Okay, last post on what I still maintain was a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry:

I am so glad your ponderings with regard to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon were done in the early morning and maybe before Ledeen wakes up. If he sees them, he might come by your place and bitch slap you off the sofa that has obviously taken temporary control of your mind.
It’s the oldest game in the world. The Saudi’s can’t embrace democracy because of the radical Wahhabi terrorist in their society (which they promote). Syria can’t leave Lebanon because of Hezbollah (which they fund). Saddam had to keep those Iranian-aligned Shia in the South under his thumb to prevent Shia law in Iraq. And who is going to be in charge of all those nukes in the former Soviet states if the USSR collapses?
This is only the biggest issue of the 21st century. Yes, it is possible that in this one particular case (Lebanon) that the elimination of military rule by a foreign power could lead to negative change instead of positive. But the U.S. needs to stick with our moral clarity on this one. The you-people-are-too-screwed-up-to-handle-your-own-freedom approach is so 20th century.
Okay, granted you only pondered and asked if anyone had written a solid analytical piece on the matter. But the truth is, everything I have read about this situation and every situation like it has been more ideological than analytical. You either believe that the winds of freedom can transform the Middle East as well as the world, or you only see the obstacles. History supports the former view. And if you want a great ideological piece on the matter, you need look no further than yesterday’s article on NRO by the man who even now may be on his way to your place.