The Neocons’ Egypt Dilemma
On the surface, the situation in Egypt right now would seem tailor-made for automatic neocon approval: a country chafing under the rule of a repressive and entrenched leader, its people eager for more democracy, and protesting in the streets on their own behalf. And yet it’s not so simple.
Amal, a head-scarfed Egyptian woman in Tahrir Square, is quoted as saying, “We need democracy in Egypt. … We just want what you have.” But if Amal were asked exactly what she means by the word “democracy,” would she include the safeguards that go hand-in-hand with democracy in order to secure liberty, and without which it can so easily decline into “one person, one vote, one time”? What if forces for oppression in Egypt that are far worse than Mubarak end up opportunistically coming into the ascendance in the vacuum left by his departure?
But why would some neocons who supported the invasion of Iraq, and the overwhelmingly difficult task of establishing a democracy there, advocate more caution in Egypt? Likewise, why would some who criticized Obama’s 2009 recalcitrance to support the pro-democracy forces in Iran now advocate going slowly in Egypt?
In all the postwar brouhaha over the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, it is easy to forget that belief in the existence of such weaponry and in Saddam’s willingness to use it once developed, coupled with his repeated violations of UN resolutions concerning inspections, constituted a large portion of the motivation to go to war there. Whether the occupation and reconstruction would succeed was unknown, although in retrospect many neocons were unrealistically optimistic. But even those who saw that there were huge risks were willing to take them in Iraq because the risk of doing nothing seemed even greater.
The situation in Egypt is very different. Egypt is one of our allies in the Middle East. It was the first country that signed a separate peace with Israel, and Egypt is a bulwark of what passes for moderation in that area of the world. And although Mubarak is corrupt and repressive, he’s not even close to being in the same league as Saddam Hussein. Unlike in Iraq, Mubarak’s successor stands only a small chance of being better than Mubarak and could be a great deal worse. In short, there is potentially much more to lose in Egypt than there was in Iraq, both for the Egyptian people and for the U.S. and its allies (including Israel) in the region.
But shouldn’t neocons support the striving for democracy wherever it may come and whatever form it may take? It is true that neocons believe that liberal democracy is generally a good thing for people. But they also believe that it is a good thing for the U.S. in particular because, in Max Boot’s words, “liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction.” So neocon encouragement of liberal democracy around the world contains an unapologetic element of U.S. self-interest along with its altruism.
The left’s attitude towards pro-democracy movements tends to feature a different emphasis. The left is more excited about pro-democracy movements that occur in countries already allied with the U.S., such as Egypt, because they often contain elements of anti-Americanism and the excellent prospect of undermining U.S. power by turning against this country. To a great degree, the left opposed the Iraq war — and Bush’s promotion of democracy in former enemy Iraq afterward — because they saw both actions as colonialist and exploitative, and too potentially favorable to American interests if Iraq ended up in the U.S.’s sphere of influence.
The present dilemma plaguing neocons and many others on the right is how to balance their wish to support the people of Egypt in their drive to determine their own destiny against the hard-won knowledge that the end result might well be less liberty for those people, and could endanger U.S. and Israeli security as well. That is exactly what happened in Iran, a cautionary tale.
Leading neocons come down on different sides of the issue. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard is the optimist, labeling the doubters fearful and shortsighted and calling for them to stand with freedom-lovers, likening the pro-democracy forces in Egypt to our patriots in 1776 rather than those of the French or the Russian or Iranian Revolutions. Unfortunately, he gives no reasons why the proper parallels would be to the U.S. rather than those more ill-fated upheavals.
Paul Wolfowitz is also somewhat hopeful that Islamists won’t take control in Egypt, although he talks a “shoulda, woulda, coulda” line of regret:
In … Egypt, the United States could have pushed actively for gradual reforms, such as the development of legitimate political parties, credible legal institutions and free elections, and curtailing First Family cronyism. That might have averted the present crisis and allowed leaders and institutions to emerge that could manage a stable transition after the departure of the dictators.
