Not the least significant aspect of the Arab Spring is the redefinition of heretofore prevalent
principles of foreign policy. As the United States is withdrawing from military
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan undertaken on the basis (however disputed) of
American national security, it is reengaging in several other states in the
region (albeit uncertainly) in the name of humanitarian intervention. Will
democratic reconstruction replace national interest as the lodestar of Middle
East policy? Is democratic reconstruction what the Arab Spring in fact
represents?
The evolving consensus is that the United States is morally obliged to align
with revolutionary movements in the Middle East as a kind of compensation for Cold War policies — invariably described as “misguided” —
in which it cooperated with non-democratic governments in the region for
security objectives. Then, it is alleged, supporting fragile governments in the
name of international stability generated long-term instability. Even granting
that some of those policies were continued beyond their utility, the Cold War
structure lasted 30 years and induced decisive strategic transformations, such
as Egypt’s abandonment of its alliance with the Soviet Union
and the signing of the Camp David accords. The pattern now emerging, if it fails
to establish an appropriate relationship to its proclaimed goals, risks being
inherently unstable from inception, which could submerge the values it
proclaimed...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-doctrine-of-intervention/2012/03/30/gIQAcZL6lS_print.html