What to make of the 'new' Middle East

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove always says that George W. Bush likes to make “game-changing moves.” Well, it looks like he’s failing to make one on Social Security, but succeeding in doing so – at least for now – in the Middle East. It just goes to show: if the AARP governed Istanbul, the Ottoman Empire would still be intact. It turned out to be easier for the president to inspire voters in Baghdad than Republicans facing re-election in 2006.

Republican congressional leaders have more or less declared Social Security “reform” dead for the year. What happened? My quick list: post-reelection hubris in the White House, which led the president and Rove to assume (wrongly) that the public was waiting, like the Israelites in the desert, to be inspired; a killer preemptive strike by AARP (with ads that started before inauguration); the administration’s admission that private savings accounts had little to do with keeping the system solvent; and the simple arithmetic which showed that relatively minor tweaking would put off any real Day of Reckoning until mid-century. The attack on 9/11 was a crisis, a huge one. But the president couldn’t manufacture one on Social Security.

So now Bush has even more reason to focus on some relatively good news from the Middle East. It’s too soon to know whether recent events there represent a real – or false – dawn of peace and democracy in a region that hasn’t known either. The verdict won’t be in for decades. But it won’t take that long to get a sense of whether the assertive Bush Doctrine is affecting our politics. It is – and not to the Democrats’ benefit.

Like backgammon players in a bazaar, Middle East leaders are shuttling pieces around the geopolitical board with cunning dexterity, all in response to Bush’s response to 9/11. Transforming the region wasn’t the stated intent of the American-led invasion of Iraq; it was supposed to be about WMD and Al Qaeda. But it’s difficult to argue that there isn’t a causal connection between the upbeat news and the president’s insistence on what amounted to a military takeover of most of the Arabic-speaking world.

Violence continues in Iraq, but the rest is impressive: The Mubarak government in Egypt pledges to move toward elections. The Lebanese, occupied by Syria for decades, oust their pro-Syrian government in a Levantine version of “The Orange Revolution. The Syrians suddenly hand over Saddam Hussein’s murderous brother-in-law, after months of insisting they didn’t have him. The new Palestinian leadership of Abu Abas rids its ranks of Yassir Arafat’s corrupt cronies. The Saudis hold local elections. The Sunnis in Iraq have second thoughts, looking for seats at the table.

What does this have to do with our politics? If the trend continues, plenty. Read on for our guide.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Napolitano eyed for Homeland Security Dems demand business plan from Big Three Why Democrats gave Big Three a reprieve Bum nominations hard to avoid, history shows Emanuel: Got ideas? Call my cell   Congress votes to extend jobless benefits NYT: Daschle poses conflict-of-interest test Ted Stevens gives last Senate speech Waxman topples Dingell for key panel chair Holder's likely nomination revives pardon furor Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: