Chris Kemp

Sometimes it is healthy for a forest to have a fire, and at those times the U.S. forestry does what is called a controlled burn. It allows the purging ferocity of the fire to follow nature’s course, while keeping surrounding communities and habitats safe.

The Bush Administration could use a similar policy in the Middle East.

Recently in Lebanon, the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri has sparked a fire of nationalism that has opened the door for the possibility of democratic reforms. Shortly after the assassination and ensuing outcry, the pro-Syrian government stepped down and Syria announced the withdrawal of its forces.

Soon we began to hear the voices of praise and recognition for the neoconservatives in President Bush’s administration.

Skeptics wondered if the Neocons had been right all along. Soon, listening to the pundits, one could’ve wondered if the Lebanese people had actually done anything themselves at all. All the while they ignored Lebanon’s predisposition toward democracy.

While it can be perfectly argued that the flame of democracy is spreading in the Middle East, and those hoping to facilitate that have every right in the quietness of their mind to be satisfied in democracy’s progress, that is not what has happened.

Instead of following in his father’s footsteps (President George H.W. Bush had carefully managed the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual fall of the Soviet regime with quiet grace and dignity so as to not upset the delicate political stability in the former USSR) President Bush came out to trumpet the events, and demand that Syria does what it already said it was going to do.

President Bush’s remarks antagonized the nationalistic mentality in Lebanon, and threatened to turn a movement toward democracy into a mob rule situation and possibly a renewed civil conflict. That same day, pro-Syrian Hezbollah turned out 500,000 protesters to denounce U.S. intervention in Lebanese affairs.

By putting a U.S. face on the situation, we gave the anti-democratic forces a new enemy to hate and diverted attention from the fact that they are a nation that is occupied by Syria (who has now delayed their pullout). Today this situation is on an uneasy brink that could turn towards tremendous good or evil.

I do believe that the flame of democracy is spreading and that we are right to facilitate that, but sometimes we must yield the spotlight in favor of a quiet nudge.

In Lebanon, we can either allow this to be a Lebanese movement with the face of the international community on it or we can try to stand in front and force change in the region. With the choices we make in the coming weeks and months, we will either allow a healthy contained fire of democracy or we could fuel it into an unhealthy conflagration.

Pade is a senior political science major and a columnist for The Spectator.