Bush Doctrine and Peace in the Middle East

For 18 months leading up to the recent presidential election, the liberal establishment has force fed our great nation with a steady diet of anti-Bush propaganda. The cornerstone of the liberal message, of course, related to Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Bush has been labeled an incompetent neocon. He has been labeled a terrorist. He has been accused of escalating Mid East tensions, and is considered to be the oppressor of millions of Arabs.

Can these neo-liberal messages be reconciled with the facts? 25 million Iraqis are now free, and 8 million citizens recently voted for their new government representatives. Afghanistan is no longer an incubator for Al Qaeda terrorists. Usama Bin Laden seems to have been neutered, as he's currently cowering somewhere in a cave, unable to lead his Jihad against Christianity and Judaism. Libya has made a 180 degree turn with respect to their state sponsorship of terrorism. Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror. Every one of these major accomplishments are the direct result of the Bush Doctrine.

But taking a closer look at the results of the Bush Doctrine, we can see that the second order effects may even be greater than our primary accomplishments. For example, Egypt has now planned elections for later this year. We won't pretend that Mubarak is fully embracing democracy, as Mubarak originally stated that opposition candidates would not be on the ballot. But due in part to pressure from the Bush administration, the Egyptian president reversed course and ordered a constitutional change to allow for opposition candidates to be put on the ballot. In addition, small groups of Egyptians are emboldened enough to demonstrate, which is forbidden in Egypt.

While Egypt's path towards democracy is just beginning, it is now clear that Lebanon is a major victory of the Bush Doctrine. We've all seen images of thousands of Lebanese Muslim, Druse, and Christians demonstrating together. We've heard the story of the mass resignation of Syria's puppet regime in Lebanaon. But is it fair to attribute these dramatic events to the Bush Doctrine? Let's listen to the words of Walid Jumblatt, who is the major opposition leader in Lebanon:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Is this what Theresa Heinz-Kerry considers "4 more years of hell"? Does Nancy Pelosi view these dramatic events as a by-product of incompetence in the Oval Office? Does Michael Moore believe that the policies of a liar could yield such dramatic results? As history unfolds before our eyes, as voices of freedom are heard for the first time, and as oppressive regimes fall one by one, there can be little doubt that with respect to US foreign policy, the left is wrong and the right is right.