Democratic Gladiator: Neo-Conservatism and the Lessons of Iraq

In 2003, American-led forces invaded Iraq, citing as justification, among other reasons, the need to install democracy there. Elected government was hailed by neo-conservatives as being the key to transform the corrupt politics and stagnant economies not only of Iraq, but indirectly of the entire Middle East. It was also intended to give the people of the region an attractive alternative to Islamic fundamentalism and violence. Four years later, an effective democratic government in Iraq, capable of providing peace and prosperity to its people, looks further away than ever, leaving the policy of regime change in tatters and neo-conservatism publicly discredited. In this work, an alternative approach for how the West should shape the Middle East is laid out, one which maintains the strategic focus on meeting the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism, whilst avoiding another Iraq War in the future. Drawing upon the lessons of the victories over fascism and communism in the 20th Century, it shows how the right kind of alliances with existing governments in the Middle East can ultimately lead to a victory for moderates, and minimise the danger to the West from terrorism in the meantime.

Adrian Shepherd has published articles on attitudes regarding information technology and on the interaction of public attitudes and electoral institutions. After finishing his doctorate, he conducted research at the Oxford Internet Institute, part of Oxford University, and then moved to become a researcher for the British government. He lectured in political science at the University of Houston and Royal Holloway College, University of London. Interests include voting behaviour and the role of political attitudes in foreign policy, as well as research methodology in the study of politics.