Elliott Abrams, deputy national security advisor in the Bush administration, strikes me as particularly ill-advised. Though written for Foreign Affairs magazine a couple of months ago, the piece is still much talked about in the American neocon press.
Mr Abrams, who is one of the flag bearers for neoconservatism, takes issue with those who find anything wrong with Arab Spring revolutions, largely inspired, if not directly abetted, by the US. "The whole 'experiment' seems to some critics to be a foolish, if idealistic project that promises to do nothing but wreak havoc in the Middle East," he sighs ruefully.
As one of those diabolical critics, I agree wholeheartedly. This, however, is the only thing in the article with which I can possibly agree. In fact, the issue wouldn't even be worth arguing about if Abrams didn't represent a political movement whose influence on US foreign policy is strong and, if a Republican wins in November, will become dominant.