Wolfowitz’s statement emphasizes one tenet of neocon thought, which is that the U.S. should peacefully encourage the development of free elections and civil rights in states where we have leverage (such as Egypt) before things get so bad that the people must rise up in revolt. He points out that President Bush pressured Mubarak to reform, but backed off towards the second part of his second term, and that President Obama has done far worse by drastically cutting funding for nearly all democracy support programs around the world. No ounce of prevention there.
Charles Krauthammer is the least optimistic, and sees the Egyptian army as the best faction to support, the key to stability, and the only force strong enough to counter groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
But it is Natan Sharansky who just might say it best:
“Only when the basic institutions that protect a free society are firmly in place — such as a free press, the rule of law, independent courts, political parties — can free elections be held,” Mr. Sharansky wrote in “The Case for Democracy.” In Egypt, those “free, developed institutions,” he tells me, “will not be developed by September.”
Sharansky believes that if the U.S. and other western nations make it clear to whomever comes after Mubarak in Egypt that no aid will be forthcoming unless those basic underpinnings of liberal democracy are built, then in a couple of years Egypt will be ready for it. But unfortunately, he has few suggestions as to how such an interim government could possibly placate the Egyptian people who are clamoring for democracy now.
One encouraging fact for the future of democracy in Egypt is that the country seems to have no single powerful charismatic theocratic figure around which to rally, unlike Iran and the extraordinarily popular Khomeini. A turning point in Khomeini’s consolidation of power in Iran was when some factions among the Iranian military began to defect to his side, and he declared jihad against soldiers who did not surrender. In Egypt, the army has been a prime mover in politics for decades, and it has a tradition of being antagonistic to the Muslim Brotherhood. If that starts to change, and the Brotherhood begins to attract the support of any significant segment of the army, it would be an exceedingly ominous sign.
We have no allies in Iran. The regime knows that we are dead-set on a course that will see our two forces collide. We are not in any way considered allies.
We are however allied with Mubarak to a degree. If we abandon him our allies will notice and it will bite us.
So we have a devil we know and one we don’t. The choice is clear. We don’t have to like it or paint it pretty but we must aknowledge that it is the way it must be.
The CIA should support Ayman Nour.
Condi and Bush would put Ayman Noor in the prime minister seat, as they did in Kenya and Zimbawe with losing presidential candidates in corrupt countries. Freedom of the press is not such an issue with the advent of the internet.
This is a very good summary of the situation and I don’t see how one can improve on Sharansky’s opinion.
But I don’t agree with your description of the left being in favor of democracies only if it can be used to undermine America. The left was all in favor of liberating Iraq and supported the war until they realized there was more political hay to be harvested by opposing the war. It was a cynical political calculation. As it always is with liberals, it was all about them.
The opposition has been active in Iran before Ayatollah were thrown in and ruined any change. The Ayatollahs like the Shahanshah substituted US for USSR. Shahanshah knew that there was an alliance of Reds and Blacks. He wanted to defend the White Revolution, and the Ayatollahs want to defend their black Theocracy. Each had their own bogus opposition, which was within their respective constitution. The opposition has always told the people to boycott rigged elections. The Greens want an Islamic Republic and are a fake opposition.
With no confidence in our State Department and little in our intelligence community, it is hard to say what to do. We’ve been doing nothing; something might be better. Tricky at this point, especially with La Pucelle de Tuzla running State.
Quiet staight-forwardness might be our best option, if one were assured Obama understood the situation. Thus far, he hasn’t given any indication that he does.
Obviously in Egypt, the Army is the closest thing to a reality-based institution with any influence. By this time, experience has beaten out any capacity for self-delusion. And, they probably have some good back-door communications with the Israelis.
There is a middle class/intelligentsia that should be strongly encouraged to counter the MB in the street and media, or at least give ‘support’ to the state security forces for the ‘dark alley’ activity sure to occur.
Take the Army and give the points, cover that with the under on Mubarek and hope the Cairo street is a push.
Yes, the neocons do believe (or at least they SAY) that “liberal democracy” is a good thing for people. The neocons are pleased as long as the populace in question does what they’re told and elects someone that the neocons can do business with (literally).
If the populace in question puts in a “constitution” that enshrines shari’a law, as is the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the utter hypocrisy of the neocons becomes apparent. This ALWAYS happens sooner or later in any predominantly Muslim country where “the will of the people” is permitted to express itself.
