Likes of Osama Bin Laden understood that defeating and subjugating US-led West militarily and economically was out of question. But then Islamic countries have oil and they are also consumers of the Western products. Therefore, they tried to affect producers-consumers relationship. The idea was to affect the price of the oil and to induce solidarity among the global South by inducing opposition to the US. The consumers in the non-West, particularly in Islamic countries, would put tougher conditions on producers and deal with them on their own conditions. These would make all Islamic countries’ governments hardening their stand vis-à-vis the West.

The consumers and governments in the Arab world would become more demanding and would buy strategic assets and weapons with their increased petro-wealth. From imports, the Islamic countries would defeat the West. Great thinking from Bin Laden and his likes! What else can one expect from those people? But for those who have some understanding of how global markets and the governments function, this is just absurd thinking. The fact is that oil prices did not go up in long-term because of the attack. But the US cleverly devalued its currencies, inflating and over-projecting the whole world except itself and some parts of the West.

Neo-conservatives since the Clinton era were mulling toppling down Saddam Hussein’s regime. Mr. Bush got the opportunity. But he had solid thinking behind the whole operation. He wanted to prove that first producers could put far more conditions than secondary and tertiary producers and consumers could. He also thought that the peace and liberal changes in the Middle Eastern societies could come only by violence and turbulence. It required supporting Right in order to contain future Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism in long term. Only the fire could extinguish the passion among the Arabs.

But he also knew that opposition to him was so strong that the Arabs would tolerate authoritarianism and despotism till he is in the White House. He got the second term and therefore, got more times to shape events in the Islamic world. Therefore, he might have sought the advice of psychiatrists more than that of military generals in planning great cataclysmic changes in the Middle East. The same people should be behind the awarding of death sentence to Mr. Hussein—a kind of psychotherapy to Arabs asking them to become more radical during Mr. Bush's tenure in the White House and never forgive Mr. Bush and the Republicans.

This should be emphasized that it was impossible for Barck Hussein Obama to create so much social website infrastructure in the Middle East in so little time. Mr. Bush’s contribution outweighs that of Mr. Obama in this regard. Without the social websites and other communication infrastructure, the upheavals were impossibility. The fact is that Mr. Bush knew that the Arab world would never accept liberal democracies and the Islamic principles would guide them indefinitely. But in this high consciousness era it would become increasingly difficult for the Arabs to tolerate the consequences of misrule. They would change once Mr. Bush was gone. Mr. Oabma took over the reins of the White House and very soon the smoldering turned into wild blaze. It is still continuing.

To be fair to Mr. Bush, he lit up ambitions among the Arabs. He helped induced the wish of having more luxury and comforts and spurt consumerism by letting the Middle Eastern societies interact with the Americans and other Westerners. There is a universal wish among the elites to posses and for the middle classes to copy theirs’ and global elites, if they can. Mr. Bush let the elites of all globe unite. Moreover, America’s invasion of Iraq helped redefined nationalism in Arab world.

The fact is that Arab world is in turmoil. But if Bush doctrine is accepted this is what their fate is. Changes taking place in these societies should be left to the people as per the doctrine. They may go either way: towards progressive societies or towards regressive societies. But one thing is certain that the Arabs have tasted the fruits of democracy and majority of them sooner or later would admit adult universal suffrage. The biggest credit for that goes to Mr. Bush. Americans should understand him.

If the present Arab upheavals are not successful, the second bout would take place sometime in future. Since those changes would take in higher consciousness than the present ones, the changes then would be more meaningful. The fact is that if capital does not follow the demand-supply dictated path then it would create problems both for the investors and those who require it. At present the path of the capital is wherever the capitalists want to take; capital follows the diktat of individuals.

If the psychology of the present people is properly analyzed then elites of the world are going to dominate more in future; both in shaping political events and economic ones. In order for a stable Arab world there should be significant number of riches and substantial middle class. Economic success is required in order to create stable political systems and institutions in the Arab world. But that would require greater American and other Western participation. It would require fundamental changes in the way Arabs think.

If the Middle East succeeds economically in the sense that they become primary and secondary producers and more wealth is shared among the vast majority then Mr. Bush would be remembered as a good President. Only mistake that he could have done it from American perspectives is that the US overstayed in Iraq and wasted taxpayers’ money. But that was the essential for bringing about the required changes in the Arab world and to expand the horizons of American influence.