The Obama administration has been quick to jump on the "Arab Spring" PR bandwagon. It is a convenient way to look as if the President is taking some sort of "peace initiative" and supporting democracy, but the reality is that the U.S. government is not much more than a glassy-eyed spectator caught up in its own rhetoric.
As revolutions and civil wars spread across North Africa and the Middle East, it seems obvious that the old tyrannies are being replaced by popular new leadership... until you begin to question the nature of that leadership.
In Syria, al Qaeda is supporting the "opposition" which in turn is accused of murdering Syrian Christians. Makes you wonder just who Obama is supporting. Egypt already looks like a lost cause to radical Islamists. Tunisia and Libya have taken that same Egyptian road. Iran, while not part of these Islamist takeovers, would appear to benefit from the changes.
Now, a Huffington Post article says we should think of the turmoil as "Dignity Revolutions" rather than the popularized notion of an "Arab Spring."
There will be very few tears shed in the U.S. for Assad as even fewer were shed for Qaddafi. But before the U.S. runs wild with optimism about Arab Springs or Dignity Revolutions, it might be better to see if that optimism is justified... or if the "new order" is just the old order with a different cast of characters.
Call me a cynic, but I suspect that many of the protesters on the streets will not be surprised with the final outcomes because they understand the true basis for these uprisings... which has nothing to do with a Western-style democracy. Give it a year or two. Democracy is a powerful word that is often used by those whose intentions are diametrically opposed to that concept.

