A Revolution Betrayed

Not long before he was murdered by a car bomb in June 2005, the liberal Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir made a characteristically cheeky statement. Discussing Lebanon's Cedar Revolution—in which hundreds of thousands of the country's citizens had taken to the streets to demand a Syrian withdrawal—Kassir said the events truly deserved to be called a "revolution," since, as in so many other revolts, the hopes of those involved had ultimately been betrayed.

Follow your favorite NEWSWEEK columnists

Customize the Newsweek homepage to feature the latest word from your favorite columnists.

Kassir was referring to the behavior of Lebanon's politicians, who in their eagerness to retain power had watered down many of the revolution's original goals. But his comment could just as easily be used to describe the Bush administration then and since. Having once described its military intervention in the Middle East as an effort to advance Arab democracy, Washington—beleaguered by Iraq and a rising Iran—has now returned to the comforting familiarity of alliances with Arab despots.

Three years on, Arab democracy seems to have vanished from the U.S. debate. (The exception to this rule is Lebanon, where a great many people proved willing to pick up on Washington's democracy rhetoric.) None of the candidates likely to succeed President George W. Bush seems interested in pressing the cause. Foreign-policy "realism"—which stresses the pursuit of national interests over the advancement of values such as democracy and human rights—has regained the upper hand. More and more American decision makers seem to believe that Arab societies are socially, culturally and institutionally unprepared for democracy.

Such fatalism will only impede Washington's ability to craft smart policies. This is dangerous both for the Middle East and the United States. Supporting tyrannical governments will further erode America's already low standing in the region, and is likely to backfire tactically. Friendly despots, such as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak or the Saudi kings, may seem resilient, but they are weaker and less legitimate today than ever before, presiding as they do over corrupt and decrepit political systems.

Supporting tyrants is also the best way to feed Islamic extremism. It is precisely the absence of Arab democracy— a situation made worse by U.S. support for dictators—that hardened anti-Americanism in many Middle Eastern states in the past, leading to the emergence of the men responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, while America's reputation in the Middle East has declined in recent years, it was never that high in the first place. Rather than pursue the mirage of popularity, however, Washington should work harder to make a difference—that, and only that, will earn it backing from the Arab Street.