I do not always agree with Ralph Peters (I believe he thinks rather too much of himself and is the president of the Ralph Peters Fan Club). Sometime he is correct and he is frequently skeptical of party lines in DC. I thought his piece, "
Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States" was spot on.
In this piece, "
The Shah Always Falls," Peters finds fault with the American tradition of supporting some people in power who are, shall we say, less than nice to the people they rule. He advocates not supporting regime change in most circumstances. Enough time has passed to evaluate Peters policy recommendation. Withdrawing support from (or actively supporting the overthrow of) dictators in Iraq has not turned out so well for the people of that country (or the US). Ditto Libya. Ditto Syria.
This leads to question whether Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad are a cause or an effect. I would argue that some cultures are simply not ready for a western liberal democracy and in many of those societies, a strong man is what works to maintain order. Saddam did not
cause Iraq to be a society wracked with internecine violence. He was an
effect of such a society. He brought order (after a fashion) to the chaos.
Maybe US policy should not be to support the overthrow of bad strongmen, but to try to have little to do with them, or, when we must, to encourage them to be less oppressive. Uncritically “overthrowing the shah” may not be in the best interests of the US or the people of his country.