, but I think part of the problem with the middle east is there is no functional love of democracy to rise up in the place of a dictatorship. Iraq (and Libya, and Iran, and Syria) will once again devolve into a 'might is right' at the collapse of any organized goverment, democratic or despotic. Enter the Taliban, stage right.
I'm not a poli-sci guy, but from what I understand, most of the middle eastern 'states' are arbitrarily hewn by former colonial powers forcing the traditional 'tribal' groups into disfuctional 'countries' (like Iraq, where a lot of the government is balanced between three+ groups).
Puppet states supported by the US or the Soveits (remeber THOSE guys?) in the middle east and elsewhere were a shade better than a full on dictatorship.
Until the Millions of Muslims (or other religious stripes in the region) stand up to the hundreds Taliban and Al Quaeda militants, the region can / wants to subconsciously be governed by force. Weapons are present everywhere, so it's not like the civilians are all unarmed. There is no Stazi or KGB that evesdrops on the civi's to punish them with the Taliban, for example.
What is worse - the middle east devolving into a a dozen Libyas, or the currenty situation.
The Middle East is in one sense a slave to historical grievances. You have the differences between ethnic groups like the Kurds, the Persians, the Arabs and the Semitic Israelis. You have the differences between a fistful of religions like the Protestant, Roman and Orthodox Christian sects, Orthodox and reformed Jews, the Shia and Sunni Muslims and so on. Then ladled on top of that are the aftermaths of the different colonial powers from the Romans, Mongolians and Crusaders to the Soviets, British and Americans.
It’s no real wonder that they are in an almost perpetual state of conflict. They’ve never been static long enough to form cohesive countries.
