There is a cedar tree revolution going on in my pants after looking at those Lebanese chicks.

While not exactly in the spirit of your piece, I would add that the UN and the French had long ago passed resolution after resolution telling Syria to get out of Lebanon to no avail. Now, Syria is discussing pulling out. What has changed to make the Syrians decide to think about pulling back? That's right. The 400-pound gorilla standing at their back door.

This is just more evidence of the impotence of the UN. They spent years trying to solve the Lebanese problem diplomatically to no avail. Then without the support of the UN, we went into Iraq, kicked out Saddam, killed a bunch of terrorists, and held free elections. Suddenly, Syria starts thinking about leaving Lebanon.

Yeah, that's the result of the brilliance of UN diplomacy.

Yes, but I imagine that even more important than the military threat is the paradigm shift in thinking in the region-- a shift caused by the elections of 30 January.

Not to keep sucking up to Reynolds, but last week he commented about a "preference cascade," and linked an old TechCentralStation essay about that.

It's worth reading, but you'll have to dig into his site to find the link.

Long story short: People tend to hide or bury their true preferences when they believe that they're either not socially acceptable (like displaying one's patriotism) or are impossible to achieve (like foring democratic reforms upon a tyranny).

That's called "preference falsification."

But when an event occurs to make people realize that they either don't care about the social acceptabliity of a preference (as they seemed to after 9-11, displaying flags proudly) or that the impossible might just be possible after all (the elections in Iraq), this can cause a very rapid transformation in thinking as people stop falsifying their preferences and insist on achieving their actual preferences.

Very good article.

I'm lazy, but I think I might just have to find that and link it.

You forgot the ever-popular and time-honored option D, none of the above. That's liberalism's answer to everything. Make a lot of noise, empanel some experts, propose more talks, determine that someone must take action, then settle for the status quo, propose even more talks, and condemn anyone with the courage to actually do something about whatever it was you made all the noise about in the first place. When that person does something and it succeeds immediately say that it would have happened without that action, grudgingly admit that maybe, just maybe that person was right, in some twisted sort of way, then step in and take credit for it just like you did it yourself. No risk involved, no backbone required, just the ability to lie well, the other thing liberalism excells at. Just like the French growing a pair big enough to stand up to Syria and Assad now, their occupation of Lebanon isn't anything new, but they know if they don't jump on the Bush bandwagon now those few people left on this planet that don't think of them as gutless, greedy, thieving enablers of tyranny will change their minds. All eight of them.

You've hit the nail, Ace.

For decades, groups like Amnesty International would document their morally superior outrage about Saddam's horrors; but when the US took the only effective course of action, they were even more outraged.

The implication is inescapable: better that his regime had continued to rape and slaughter, and the impotent Euro-poseurs had continued to preen and posture.

Repeatedly throughout the presidential campaign, John Kerry selected the liberal's favorite option. For example, when asked whether his refusal to use military force would have left Saddam still in power, he said, "Not necessarily."

It's the kind of worthless quibble we'll see from liberals over and over again as Bush's Middle East initiative succeeds. When asked if George Bush is rsponsible for the democratic transformation of the Muslim world, they'll say, "Not necessarily."

My rather useless philosophy degree finally comes in handy. The main proponent of what is formally called the "Cognitive-developmental theory of moralization" is Lawrence Kohlberg. He devised a six-stage sequence of moral development and judgement, which is tested by answering dilemmas.

He did not claim that men were superior to women; other people, when looking at the results of his tests, noticed that men tended to score higher than women. This pissed Carol Gilligan off, who apparently believed that if the scores didn't come out the same, the test must be wrong. She then developed this touchy-feel good version of moral development which has the bunnys and the flowers and the other things of that nature.

Google should pick up Kohlberg's name, if you're interested in more.

Thanks, Stukom. Indeed, the name Kohlberg did turn up a lot of stuff; I'm going through it now to find an essay that best digests the dispute.

I'm getting a lot of slide-shows.

Once again you're reminding me of the exasperating pre-invasion debates I had with my former friend who is a lefty.

He insisted that there were 'other ways' of getting Saddam to stop plucking our nerves, but never actually came up with any ideas. Option C all the way. Whatever that was.

