Muslim fundamentalists won Tunisia's weekend elections, lift the ban on polygamy in Libya, and invade the Israeli embassy in Egypt. The Arab Spring has become an Islamist Winter. Read my piece @ FrontPageMag on how the reality of Middle Eastern democracy doesn't resemble the dreams of its Western cheerleaders.

How do ‘progressives’ reconcile that they helped to remove petty dictators in Egypt and, especially, Libya only to have them replaced by a murderous radical element who will repress the population much more than the formers ever could?

Do they ever have a plan where they think it through and maybe discover that the replacement might be far worse? Or is progressivism just about change at any cost?!

Liberals love to tout unending rights for gays, women, minorities, education and whatever religion they seem particular to on that day yet all rights for those categories disappear under the brutal oppression of Sharia Law.

I can’t help but think that our President has intended this all along. Evidence that he has met with and coddled the Muslim Brotherhood is overwhelming and, in the case of Libya, he launches an illegal military action that ends up costing us another Billion of OUR money that we don’t have. Now our departure from Iraq further de-stabilizes the region and invites a heavier influence from Iran to fill the vacuum in that country. Next, look for him to pull off the trifecta and topple Syria.

This guy has been poison not just for the U.S. but for the world. Certainly seems like a plan to me.

I guess I just want to know when radically de-stabalizing the Middle East became a STRATEGY!?

I hate to say it, because he was a brutal b’stard, but the worse thing that Bush did was to take Saddam Hussein out! This was tantamount to what The One is doing with his push to eradicate other African/Middle Eastern strongmen. The difference, of course, is that we stayed in Iraq to maintain some semblance of order there. In his own way, Saddam kept his country and the region stable through his brutality.

Without him and without a U.S. influence, another domino will fall to the Islamist tidal wave. Not good for anybody.

I’m not sure that BIO necessarily thinks of it as a strategy, but I believe he certainly thinks that there is some comeuppance in what he’s doing. In his mind, he is doing the righteous thing. As he’s proven for the last three years, he’s a twisted individual and typically what he thinks is right is usually the opposite.

Take a pill. We have been able to maintain satisfactory (if imperfect) relations with Saudi Arabia for several decades.

The banking and estate laws of these countries are matters of no interest. A rash of other public policies (on matrimonial law, criminal law, and family law) are potential sources of embarrassment and would require people be given refugee status in certain circumstances. Our most salient concern would be the degree to which the regime's convictions motivated subversion or bellicose policies elsewhere. Sometimes they will (Iran, Gaza) and sometimes they will not (again, Saudi Arabia).

Having read your article, I have to say your point is inconsequential and fails to state what our interests in these matters are. Who is it that suggested that Arab states would have, in a period of less than a year, a political culture and dynamic that resembles Italy?

You are quite exercised by the phrase, translated from the Arabic, "“Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia),”". "Islam is the religion of the state" is a common-and-garden bit of phraseology. I am not sure you could find a formal constitution in the Arab world that did not contain some variant of it. As for the latter, does it really surprise you that they would locate the 'principal source' of legislation in their own heritage. I just had a conversation with some bloke who insisted that the Declaration of Independence 'animates the American soul', a rather more peculiar affirmation than locating the principal source of legislation in an antique law code. We have the common law, no?

Our real problem is the behavior of the successor governments when you get down to the brass tacks.

Saudi Arabia is a simple formula: they have oil and we want it. Luckily, they are not the Middle Eastern basket case that many of the other countries in the region are. Mostly because they can afford to pay off their citizens who don't mind as much living under iron fist rule as long as it's lucrative to do so.

What's your point?

Saudi Arabia is a simple formula: they have oil and we want it. but some people do not only want that.

oh my God! so shocking ...............

You said "We have been able to maintain satisfactory (if imperfect) relations with Saudi Arabia for several decades." And my response was based on the arrangement we have with them.

I can't help but think that the Saudis enjoy having our military right next door to keep the meanies away so that they can pump oil and enjoy an oppulent lifestyle while exporting Wahabbism.

Why is that relevant? Iran also has considerable oil wealth and we would not object to being a customer. They have also been inveterately hostile since 1979. Ditto Iraq (1958-2003), ditto Libya (1969-2011). The presence of a potentially profitable commercial relationship is no guarantee of satisfactory political relations. The formula is not 'simple'.

While we are at it, the most thoroughgoing 'basket cases' in the Near East and adjacent areas have been all over the map as regards their external relations (the Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq [1988-2007]) or have been non-antagonistic (Algeria [1992-99], Mauretania). The only places where wretched=hostile would be the West Bank and Gaza.

Note the qualification of "Middle Eastern basket case". Most countries in that region will not or can not do business with the United States due to cultural or religious biases.

The Suadis are one of the few Arab or Persian countries that do not fall into those categories. We can't do business with Iran the way we do with the Saudis, being the Great Satan and all. Iraq's oil industry is in shambles and we wouldn't be allowed to touch a drop even if it wasn't - blood for oil, don't you know. Libya is likely off the map as well as now that the MB has taken control and have immediately instituted Sharia Law, oil production will likely cease to be that important to them while they are re-building their economy.

My point is that the Saudis are the only ones we have a working relationship with and the reciprocal is their oil for our money and protection.

Do you disagree?

Most countries in that region will not or can not do business with the United States due to cultural or religious biases.

There are seven sovereign countries on the Arabian peninsula, five in the Fertile Crescent, three in the Caucusus. These are rounded out by Iran, Turkey, Cyprus, and Egypt. That makes for nineteen countries. Those that will not or cannot do business with us include Iran, Syria, and three non-state paramilitary groups (the Hezbollah, al Fatah, and Hamas). How does two-and-change out of nineteen-and-change translate in your mind into 'most'?

Ok then. I acquiesce to your expertise.

I agree with Art Deco