Negri comment on nation-building;

Nothing could be more post-modern and anti-essentialist than this notion of nation building. It reveals, on the one hand, that the nation has become something purely contingent, fortuitous, or, as philosophers would say, accidental. That is why nations can be destroyed and fabricated as part of a political program.

The experience of Indonesia suggest that the forging of a nation has to come from a desire within, rather than an external imposition.

I am not a philosopher, so am not so familiar that I can throw terms like post-modern and anti-essentialist around with confidence. What does Wikipedia have to say on post-modernism;

Although a difficult term to pin down, "post-modern" generally refers to the criticism of absolute truths or identities and "grand narratives."

Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for anti-essentialism, but does have one for essentialism;

Essentialism is the belief and practice centered on a philosophical claim that for any specific kind of entity it is at least theoretically possible to specify a finite list of characteristics, all of which any entity must have to belong to the group defined.

Presumably anti-essentialism is the belief that an entity has no defining characteristics.

Hardt and Negri note that most of the international system of power, politics and trade rely on the nation-state as part of its hierarchy and maintenance of order. In the modern world of globalism, the nation-state remains indispensable. They also note that the strongest nations were forged internally, through many centuries of social development that ultimately led to the stability of the nation in a liberalistic and democratic organisation.

Hardt and Negri continue;

The contemporary projects of nation building are by contrast imposed by force from the outside through a process that now goes by the name regime change. Such nation building resembles less the modern revolutionary birth of nations than it does the process of colonial powers dividing up the globe and drawing the maps of their subject territories.

Conservatives like to cast the world since September 11th as being a cultural war, of global concern between the West and Islam. But this absolutist and doctrinaire view of the world gets knocked on the head when Iraq and Indonesia are compared.

The modern nation-state of Indonesia came out of the over-throw of the dictator Suharto. Since then the Indonesia government has flushed the military from its political system; removing their parliamentary seats, removing them from being responsible for civil order, removing them from the budgetary process. As a result the social turbulence in Aceh, Irian Jira and East Timor are quieting down as the military's role in aggravating tensions are stifled by civil political control.

For Indonesia, freedom came from within, not from without. It was not the result of imposition by an external power who then "nation-built" them. It was Indonesians doing it for themselves; seemingly the only way a nation-state can be constructed.

Foreign Policy has an interesting interview with Nir Rosen; Seven Questions: What Next for Iraq? He talks on the state of Iraq, increasing sectarian violence and blowback, the disconnect between Iraqi politicians and people, as well as the way to deal with Iran.

From the article;

I'm not the first one to say this, but Iran is the big winner in all of this. The United States has no leverage over Iran at this point. If the United States were to strike Iran, Iran could simply support the Shiites in Iraq. And if the Iraqi Shiites start attacking U.S. and British forces en masse, it will make the Sunni insurgency look like child's play.

The entire interview is an interesting read.

Reason asks three questions of numerous commentators and punditry in Iraq Progress Report - Advocates for liberty weigh in after three years . Since reason didn't ask me, I thought I would answer anyway from an Australian context.

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

No. I don't recall fully believing all the claims of weapons and threats that were being touted by US, UK and Australia. I thought at the time it was pretty flimsy and looked more like manipulating public perception than genuine evidence.

2. Have you changed your position?

No. I remain convinced that the weakness in most despotic systems is their desire for western legitimacy by holding corrupt elections. This was how Indonesia over-threw Suharto. I suspect it will be how Iran, Egypt and others transition to liberal democracy as well. Saudi Arabia remains a problem due to its lack of elections at all.

3. What should the U.S Australia do in Iraq now?

I advocated in the past that Australia ditch Iraq as an American expedition and return to the original goal which was the eradication of Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan .

How Others Replied

Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings wrote to question one;

No. Hayek does not stop at the water's edge. What the hawks proposed to do to Iraq was just the foreign policy version of central planning and likely to work as well.

Has Christopher Hitchens changed his position?

Not in the least: I wish only that Saddam had not been able to rely upon Russian and French protection and the influence of oil-for-food racketeers and other political scum.

Has John Mueller changed his position?

Hardly. The main issue now is whether the war has become the greatest debacle in American foreign policy history or only the second greatest, after Vietnam.

What does Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute think the US should do in Iraq?

Damned if I know.

Micheal Young of the Beirut Daily Star offered a more detailed response to the final question;

It [US] should maintain its military presence, even if that means modifying it in such a way as to avoid the semblance of military occupation. It should plan to stick around for the long term, regardless of domestic pressures. And it should oversee a genuine, consensual process of national dialogue and stabilization in Iraq, not a self-defeating handing over of power to security forces that are, in reality, cover for sectarian militias. This continued American presence is essential—to buttress democratic forces elsewhere in the region, to counterbalance Iran's growing power, and to prevent the outbeak of civil war in Iraq.

Embracing a form of federalism with each ethnic group having an autonomous area in conjunction with a staged withdrawal of troops seems to be the another offered suggestion as to what to do in Iraq.