WASHINGTON -- Questioned about his alliance with Soviet Russia against Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill is reported to have said, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd find something nice to say about the Devil."
At the start of our war on terror, for solid tactical reasons, we had to accept as an ally Pakistan -- an undemocratic nation that had previously distinguished itself as a promoter of terror. It was uncomfortable, but arguably necessary, because our larger objective of toppling the Taliban took precedence.
The odd thing about the war on terror is not that we have to shave our principles to succeed, but instead the degree to which our principles and our interests coincide. A cursory glance at the Middle East and South Asia -- the region from which the threat emanates -- reveals three kinds of societies.
In the first group are nations whose governments are (at least outwardly) friendly toward the United States: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the small gulf states. In these countries, the people hate the United States because we are seen as propping up corrupt dictators.
The second group consists of nations with governments hostile to the United States: Iran, (formerly) Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, among others. The United States is highly popular among the people of these countries, probably because they assume that if their awful governments hate us, we must be doing something right.
Last, there are those in which the governments are friendly to us, and the people are as well. That is true of only two countries: Turkey and Israel, the region's sole democracies.
It would appear that promoting democracy, even among our "allies," is in our interests. But not everyone sees it that way. As Lawrence Kaplan points out in The New Republic, many in the State Department scorn democracy and dismiss its advocates as naifs. They argue: a) that Middle Eastern nations are not ready for it; or b) that dictators are better able to control the terrorists within their borders than democrats; or c) that the successor regimes are likely to be more anti-American than the ones we endure now.
Regarding a), lots of nations have lived down undemocratic pasts: Japan, Turkey, Germany, Chile, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Spain. All were dismissed as unready for democracy, and all have freely chosen it.
The notion that dictators can be more ruthless with their terrorists and radicals is a snare. The Israelis naively assumed at the start of the Oslo process that Yasser Arafat would be better able to handle groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Instead, the Palestinians Mr. Arafat "handled" were the democrats -- nearly all of whom are dead, while the terrorists were given free rein.
As for the scenario in which dictators are toppled only to be replaced with regimes that are even worse, there is one prominent example: Iran. But the counter-examples swamp it. In the name of "stability," the State Department opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union, believing that fascists would succeed communists. It didn't happen. In Central and South America, all of the formerly dictatorial governments (save Cuba) have embraced -- to one degree or another -- democracy.
Is it possible to imagine a Saudi regime more inimical to our interests than the current monarchy? Sure. But this regime is almost as bad for us as we can get. Second, the sheiks are worried not just about radical Islamists unseating them, they are also concerned about the radiating effects of freedom. If Iraq should be liberated, who knows what ideas might stir in Arabian hearts?
The war on terror should be a war for democracy. Our interests and principles dictate it.
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist whose column appears Mondays in The Sun.