One man, one vote – one time.
There are some pretty obvious answers to your question.
First, The Iranian regime threatens The United States and the Egyptian regime does not.
Second, The Egyptian regime prevents the outbreak of regional war and the Iranian regime promotes it.
Third, Egypt was not interested conquering the territory of its neighbors, Iran is.
As a proud neocon I understand that revolution and demands for social justice and equality is sometimes a mask for simply switching one tyranny for another.
There could also be open civil war in Egypt, and soon. You could have the forces of the Muslim Brotherhood supported by Iran on one side (as with Hamas and Hezbollah), and a right-wing dictatorship supported by the army on the other side. I still think the Egyptian army is filled with a bunch of pragmatic generals who know that, if the Islamists come to power, they will all be out of a job. Since the army in Egypt is one of the few ways for the average Egyptian to make a decent living, these officers and men will NOT go quietly. So whoever takes over in Egypt had better treat the army really well, or else they will be replaced. The Muslim Brotherhood may be filled with Islamic radicals, but they do not have a Revolutionary Guard that can take over the army, yet. Until they do, they will lose. But it could be a bloody civil war that will make democracy in that country seem like a pipe dream.
How does one define the crazy situation the liberal West faces with the Muslim world, epitomized by leaders like Baraq Hasan al-Bama and this guy?
One way is to consider the “rape” charges that liberal darling Assange faces in Sweden: he had consensual sex with women who later were able to complain that he either did not use a condom or took it off during sex. Their charges were taken very seriously and Assange now finds himself in serious legal trouble.
In the Muslim world, these women would have to produce four male eyewitnesses to support her claim. However, they might think twice about pressing charges, as in many cases those who say they have been raped have faced more severe punishment than their attackers, often death by stoning.
To think that these two cultures can “COEXIST!” is utter insanity.
This is the tip of the pyramid with the Islamic insurgence in the Middle East. Muslims will call it ‘saving the unborn’ if it advances their agenda of religious domination.
‘Democracy’ my ass.
In an authoritarian regime with “first family cronyism” how do we know what Egyptians want. Just because Egypt “was the first country that signed a separate peace with Israel”, do we know that’s what Egyptians want? They may be asking why that got signed. It really doesn’t have the endorsement of Egyptians; it simply has the endorsement of the Mubarak regime. It’s inflated currency.
To put it another way, maybe Egyptians are looking at Americans and asking if the majority don’t want ObamaCare, why is it happening? In other words unless the will of the people is represented in government, the countries don’t speak for the people, they only speak for the thugs in power.
It would be much better to have the currency of even a half-hearted endorsement of peace with Israel by the Egyptian people than the diluted currency of the Mubarak regime.
What many people misunderstand is that Islamic fascism has nothing to do with Israel; it began long before Israel even existed. The current rhetoric of anti-Israel within the ranks of Islamic fascism is a red herring. Yes – they mean it – but Israel is not the cause of Islamic fascism and if Palestine were to exist as a separate state and Israel either co-existed or even disappeared – Islamic fascism would not wane.
The real cause of Islamic fascism is internal within the Islamic states. It is a ‘magical solution’ to the dysfunctional structures within these states.
The basic problems in the Islamic states are: (1) massive population increase, with the population in Egypt, for example, doubling in 40 years to its current 80 million; (2) a political system that is two-class with an inviolate set of elite Rulers who hold all power – and the Ruled; and (3)an economic system within this framework that prevents the emergence of a private middle class economy made up of small to medium size businesses.
The current economies in the ME are all socialist, statist, made up of enormous public institutions and industries (Suez Canal in Egypt, oil in other states) and an equally large civil service. There is no decent private economy. Jobs exist primarily within the public service – and are held within families, bribes, friends etc. If you aren’t in this network – you live in poverty.
The problem is that such an economy has reached its ‘carrying capacity’. It simply cannot generate enough wealth to sustain the massive population increases. But, since these regimes won’t permit a middle class, with private small businesses, to generate the wealth to sustain this population – what’s to be done? The political elite refuse to allow change; refuse to allow dissent, to allow opposition political parties, etc. So – NO CHANGE is possible.
