One of the favorite hawk claims to justify both starting and continuing the war in Iraq is that a democratic Iraq will "transform" the entire region. The problem with statements such as this is they imply that every country in the Middle East is ruled either by Saddam Hussein circa 1990 or one of his cousins. This sort of attitude is spread around the country through offensive front-page stories like "bringing democracy to a region that has never known it," or "can Islam and Democracy mix?" In such stories, the entire region becomes an undifferentiated mass of dictatorial Otherness that will be transfixed by the shining light of Iraq once we turn it into America Two on June 30th.

In reality, there are nineteen countries in "the Middle East," all with different governmental organizations and with widely varying degrees of democratic self-representation. A recent BBC article offers a quick breakdown of the governments in most of these states. For those of you without time to read the entire piece, here is the 30-second summary:

• Algeria: Powerful, dubiously elected President. Elections of 1991 were annulled after an Islamist party emerged victorious.
• Bahrain: Constitutional monarchy. Elected parliament with gender suffrage. Independent judiciary.
• Egypt: One-party, autocratic dictatorship.
• Jordan: Monarchy with appointed Senate and elected House. Universal suffrage.
• Kuwait: Constitutional monarchy. Elected parliament without gender or literacy suffrage.
• Iran: Theocratic oligarchy. President and parliament, both of which have limited powers, are elected by universal suffrage.
• Iraq: Ruled by the United States.
• Israel: Parliamentary Republic.
• Lebanon: Democratic state with universal adult suffrage.
• Libya: Autocratic dictatorship.
• Morocco: Monarchy. Two-thirds of the government are elected directly though universal suffrage, and one third indirectly.
• Oman: Monarchy. Legislature has no power.
• Qatar: Monarchy. Parliamentary elections to be held next year.
• Saudi Arabia: Monarchy.
• Syria: One-party state.
• Turkey: Republic.
• Tunisia: Republic.
• United Arab Emirates: Monarchy.
• Yemen: President appoints powerless legislature. Legislature nominates autocratic President.

Considering this, "transforming the region" would not appear to include transforming Algeria, Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Jordon, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Tunsia, Turkey or Saudia Arabia. This is because in all of these states, one or more of the following applies:

• The state is already democratic.
• The state is a limited democracy moving toward greater democracy.
• We are allied with that state.
• The state cancelled elections to prevent the rise of fundamental Islam (a real catrch-22 for Americans hawkish on the Middle East).

This only leaves seven regional countries for a democratic Iraq to transform: Egypt, Iran, Libya, Oman, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. In the last twenty years, the United States has either engaged in military with, or threatened military action against, all but three of those countries: Egypt, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Further, almost every single one of these states already has a sham legislature controlled by an unelected, autocratic government behind the scenes (like Iraq after June 30th, only with fewer Americans). It is hard to imagine how being near yet another country of that sort will transform many people in the region.

So, even in the most extreme neo-con fantasy, "transforming the region," actually means, "peacefully transforming a very small part of the region, but that probably won't even happen." It sounds a little less Romantic to phrase it that way.