Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East........

.....Bad news for the United States?
As we recently saw in Iraq, Democratic elections in the Middle East frequently don't go the way the Bush administration would like. Today in The Los Angles Times, Tyler Marshall explains how that outcome is likely to be repeated throughout the Middle East in his article Winds of Change Stir in Mideast, but Their Direction Is Unclear.

Over 60 dramatic hours ending Monday, events in the Middle East highlighted both the hopes and risks of change in the region as the Bush administration pursues its agenda of reform.

In Lebanon, an unpopular, Syrian-backed government was brought down by pressure from the streets. In Egypt, the head of a one-party state loosened his decades-old grip on power by announcing plans for multiparty elections. And in Syria, an authoritarian regime handed over Saddam Hussein's half-brother to Iraqi authorities.

Within the administration, the developments were quietly hailed as signals that the president's vision to spread democracy in the Middle East was not naïve and misguided, as critics had said, but an idea Arabs genuinely wanted to embrace.

Despite this windfall of good news, however, Middle East specialists inside and outside the administration remained cautious.

So let's look at some specifics.

• Lebanon:

  The largest, best-organized opposition group in the country, he noted, was the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. The organization is strenuously anti-American, yet an important player in Lebanese politics. As a major supplier of social services to the country's large Shiite population, Hezbollah would probably poll well in free elections.



• Egypt

  A truly democratic election in Egypt could result in major gains for hard-line groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, also strongly anti-American, some specialists argue. Backers of Bush's efforts to spread democracy in the region counter that strengthening radical groups is a risk the U.S. must be willing to take.

The United States has a long history of supporting tyrants in the Middle East and so it shouldn't be too surprising the popularly elected governments are anti American. One country that is not mentioned in Mr Marshall's article is Saudi Arabia. There has been pressure from the Bush administration, probably lacking sincerity however. Because of the US support of the House of Saud for generations any freely elected government in that country would probably be vehemently anti American.