Now that everybody can see the positive developments in Lebanon, its more than a little irritating to hear, "See?? We TOLD you that Option C would work!"

And Reagan's policies had nothing to do with the failure of the Soviet Union either.

These people are a wonder.

Yeah, monitoring events via Instapundit has led me to think I REALLY need to vacation in Lebanon soon. Is every woman there really hot or what? Gimme some of that Levantine coochie-coo!

Spot on with your Option C analysis. I recently had to bear to overhear a rather dimwitted coworker explaining to another why Jews (she's Jewish) trend towards the Democrat party. Because they're all about helping people and stuff. Doesn't matter whether they've actually HELPED someone, just the fact that they say what they do helps people is enough for her. Uh, proof is in the pudding dear, and your pudding looks rather lumpy.

Upon rereading that last bit... eeewww....

Bingo Lyle: here's a prime example, which I'll duplicate out of respect for the moonbat's privacy rather than linking it.

------------------

The problem is not that people dont consider the result of the Iraq invasion to be a good thing. The problem is if you dont give Bush credit for every positive outcome then all of a sudden you are anti Bush. Cause and effects works much more complicated than event A happend and event B then happend hence event A caused event B. Just like you how people give Reagan all the credit for the USSR falling, the same thing is happening now. Opportunism is always a good political tactic, just like what Bush is doing with soc sec.

Now the events of those three places are massivley more complicated.(Im still baffled at what happend to the old bottom up model of conservative thought). The reality is, if Arafat doesnt die, do we see that tide of reform in Palestine? No. If Iraq never happend and Arafat died, do we still see this reform? Yes. Common thread? Arafat.

The middle east is not some singular body of thought that loved despotism before and after Iraq now loves democracy. The complexity involved with movments for change has always been there and always will be when power is centralized.

I suppose if Bush wants, he can go back retroactivley and take credit for those who want reforms in Iran too. He can claim "they knew I was coming!"

One could argue Iraq has been a big push in the back but we cant know that yet. Everyone kept saying we wont know if Iraq is a success or failure for the middle east until sometime down the road. But now Bush gets to pick and choose the events to take credit for? What is this, a buffet line?

Here is a better lesson to be learned from the recent events. If you allow a nation and its people to choose their own leadership and allow them to push their own reforms while advocating democracy, good things happend. But when you get in and start playing with the putty, you screw up. Iran is a great example. The people there wanted the Shah gone but because he was so proAmerican, we decided to interfere with their choices. So, out of anger mostly, they turn to the opportunistic Ayatollah who was NOT that popular.

The same events are occuring in Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon. We didnt go in deciding who is in and who is out. We let them take care of their problems and they do fine.

If anything, Iraq undercuts this positive growth because it keeps in the minds of the people the idea of this big bully who is ready to use its huge army to control the region. Of course the backlash from Iraq wasnt that bad, but knowing that Iraq had very little to do with outsting a dictator and more to do with our own interests, how much longer until we return to our old ways and screw things up. Reality: Bush's forceful doctrine still has terrible motives but ends up, for now, with good ends.

If a serial killer accidently kills a serial rapist, he doesnt get a parade.

Pretty long winded piece there Ace - it all boils down to one sentence though:

Forsake "good enough" in persuit of "perfect" and you'll wind up with squat in the end.

As the hotrodders say, you gotta "run what you brung"

Heartily agree that early Rush -- Ayn Rand stylings and all -- is good stuff for evaluation of one's inner ethos.......but Neil Peart's the lyricist.

Of course, Rush (one of my favorite bands) has an odd structure: Geddy Lee, one of rock's greatest bassists, is best known as providing Rush's lead vocals -- which, to be charitable, are an acquired taste. Neil Peart, lyricist extraordinaire and an incredible master of complex rhythms, is possibly best known for juggling drumsticks. Alex Zivojinovic (better known as Lifeson), a guitar maniac who can play classical, rock, rhythm, lead, and chorus in the course of a 3 minute song, is probably best known for being Nordic...which he is not.

I would have to recommend their pre-'81 albums as the perfect soundtrack to any film about "finding oneself as a libertarian".