Law of Unintended Consequences

Note: I tried to post this using email but it has been 12 hours since I sent it and it hasn't posted. So, I'm sorry if it double posts.

The Washington Monthly has a nice, little, well-rounded article about the "Cedar Revolution" (ie. Lebanon) and other middle East shifts and whether or not the Bush administration had anything to do with it. It is a nice piece but I only want to pick on a little piece because I have seen the same sentiment elsewhere.

"For starters, despite a fair amount of breast beating in the conservative blogosphere, the Bush administration itself didn't consider democratization a primary reason for the Iraq invasion."

The theory is that since the administration didn't 'call it', they shouldn't get credit for any involvement that they had in bringing democracy to the middle east. Now, I'm a big fan of the Law of Unintended Consequences (well not so much a fan but a believer). QandO was where I first had the Idea placed in my head. They like to bring it up.

The gist is that when you take some action (such as regulation), there are bound to be unintended consequences. Now if the those consequences are bad, everyone (including me) blames the action taker for messing things up. For instance, when it looked like the Iraqi invasion was going to bread more hate towards America (which it might still do, who knows), the Dems were quick to blame Bush.

But now that there are good, unforseen things coming out of it, I think you have to place the praise in the same place you would place the blame. This is government not pool. You don't have to call all the balls that will fall, you just do what you think is right and hope for the best.

On a completely different note, FOX News has taught me that all the important events that the rest of the world has to offer can be covered in 80 seconds.

mwz
217