Some great articles in this week's Economist about the various developments in the middle east...Iraq election, Syria pullout (roll back?) of Lebanon, Palestinian-Israeli dialogue, etc.  Economist tends to lean (ok, they lean) conservative but has been vocal critics of Bush.  

Their take: still far from any sustainable solutions, but admittedly nice progress which is hard to separate from the "Bush doctrine, however crassly simplistic in concept and implementation it is".  

This viewpoint is exactly the one I voiced here last month - I'm not a fan of W, but I sorta like the pressure we're using in the middle east.  The implementation has been ham handed, but the direction appears positive.

Europeans are engaged in gamesmanship.

A democratic Middle East, if it materializes, will be inherently anti-American [see polls,] so Mr. Bush either has to make U turn in certain policies, or witness a total realignment favoring Europe, not favorable to us, and our business interests.

The Lebanon demonstration today, favoring Syria, was 7 times larger than anti-Syrian one’s earlier. Let’s see how Mr. Bush will deal with what lies ahead.

The European bet here is the U.S. will not make the policy changes, and we ultimately lose our influence in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.  Well, this will be a big deal, and not good for us, but good or our rivals and enemies.

So, I am not sure what we are celebrating here yet.  

I honestly wonder how much of the [far from any sustainable] "good" it is due to Bush and how much of the under-reported "bad" is CAUSED by Bush. Like the 500,000 people in Beirut rallying against the U.S today or the "Italy Demands Justice" for their journalist or the 30 people killed today and 15 people killed a day ago and 115 few days ago....Is there really more good than bad happening over there?

And how has Bush had an impact on Palestine? He's done almost nothing in that situation. I suspect that our perceptions here in the U.S. are a whole lot different than what most of the rest of world thinks on this subject.

I sure hope we are headed in the right direction, that is all I have to say.

freedom/democratization movements in Palestine and Lebanon. But the likelihood of those actions is infinitesimal (Can you imagine the ham-handed CIA ruminating about making Hariri a martyr so the Lebanese could rise up and blame Syria).

Bush grudgingly gets credit for the elections in Iraq even though the reason for invading Iraq was not to inflict democracy on them but to rid them or WMD, an "imminent" threat to the safety of the US of A.

FYI, the economist opinion differs from yours in two material ways.

1. It agrees that the Bush doctrine has been the recipient of good timing (death of Arafat, murder of centrist ex Lebanon PM) but also asserts that our willingness to use force and back up democracy efforts has unquestionably helped.

2. It also gives more optimism to current events.  Yes, the Iraqi Sunnis and the Shiites must share; yes, Israel and Lebanon still haven't discussed Jersalem; yes, Hezbollah has supporters in Lebanon.  But, this is a complex situation that even the optimists concede will be a long and winding road.  But, the economist suggests, the events of the last month have to be considered positive progress.

BTW: The Economist is a mag with origins in the "rest of the world" but with an agenda that is pure globalist.

OK, I don't necessarily agree with you but I follow your logic.  So, what policies would you like to see changed that will swing post-democracy middle east toward the US?

My guess is that globalist, capitalist, democratic countries don't have loyalties other than those driven by DEMAND.  If you sell oil, your friends are those that help you produce it and those who buy it (e.g., US).  

The other factor, cultural ties, will regrettably favor the US.  While activists lament our narcissistic ways, the middle eastern youth crave our (hideous) pop culture.

I agree with you that Bush is the beneficiary of good timing: Hariri's assination and Arafat's death were key catalysts.  But, I think the US's message that it will use force to support pro-globalist movements (i don't and never did see this as pro-democracy as much as pro-good world citizen) certainly helps.  The mere fact that a large number Lebanese rose up against Syrian rule in the face of Hezbollah has to be somewhat attributable to their sense of international support.

In reality, the line between luck and skill isn't solid.  Every President gets doses of both.  Carter had the misfortune of our first major middle east debacle (hostage crisis).  Clinton had the benefit of the post-cold war military as well as the internet bubble.  Bush got 9/11 on both sides: increased patriotism short term but the need to solve a relatively unprecedented problem longer term.

Which means, for better or worse, the public just looks at results - again, good and bad.  Whether Carter's attempt at hostage rescue was ill planned, ill executed, or just plain bad luck didn't mean much.  Similarly, the Cuban missile crisis might have been a perfectly orchestrated Russian game to get the US out of Cuba and marginalize Che, but because the result - no more missiles - was beneficial, Kennedy wins.  