The people will turn to ‘magical solutions’; that is, the utopian imaginary world so Islamic fascism where ‘IF ONLY we were pure and good, THEN..all would be well’. The dictators in the ME have used this Islamic fascism to retain power; they have externalized the causes of all problems as ‘Israel and the West’…when the real problems were internal.
Even now – Mubarak warns: ‘If I’m not here, chaos will result’. And Iran chuckles..”great, we Muslim Brotherhood will soon take over’…a statement clearly meant for the West, to frighten the West into maintaining the old dictators!!! These dictators are telling the West – ‘It’s either us or the jihadists’….Untrue.
The real problem is – that repressing the populations in these countries, preventing them from achieving the political power to change their economies and permit a middle class means that people, helpless and repressed – will turn to ‘magical thinking’ and extremism.
Enable them to have the power to a robust economy in which they can participate and they’ll choose freedom. No people have ever, on their own, chosen fascism. No people have ever, on their own, chosen to govern themselves within jihadism.
This is the best article I’ve seen about Egypt.
But I’m still pessimistic about the situation there and everywhere in the Middle East. The medieval mindset is simply too firmly imbedded and the people are too easily manipulated by theocratic demagogues. We can complain about the cost forever, but the only realistic chance that region would have had to move toward more representative forms of government would have been if the US had remained in Iraq in force and used that base to exert non-military influence over other countries, like Egypt, which have been at least somewhat reasonable in their foreign policies and non-theocratic in nature.
But little lenin, of course, couldn’t let that happen. Radical Islam is simply too wonderful an ally of his strategy to destroy the United States for him to give it up and actually favor geniuinely peaceful initiatives.
You realize, of course — and if you don’t, consult your nearest map — that Egypt and Iran are different countries, right? One has a pro-American, peace-with-Israel leader; the other has an anti-American leader who’s spending millions to acquire nukes with the open intention of destroying Israel and the U.S. to usher in the 12th Imam — his sect of Islam’s little Timmy who fell down a well some centuries ago.
You don’t get to tell someone else what to believe in any case, but in this case there is no hypocrisy or equanimity. This is like saying a fan who supports firing the quarterback of a 1-14 team must therefore support the firing of a quarterback with a far better record.
I know that the nations in the Middle East all look the same to many folks, just a bunch of brown people with funny names, but you should broaden your horizons and realize just how diverse the area is. For one thing, Mubarak has been a key ally against Iran and led the Arab world in this regard. America also supported removal of Hitler, for example (since he’s probably the only world leader you’re family with in history) but supported and even allied with the much bloodier Stalin.
One size does not fit all, as convenient as that might be for the simple minded.
Sharansky’s stipulation that ‘everything must be in place’ before elections are held is not constructive; after all, the Old Guard could delay and delay on any reforms in their bid to hold to power.
What is needed first is just a basic infrastructure: (1) Constitutional amendments that provide the right to develop opposition parties (now forbidden); a free press (now forbidden); and limited terms of office. And (2) legislation, now, to fast track the development of a private sector economy. The rest will come as this first infrastructure develops and it will take several elections and legislatures and some years.
But Mubarak is attempting to retain control. The same with the theocracy in Iran – with its clever threats to the West that ‘The jihadists are coming!’.
Obama is certainly attempting to turn the US into a statist economy, with his socialization of key industries and services – and his rejection of wealth production by the private sector. This is exactly what has decimated the Middle East – that rejection of wealth production by the private sector, leaving the majority dependent on public industries, which cannot, ever, generate enough wealth to either support the population or develop new industries.
Think about Obama’s massive ‘stimulus’ – a redistribution of public funds. Did it set up even one industry? Did it thus generate jobs? No, it did the only thing a public supply of wealth can do; it redistributed it, bit by bit, to the public service. It went to state bureaucracies to maintain their public employees. And that’s exactly the situation in the ME.
What has Mubarak done? He’s increased the salaries of the public sector by 15%! That’s the same thing that Obama essentially did. That’s buying loyalty and dividing the population into The Elite and …the disempower, impoverished Ruled.
