But there is no reason to think that, if more Muslim voters are regularly allowed a say in their choice of leaders, they will opt for jihad over jobs. The Islamist parties that took over in Kabul and Tehran proved unpopular. But there was no avenue for peaceful regime change. In other words, too little democracy, not too much. ~Max Boot

Yes, the Taliban is so unpopular it is making a comeback with the support of the local population, and Ahmadinejad was so unpopular he was elected President of Iran.  Jihadi ideas enjoy similar “unpopularity” in Pakistan, and Islamists form the largest political group in the Pakistani legislature.  Much more unpopularity of this kind will cause us some real trouble.  Naturally Max Boot would want us to enfranchise and empower more of these people–that will eliminate the causes of Islamic terrorism!  Instead we will have democratically elected Islamic terrorism, which is much better.

Presumably Muslim voters would prefer to have jobs, but what is to stop these voters from backing a platform that promises, so to speak, both jihad and jobs?  In a sense, that is what Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric has been: bash Zionists, praise Hizbullah and promise voters all sorts of economic subsidies and government programs.  We will vote for “guns and butter”–why won’t Muslim voters?  Democratic politicians are always promising people the moon anyway, so why not campaign for both and deliver on just one?  There is little reason to think that jihad as such is unwelcome to people who would be inclined to vote Islamist, and Islamists of various stripes represent the organised popular force in the Near East today.