So, liberals can complain all they want about intent, cause and effect, etc. but if the current trajectory continues, Bush undeniably deserves credit.

I appreciate that you may or may not agree with the logic, but followed it well.

What will be the most constructive way to preserve our interests, will be to actively, creatively, and sincerely, seek a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  That is the paramount issue.  

There are two major parties in Israel, Likud, and Labor.  Bush is very much aligned with Likud.

Remember, we are dealing with very old culutres in the area, matters of honor, respect, and dignity trump business interests in many cases.  The force of economic development alone will not be enough to make friends.

Watch how skillfully France is playing her cards.  The result is large scale oil and infrastructure contracts have been going their way, and our trade deficit at record level.

When I find some time, I will write a little more on this. I am travelling right now.

-- Modified on 3/9/2005 7:11:42 PM

I see where you're going and agree in part.  However, I guess I subscribe more to the "Lexus and the Olive Tree" theory (ok, perhaps more pop culture slogan than theory) - that when people are forced to choose between parochialism and economics, they almost always favor economics after all is said and done.

Regarding the French, I have to disagree (although I'd like to hear your argument more completely).  I'm not aware of their trade surplus/deficit but pending that information, I'd offer some rebuttals...

1. How substantial is the impact middle east oil on a trade deficit?  Remember, we buy more oil from non-middle east sources (e.g., Canada, Venezuela) than we do from the middle east.  

2. How much of France's trade deficit is driven by policies designed to protect unproductive domestic industries?

3. Despite our higher trade deficit vis-a-vis France, hasn't our economy performed far better than theirs over the last 50 years of pro-Israel policy?

4. Didn't Michael Moore criticize Bush for making nice-nice with the Saudi Sheikhs?  What we do with the Saudis, the French do with the Iraqis, right?

I am glad you have read the Lexus and Olive Tree.  I see the essence of the book as the following:  

In one corner of the world, people are building these perfect cars [I have one, and it is an incredible machine!] and then on the other end, perfectly developed adults are fighting over olive trees.

I often when run into either Arabs or Israelis, remind them of this.  Also, I remind Arabs that if there is a meaningful peace, Israel WILL be the catalyst to catapult the area into industrialized age, the same way as Japan helped East Asia. I have bought at least 25 copies of that book, and have sent them out as gifts when it first came out a while back.

You are right about Middle East oil, in grand scheme of things, total output of even OPEC is less than $300B/Year.  This is just around how much sales General Motors generates each year.  I am not blaming our trade deficit on oil or Middle East directly.  And not all OPEC members are Arabs, and the oil from Canada, North Sea, or Mexico isn’t cheaper.

But, some of the policies of the past 4 years, have turned not only 1.4 Billion muslims and their respective 57 countries against us, but the rest of the world is also viewing us in a different light.

Under these circumstances, big contracts when even marginally justifiable, go to our competitors.  This has NOTHING to do with our relation with Israel whatsoever.  It is connected to our behaviors in Afghanistan, Iraq, and upcoming war with Iran [which I hope can be avoided, but I am not optimistic]

Just recently, and not over the course of the past 50 years, our rivals in Europe have tried to seize the moment, and  take advantage of it.  This is very recent.

Regarding Saudis, Egyptians, or Jordanians, I would much rather have current regimes there that are friendly to us, versus democratic ones, that will be hostile.  Ideally, I would like to see democracies that are friendly to us.  But for that to happen, we need to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem.  People like Shimon Peres, have the capacity to make peace.  Sharon has come a long way, we will see.  

Iraq had a great relationship with France, Soviet Union, and the U.S.!  We gave them loans, technical help, weapons, and military assistance.  Saddam had no popular support, and was easy for us to control.  This war remains an enigma. We didn’t go in there to build democracy, this is an after the fact justification.  We are not going to get a democracy in Iraq that will be friendly to us.

I may not be able to read the board for a few days, but appreciate the dialogue with you.  When I run into fanatics from all sides, always remind them of what Shimon Peres once said to Larry King ... he said in a few years, many countries will have nuclear weapons.  We must find another way of settling our differences than war.   I am not a philosopher, but these are words to live by!

I agree with alot of what you've expressed. I can't recall the exact times or places, but Bush has stated himself that while there's no guarantee that newly formed governments in the ME will be pro-American, representitive democracies are a much better alternative to the oppressive regimes that are currently in place.

Democracy is a process, not an event. Change won't happen over-night, and the road to change will be rough at times.

RLTW