What’s Obama talking about now? Insisting that companies ‘give back profits to the workers’. Result? There’ll be no wealth to invest into new private industries. If you divide up all your profits into 1,000 employees – there’s nothing left to purchase new equipment or invest into new ventures. [That's also what has occurred via the Unions.]
The ME has to change to enable private businesses. Its population has increased far beyond the carrying capacity of a public economy; neither the Suez canal nor oil can generate the wealth required.
And Obama has no business supporting ‘talks with the Muslim Brotherhood’. Mubarak should not be talking to or bringing in the MB, as if they were akin to Obama’s czars. And for the same reason – they are unelected and unaccountable. If the Egyptian people want the MB in their govt, then let the MB set up as ONE among a host of Opposition Parties, develop and offer their policies to the Egyptian people…and let the people vote for or reject them. Mubarak and Obama should NOT be talking with or bringing them into the current government.
Great article and comments to read. Now a note to all the optimists’ opinion of withholding aid from Egypt. To Max Booth and his friends – China/Russia can supply $2 billion in aid to Egypt with no problem and eliminate our presence in that region. Interest payments alone from US to China can easily cover that amount. Just think of what balance China and Russia can bring to this region. Is Jordan next? To my optimist friends, what about Israel, our ally, now surrounded? Cutting aid to Egypt as a persuader of democracy is unrealistic in the long run. Time is on our side at this moment to put a free society in place. Let’s not rush new players in this region as a possibility in Obama’s haste to be a populist.
Agree with ETAB that Israel is a red herring. But so is the MB because as you say “These dictators are telling the West – ‘It’s either us or the jihadists’….Untrue.”
There are a lot of red herrings out there when representative democracy does not exist because it is difficult to understand what the people in these hijacked countries are really saying. However it is likely that they are not much different than a typical Tea Partier. They want less government manipulation of the economy because they aren’t benefiting from the current set up; unless they happen to be one of the “chosen” peasants in behind the castle walls benefiting, i.e. “Jobs exist primarily within the public service – and are held within families, bribes, friends etc. If you aren’t in this network – you live in poverty.”
We need to peel back all the red herrings and start focusing on what the root causes of unrest are. Meanwhile it should not be a surprise that the Egyptians might turn to the “hope and change” of Islamists, anyone not benefitting might turn to an extreme solution.
But if we analyse this properly and get rid of all the red herrings, it will become clear that the real problems are economic and exacerbated by a population explosion which the local ecology was never intended to support. The huge population exists because it was artificially propped up by outside Western aid, Suez Canal tolls paid by the West and tourism from the West. But that isn’t enough to support 80 million people. The Egyptians need a real economy based on local effort and that can only come by freeing up entrepreneurial talent. Even Red China figured that out.
The always brilliant Fred Reed put it like this:
“Now, as Egypt unfolds, or ravels, or whatever it is doing, Washington prattles of its love of democracy. We hear much of this from Hillary Clinton, whose qualifications as Secretary of State are that she is a Democrat. Hillary, nice Wellesley girl, retired housewife and former First Basilisk, says that Egypt must heed the people. She believes, or thinks she believes, or says that she thinks she believes, in the need for liberalization. The very mollusks of the earth must find this laughable, though it plays well in the heartland. What Washington wants most is a return to stable dictatorship.
It’s simple enough for garden ants and some intellectuals to get it: Most of the world hates us because we meddle where we shouldn’t, engender bloody revolutions, and impose every penny-ante Stalin we can scratch up. If you have democracy in countries where everyone hates you, you get governments that hate you. Thus you can’t want democracy. You have to want obedient brutal dictators with torture chambers. It’s what we always want, and usually get. This makes people hate us even more. Round and round we go.
The approach succeeds as long as you are strong enough to work opponents over with a length of pipe and keep them terrified. Them days is going the way of slide rules and wooly mammoths. Methinks the Pentagon had better come up with a ball bat, or hope Mubarak does, because if Washington can’t crush the Egyptian population one way or another, American influence in the Mideast, and by extension everywhere else, is going to wither fast. Getting run out of Afghanistan will complete bin Laden’s program in which Washington cooperates so effectively.”
