>>Instead of thinking of the steps which need to be taken to get to democratic political institutions quickly because that would produce security and political equality; I'm now thinking of the steps which would produce security and stability which might, down the road, produce democratic political institutions. Big change for me.<<
I wonder if this can be extrapolated to failed communities, as well, where illegitimacy, dysfunction and substance abuse run high. First security & stability, then...
>>if stable states are less likely to harbor the bin Ladens of the world, then it seems to me there is even greater need for the US to be a part of international bodies rather than it's current go-it-alone cowboy stance.<<
First of all, the 'less likely' part requires further examination. We have our McVeigh, McNichols, Kaczinsky, Moore, Fromm, Oswald, Manson, etc. in a non-failed nation, right?
Much of the cowboy stance seems to be cowboy rhetoric designed to pressure the international bodies to move in a certain direction, where joint deeds result. Not always, but most of the time.
But you've raised some excellent points, John, definitely worthy of further exploration. |
