In the Guardian article I linked to in my last post Jonathan Freedland treated the move towards democracy in the Middle East as if it were an unintended consequence of the Iraq war. He ignored the fact that the war hawks argued all along that the dreaded destabilization of the area could only be for the good, and that bringing democracy to the area was our ultimate goal. Mark Steyn, everybody’s favorite Canadian, was one of these hawks and three years ago he wrote the following in the Spectator:
The stability junkies in the EU, UN and elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable. So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not Iraq? Once you've got rid of the ruling gang, it's the West's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad.
And today he used his space in the Daily Telegraph to do some highly justified crowing:
Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former.
The changes in the Middle East were very much a part of the hawks plan from the beginning. We shouldn’t let the doves get away with pretending that they’re merely an unintended concequence.