- http://fredoneverything.net/Cairo.shtml
I’ve got a radically ridiculous idea:
How about if we try just keeping our noses out of other countries’ business? No Presidents calling for this leader to step down, or for that government to “pursue a moderate course” or any of that claptrap. No CIA-instigated (or funded, or guided) coups, no tearing down of this regime or propping up of that one.
How about if we just maintain the biggest, baddest, most invincible military in the world, smack any nation that threatens us, HARD, and leave everybody else alone?
Nah. Too simple.
U.S. Worked to bring down U.S. Ally Mubarak
The U.S. does NOT want moderate leader Mubarak. The U.S. want the radical Muslim Brotherhood ruling Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood are working in countries around the world, including America, to bring about global Islamic conquest.
The Telegraph
Egypt protests: America’s secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising
The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html
Egyptian protesters promise to destroy Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWcKewmyh_o&feature=player_embedded
Muslim Brotherhood Wants War With Israel
Forex Bits | Yohay | January 31, 2011 2:54 pm GMT
Mohamed Ghanem, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, calls Egypt to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with it’s eastern neighbor.
http://www.forexcrunch.com/muslim-brotherhood-wants-war-with-israel/
What do the Egyptians want? They have an enormous enthusiasm for sharia law as shown by a 2010 survey:
http://www.jpost.com
Our World: Clueless in Washington
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
02/01/2011
…However, the character of the protesters is not liberal.
Indeed, their character is a bigger problem than the character of the regime they seek to overthrow.
According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.
Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.
…What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.
They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.
The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively?…
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=206121
Of major concern to non-Muslims, is the fact that a huge percent of Muslim immigrants to Western countries declare they want Islamic sharia law implemented in their host countries.
The PEW data is unreliable; it is filled with contradictions. For example, Pakistanis support modernization (61%) and only 28% support fundamentalists. The reality on the ground denies that. And, what Muslims understand as ‘Islam’s influence in politics’ does not mean Sharia Law or fundamentalism.
Are you seriously suggesting that the people should be repressed, and economically impoverished because, to you, that would prevent Islamic fundamentalism? The opposite is the case: economic impoverishment and political repression are the causes of Islamic fundamentalism.
No people have ever voted for the implementation of fundamentalism. Not in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. It is always imposed by force, from dictatorships. Not within democracies. Wake up.
Granted, Egypt is a mess right now, but the government promised not to use force on its people
http://gizmodo.com/#!5751162/egyptian-government-forcing-vodafone-to-send-propaganda-texts
is making rational concessions, which admittedly don’t go far enough yet,
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=190588&catid=6
and the Jan25 group is applauding the preliminary results among themselves, via twitter.
Inside sources: ex-interior minister Habib el Adly is being charged with Grand treason by the egyptian government. AWESOME!
#jan25 about 2 hours ago via web
AymanM Lawyers file w general prosecutor first of its kind lawsuit against mubarak family for corruption and stealing state wealth #tahrir
#jan25 about 5 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Retweeted by Sandmonkey and 100+ others
Iraq was messy, too, and it’s bad guys were worse. There is good will on the part of the Egyptian government, and the original demonstrators. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood did decide to horn in on the action, and is the only group organized enough at present to issue press releases. The situation is dangerous, but by no means lost, and there is considerable upside to it. Mubarack is going to leave office. He is old, and word is he has pancreatic cancer. He may not survive until September. Meanwhile, a Mass was held in Tahrir square on Sunday, and the Jan25 group wants us to know it.
http://twitter.com/sandmonkey
these two tweets are dedicated to us:
http://youtu.be/4Af5E6fTdlw
Video of the Christian Mass in Tahrir. Please note that under Mubarak’s rule, this has never happened.
#jan25 5:57 PM Feb 6th via web
I dedicate this video to all the people in the US who believe that this is an Islamist revolution. U were proven very wrong today.
#jan25 5:59 PM Feb 6th via web
The question raised by the article is a non sequitur – neither the protests of Iran or Egypt are in the name of “democracy.”
so long as instability smoulders in those nations, they remain incohesive and in shambles, unable to spread their disease acorss the waters to our own country.
