Question: Why would the U.S. overthrow secular governments in the Middle East

[pampango]

12. It is human nature that people do not like living under repressive kings/dictators.

I wouldn't like it. You wouldn't like. 'They' don't like it. The French didn't like it in the 1780's. The Russians didn't like it in 1917. Not surprisingly - Arabs being people too - they don't like it either.

Usually there is little that anyone can do about one's government - particularly so if a government uses the military, police and security services to maintain control of society and preserve their rule. Just because people are not constantly demonstrating or actively rebelling (resulting in being jailed, tortured and killed) against a repressive government does not mean that they are happy about their situation.

I'm sure the French king, the Russian tsar and every other king/dictator, when faced with a revolution, thought "Where did this come from? The peasants all seemed to be happy last year. Who's causing this unrest? Must be some foreigner! My people love me."

If, hypothetically, Obama had come up with a strategy to replace Mubarak and Assad with fundamentalist Islamic governments then the tea partiers would congratulate themselves. He would have proven that he is a Muslim fundamentalist bent on installing Sharia law in the US. Their train of thought (if you can give them this much credit):

Obama started the Arab Spring in Tunisia rather than in Egypt or Syria, because he wanted to try it out in a small country that has nothing that we are really interested in. He saw how well it worked in Tunisia - how easy it is to fool people that their lives will be better without a dictator; they still believe that 'human dignity' stuff just like the French and Russians did long ago!

Having seen how well the Arab Spring game worked in Tunisia, Obama then took his show on the road to Libya, Egypt then Syria because he hates 'secular' dictators (even those that have done the US' bidding for decades) and really wants fundamentalist dictators. It worked in Egypt when the US-supported military largely refused to shoot civilians in large numbers; it worked in Libya when the military did shoot back, but NATO bombed them; it may or may not work in Syria where the military shot back and no one bombed them.

Once a fundamentalist dictator is safely installed in Syria, Obama will go after Jordan, Algeria, Morocco and every other 'secular' government. Once that is accomplished Obama will have to decide whether to go after Europe first (where the far-right already worries that Muslim influence is ruining the continent) or go straight for Sharia law in the US and an Obama socialist/Islamic dictatorship).

End of tea party 'train of thought'.

We have come to expect that kind of lunatic 'thought' from the far-right in the US.

I suspect most on the left who have qualms about what is happening in the Arab Spring prefer secular dictators to unpredictable democratic governments that have to deal with the frustrations and contradictions created by decades of repressive rule. Muslim fundamentalists were often the only even semi-effective opposition to entrenched dictators, so when the dictators were removed they got much credit. Secular dictators may have been able to enforce some decent policies but, since they ruled through repression, their policies were discredited and created a backlash that surfaced when society opens up.

Just as the French and Russian revolutions did not 'succeed' in creating stable, progressive governments in the short run, Arab democracies have struggled. One can only hope that things improve over time and that the backlashes, frustrations and contradictions created by repressive rule will be replaced with progress as people learn to deal with their societies' problems.