Take A Bow For The New Revolution

Thomas L. Friedman believes for the first time in his years of reporting, things might be changing in the Middle East. There's an opening for greater freedom and democracy. Why? Because of what George Bush did:

...in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades.

He surrounds this statement with predictable Bush-bashing--he'd probably be kicked off The New York Times if he didn't--but it doesn't change the central story. And this was always the main point of the war. (As I argued almost five years ago: There's [a] reason that to me is more important that the rest, but is also the most abstract and hardest to argue. It's the truly long view. [....] People often talk about root causes. Well, as long as tyrants rule in the Middle East, [...] that is a root cause of the trouble. [....] There has to be a change in the area, one toward democracy. [....] The war in Iraq has the chance to bear great, long-range fruit.)

Oddly, (from a logical viewpoint, not a political one), Friedman tries to give Obama credit, too. Even if you believe his mere presence is helping (that seems to be Friedman's argument), I doubt his approach will.

Obama's speech to Muslims was about reaching out, but who is he reaching out to? He's willing to put the U.S. prestige on the line--to talk to their leaders/oppressors.

His foreign policy is of the "realist" school, which prizes stability. So what does that say to the many protestors in Iran, taking to the streets after a rigged election? If Obama's message is, no matter what else, we don't want to rock the boat, what happens when the boat-rockers represent a whiff of democracy?