The fuel of chaos should be stoked until a glint of promise emerges – for now, the mongrel hordes of Islam remain in the dark ages, as they have for the last 8 centuries, and it is greatly advantageous for them to consume and destroy themselves, rather than turn their sights on us.
From Dr. Barry Rubin:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/01/29/egyptian-public-opinion/
—–
In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.
Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists…
—
So can you start to understand why neo-Cons might be concerned that what the average Egyptian means by “democracy” and what it really means don’t quite line up properly?
“Freedom to vote for brutal misogynistic religious-fanatic thugs” is not quite what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Again, the PEW data is unreliable and filled with contradictions. For example, its data defines Pakistan as in favour of modernization, when the reality on the ground is the opposite.
You are also ignoring the statements made by the demonstrators who want modernization, who are against authoritarianism, corruption and lack of freedom of the press and speech. That is, you are ignoring actuality – and focusing on a set of data whose validity and reliability are suspect.
Did you know that in Canada, a Human Rights Commission ordered someone’s house seized and sold, to pay a judgment against the owner for firing a worker who claimed, subjectively, ‘religious discrimination’? No proof of such, other than the claimant’s words.
Be careful of polls; they depend on the questions asked, the nature of the respondents, the understanding by the respondents of the terms (Islam means jihadism to us and not necessarily to Muslims) and so on.
Right! The muslims are using Democrat ‘linguistics magic’ when they start using the term “Democratic Reform”. They don’t really have any idea what it truly means. There is no term in the Quran for ‘democracy’.
I’m stunned at the shallowness of supposedly deep thinkers in the neocon camp who seem to be completely ignorant of the thousand precursors of our own freedoms and republics in the West. Even here, the impulse for democracy has been subverted by commies and extreme socialists like the Nazis to give birth to murderous and repressive regimes — how much less likely is democracy to ever take hold in the Muslim sh!tholes of the world like Egypt, Iraq or Afghanistan.
And before any neocons go around piously extolling the virtues of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan — the jury is not only still out on those affairs, but through the moronic connivance of the Western powers, with the aid of sickening neocon eggheads like Noah Feldman, Sharia has been enshrined in the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. For those who don’t know, Sharia is a big part of the problem with Islam — and it’s the hideous playbook out of which the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida get their plays.
I supported the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, but I was naive. I thought that after 9/11 we’d do a lot more flattening and a lot more killing of our mortal Muslim enemy. I never dreamed we’d be sending entire battalions of our finest youth to die to make Sharia safe. How utterly hideous — how nightmarish — and how pathetic the neocon fantasies have been.
Neo-Neocon, is a pseudonym for Nancy Pelosi! Democrats believe we have a democracy, that is why they acted as they did in the last two years. It’s all about majority rule, “We won, get over it!” Does anyone recall Gaza when Hamas won the democratic election? Same attitude. It would seem there is not going to be another! Egypt has a constitution, and it would many Egyptians are as ignorant of theirs as many here are of ours. Is Neo-Neocon suggesting they scrap their constitution? Or, just not follow it in this instance? The idea of a constitution is that it provides for stable governance. If the alleged “GOOD Guys” abridge the constitution why is it a problem when the bad guys do the same? Also, in that event how can we tell the difference?
If a significant number of Americans took possession of the Mall in DC demanding Obama resign, immediately, should he? How about if our closest ally should think it’s a good idea?
Hummm, on the one hand you have an over the top anti-American regime in Iran being threatened by one of the best educated, historically pro-western populations in the middle east.
On the other you have a marginally pro-American, but otherwise non-aggressive regime in Egypt being protested by the muslim brotherhood which is alquida’s older brother and a bunch of illeterate anti-American slimeballs.
Right, I can certainly see why the US should treat both the same. And the leftists call themselves “pragmatic”?
we again are forced to use the word “democracy” under the left’s vernacular– democracy, the flowery notion that it is automatically beneficial and “right” no matter the consequences of implementation
but “democracy” without law is merely mob rule and an essential tool of the left to fool and confuse
neo-neo -
As to what happened in Egypt, so far, we have dodged a bullet – the dogs have barked and the Caravan moves on. Dr. Shalit