US idealism vs US realism

A wave of freedom chants continue to ring across the Middle East with ordinary people taking to the streets to demand greater political freedom, basic rights and higher wages. The chorus has affected every state except two, the UAE and Qatar, which are essentially made up of the super rich. The chorus fits a familiar tune, freedom from oppression. The current US administration, which came to power on a wave of hope, freedom and liberty is now having to consider whether it too will have to resort to political realism in the short-term. It is easy to come to power by appealing to Utopian ideals; however, in the real world sometimes having a dictator is a good thing. In Yemen for example, the country is beset by so many problems including rebellion in the north, extremism in the east, separatist sentiment in the south and now political unrest in the centre that removing the one man that keeps it all in check is more likely to create more problems. If Saleh is overthrown tomorrow the opposing groups in the country are likely to bicker over the future character of the political system. Islamists will want an Islamist state (not good for the US), southerners may want a socialist republic (not good for the capitalists) and the rebels will want whatever they can get (not good for the Saudis). Supporting a dictator here would be logical. But if Obama were to do that openly he'd risk the credibility of his regime. Its easy to sprout democratic nonsense, its much harder to make it happen, particularly if you're eating hamburgers in Washington and shooting b-ball with the kids before Oprah starts. In tribal Yemen where revenge killings are expected for dishonouring a cow, Oprah means very little.