The violence in Lebanon also highlighted what critics say are contradictions in the Bush democracy quest. For one, the administration now has to rely on autocratic leaders as it pursues its goal of ridding the region of autocratic leaders. Moreover, the region's worst unrest is in the three places Washington has pushed hardest for democratic change: Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
The article focuses on Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak is President for life. The United States is much better off with secular and moderate Mubarak than what we'd get in Egypt if the people had a real choice. Mubarak's powers to have anyone he wants imprisoned without a trial and tortured allows him to control the terrorist proclivities of the religious elements of the population. Too bad the U.S. can't use powers like that In Iraq. No wonder why we can't control the place.
I predict that democracy will never work in the Middle East until the population can be secularized and educated in the importance of liberterian government (instead of being educated in the importance of killing Jews). It's also possible that the genetic intelligence of the average Arab just isn't high enough to support a stable libertarian democracy. (As I demonstrated using the GSS, libertarianism and secularism are correlated with higher intelligence.)