Back in '03, as we invaded Iraq, there was much opposition. One argument held that it's all an underhanded neocon plot to destabilize the Middle East, remaking it to fit out own needs.Curses, we've been found out!

There's no point in hiding it anymore, so I'll admit it-I'm all for instability, leading to sane governance, in the Middle East.It's pretty hard to miss the way the wind is blowing as of Jan. 30. Prior to then some of my eminent Oklahoma Daily colleagues commented on the likely difficulties of the Iraqi elections, but nobody's done much of a roundup since.

Allow me: Iraqi turnout was a more than respectable 60 percent, given the populace's fear of death and mayhem. Expatriates voting in the United States expressed emotions ranging from tentative approval to wild enthusiasm. Certain groups were not well represented, but it's a bit silly to refuse to vote and then complain that the election is illegitimate because you didn't vote. The level of violence and intimidation was lower than even many optimists expected. And there was a real choice between about a gazillion candidates-rather a departure from the days when Saddam regularly enjoyed 96 percent of the "vote."

All in all, it may not have been up to the standards of, say, Sweden, but Iraq's election was unquestionably a step forward for those who think democracy is a good thing. Let's not forget Afghanistan, too; they had a swell election and are building a relatively free society.The good news doesn't stop there. Back in '03, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz narrowly survived a rocket attack on his Baghdad hotel. Expressing sentiments unexceptional for a Middle Eastern governmental official, Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese MP, regretted that Wolfowitz had emerged unscathed. He has also opined that the United States staged 9/11 as a platform for attacking the Middle East. Post Jan. 30, Jumblatt is singing a different tune-he compared the Iraqi election to the falling of the Berlin Wall.

Take it from him, not me, that events in Iraq are making previously unheard-of ideas very possible.Jumblatt is now a leader of the "Cedar Revolution," a massive Lebanese protest against Syrian occupation that has so far dismantled the Baathist puppet government and may well succeed in ejecting the Syrians and returning to a more free society.Speaking of Baathists, Syria's making some cagey moves in hopes of surviving this unexpected internal and external pressure. After months of playing dumb to demands that they turn over the Saddam stooges they're harboring, they've suddenly decided to cave-Saddam's brother and 29 other poohbahs have been handed to Baghdad. Clearly they hope to appease us, but I dare to hope that Syrians will notice the Lebanese and Iraqis acting like free citizens instead of dictatorial subjects and pull off a revolt of their own.

The Saudis are allowing women to vote for the first time.Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak (another remarkable politician, regularly winning 90 percent of the vote) has decided to let some other people actually run against him next time.Palestinians have pulled off a successful election of their own, and some observers report less elation at suicide attacks on Israelis than in the past. Perhaps some are deciding that the ballot and not the bomb is the better strategy for long-term prosperity.People have stopped bringing up the hostile anti-American "Arab street."Okay, great, people are escaping tyranny and oppression, yadda yadda, but it's not all directly attributable to President Bush, and isn't this all just a clever diversion from our own base self-interest, oil or somesuch?

First off, you just can't deny Bush catalyst status. Second, I guess you can still make the self-interest case, although I'm hoping your evidence is about to get much more sparse. Many seem to think we should only intervene abroad for humanitarian reasons, not for security or defense considerations. I disagree-we should do both.

For instance, Sudan has little to do with us, but everything to do with humanity.President Bush has seen the movie "Hotel Rwanda" twice and met with its real-life hero, Paul Rusesabagina. Significantly, he promised Rusesabagina some sort of action in Darfur, Sudan, where genocide is ongoing.Here's hoping Bush keeps his promise in a big way, sending in troops and forcibly imposing order. Don't be scared, Bush-I think in this case your opponents will spare you the usual carping about American hegemony and imperialism.

Wish they could do the same in light of the remarkable rebirth of democracy in the Middle East.-Cassandra Showell is a political science senior. Her columns appear every other Thursday. She can be reached at opinion@oudaily.com.
hello there & you too