The White House has since devised yet another reason for its decision to attack: that by toppling the tyrannical Hussein regime and helping pave the way for democracy in Iraq, the United States has advanced the cause of democracy elsewhere in the Middle East and thereby diminished the risk of anti-American violence. (…) 
Certainly, the advancement of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is a worthy objective. But the assertion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq will further this goal, and thus produce a decline in anti-American violence throughout the region, must be viewed with considerable skepticism. To begin with, it is not at all apparent that the January 2005 elections in Iraq and the transition process now under way there will lead to meaningful democracy, under which the rights of minorities are fully protected. A government composed largely of Shiites and Kurds, for example, would undoubtedly be viewed as illegitimate by the minority Sunnis and invite strong opposition; one dominated by conservative Islamic forces, meanwhile, could result in the imposition of Iranian-like curbs on the rights of women and non-Muslims. But even if Iraq does move in the direction of true democracy, it is not at all apparent that this will foster the rise of democracy in neighboring countries, or produce a reduction in anti-American extremism. The fact that democracy in Iraq is associated with American military occupation has robbed it of appeal for many people in the Middle East. Furthermore, the holding of elections in, say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt, could well result in the ascendancy of militant Islamic parties with a virulent anti-American message. It is not possible to conclude, therefore, that the U.S. invasion of Iraq will, in the end, result in the triumph of democracy and a substantial reduction in violence.