Middle East Democratization - Bush Policy Works?

Over the past couple of months/year, we have all been watching seemingly positive developements in the Middle East. Elections, though limited, in Saudi Arabia and coming up in Egypt, massive demonstrations in Lebanon, thawing of relations with Lybia, and so on.

I become unsettled when I think that Bush's strong-handed policies might be the cause for these changes. Yet, today, I picked up an Economist mag whose cover article was on this very topic. They suggest that this "upturn", while far from perfect and with substantial issues (ie Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Iran, militias, etc) still unreasolved, has been caused by Bush's policies.

So what do you think? Put aside partisan beliefs for a second and perhaps play the devil's advocate. At least consider another side in your post, whatever your opinions may be.
Peace

 

The changes in the region are definitely a result of Bush's policies. Whether the changes will, in the long term, be good or bad remains to be seen.

I'm more optimistic about the prospects of a democratic Middle East than I was a few months ago.

 

Do you think what is happening in Lebanon is a result of Bush's policies? It seems to be more circumstance than anything else. Rafik al-Hariri's assasination, the recent and successful demonstrations in Georgia then Ukraine, etc.

It seems like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are limited attempts to placate Washington while preserving as much control as possible in the name of stability. The thaw with Lybia seemed to be the result of on-going diplomacy from Europe and the Clinton Era.

Still, one has to ask, if such radical changes can take place under the barell of a gun, why don't we apply the same pressure to Israel? Change would occur much more rapidly if parties in the Middle East truly felt we were a neutral broker.

 

Here is a viewpoint on how the 'upheaval' in Lebanon relates to local politics

Lebanon is not Ukraine

The upheaval in Beirut is better understood as a power play by entrenched local and international interests than a democratic revolution

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1435360,00.html

 

I know that it is not Ukraine. What I am saying is that the Georgian and Ukrainian "revolutions" inspired/encouraged street protesters in Beruit. Yet Ukraine and Georgia also have their local contstituents that plee their case to international parties. Nevertheless, the situation in Beriut TODAY is much less sectarian than the Ukrainian situation and also than the situation in Lebanon 15 years ago. You see Sunnis, Shi'ites, Druze, Orthodox and Catholic Christian all united against the Syrian occupation. These are not partisan self-serving interests. I agree that international politics have encouraged both the pro and anti-Syrian protests, but the opposition is largely fueled by apathy and hatred toward heavy-handed SYRIAN intervention for the past 30 years.