The Problem of the Friendly Tyrant
We’ve had many alliances with friendly tyrants, from Stalin to Papa Doc, from Mubarak to Pinochet, from the shah to the Saudi royal family. It’s not an easy embrace. If you’re the American president you know, or should know, that it’s only a matter of time before the American people — or at least a big chunk of “public opinion” — turn against the tyrant and demand that we support his domestic enemies, real and imagined. You don’t want that, since you know that in the ensuing political free-for-all you will be stained with the same spray of slime that besmirches the tyrants.
On the other hand, if you pull the plug on the tyrant, you send two very dangerous messages. You tell all our allies that we’re weak and unreliable — which discourages them, along with all the would-be friends and allies who are trying to figure out what to do. And you tell all our enemies that we are weak and will run at the first sign of trouble. For extras, if the abandoned tyrant should win, he won’t be a great friend of ours again.
That’s a bad parlay.
Many people are now saying that it is always wrong for America to support dictators. “Always” is too much. Was it wrong to join the Soviets in the war against the Axis? Would it have been better to sacrifice thousands of American lives in order to avoid the moral stain on our standard? Are tactics to be trashed in favor of a single strategy? As I keep saying, we are often compelled to choose between various evils, and it is a legitimate choice. It’s the way the world generally works, in fact; it’s rare to have a fully attractive and morally impeccable option.
Plus, while tyrants are contrary to our national DNA, there are dictators and dictators. Some can be convinced to democratize, and those chances are increased if they trust us and are willing to work with us. One way to get from dictatorship to democracy — and that is our national mission — is to get friendly tyrants to liberalize their polities. Peaceful transitions have been accomplished, and, by the way, in societies that were widely believed to be intrinsically, almost genetically, authoritarian. To take two: Taiwan and Spain, both of which democratized from the top down.
Tyrants don’t like this process at all, obviously. It drains their power, and may even cost them their job. And they worry about darker consequences, like standing trial for various criminal acts, from repression to corruption. That’s why Franco laid the groundwork for democracy, but left the actual process to his successors. But the Taiwanese actually did it; the ruling party created a system that was guaranteed to remove the party from power, perhaps only temporarily but perhaps for a long time. It could not have happened without American help and perhaps (I don’t know this, I only suspect it) promises of safe haven if things got very bad.
Who in the Administration, or the bureaucracy more generally, is likely to make this case? What would your Ouija board say?
Indeed, very sage advice. As you know I have advocated the same since I first posted on the subject a few days back. Alas it is an advice that will surely fall on deaf ears. The result of such starry eyed support for the hapless and unaware demonstrators will be the unleashing of another theocracy for which these same innocent demonstrators will pay dearly and in thirty years wonder just what the hell happened? The Brotherhood Imams of Lucifer will tear to pieces the inerds of these well wishing and useful idiots. The entire neigborhood will eventually morph into the Second Caliphate. Meanwhile The same forces of evil will gather more strength in South America with the help of such malevolent actors as Chavez and Lula da Silva and the drug cartels of Mexico flanking the southern border of the United States. The Fifth Column will do its task of destabilizing the US from within by piece by piece knocking down the values that made this country great. The train to Megiddo is well on its way. All aboard. And I ask myself, why did I have children? What a sad excuse for a human being I must be.
tks radish. but life is full of surprises and even the imams of lucifer make mistakes.
But when they make mistakes thousands of innocent lives are lost as a payment for their errors. Hoping, wishing, praying and dreaming of a day when the smile will be the norm on the faces of all the children of this earth and a teardrop will only be a cut of diamond.
By Nature and upbringing, Obama is a leftist and internationalist. He has no desire nor indeed understanding of what liberal democracy is all about. He has no understanding of what Americam exceptionalism is all about.
His wife declared that she had no pride in being an American. How can you expect him to do what is best for the USA?
He also surrounds himself with people who really do not like us.
I have no hope nor expectation of an outcome that will be advantageous to freedom loving people.
You’ve certainly got that right. Obama is not on our side in any way, shape, or form. See: Obama supports Islamist takeover of Egypt.
In a larger sense, what business have we to attempt to spread “democracy” or anything else in other countries? It is up to the people living there to solve their own problems of governance. If “democracy” means a strong likelihood of voting in a worse tyrant who will endanger not only American interests but humanity as a whole, I say to heck with “democracy.”
It is time to take another look at George Washington’s Farewell Address.
–US did not support Stalin’s regime; it supported the Russian people to defend their homeland. Soon after the war, US opposed Stalin’s regime and did not worry for one second about the “reliability” question. Yes there is a big difference.
–A wrong policy is not its justification for continuation. There is a cost for changing a wrong policy. Do it once and for all and get it over with.
–The American lives in their thousands might be an essential price to pay to maintain American ideals. Yes it is worth it to sacrifice lives for freedom; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and lives have equal values; I am fine with it. We all die and death for an idea sounds a pretty good way for to go if it is the price for not supporting dictatorships.
–There is also a “realpolitik” price for supporting tyrants. Look at the anti-Americanism manufactured and exported by Iranian democrats after 1953 coup. No it was not the work of mullas and Islamists. We did it because US betrayed us in the name of stability and top down…etc.
–Wrong lessons are inferred from Iran.
US should have supported Mosadegh (as Truman did) and tell the Brits to go to Hell then the question in 1979 could have been avoided. In 1980 US should have intervened and defeated Saddam’s aggression against the Iranian people and change the balance of ideological power within Iran. By no means in the early years it was clear that Islamists would win. US was passive and confused; it was the 8 years of Iraq war that changed the direction of Iranian revolution. It was the coup in 1953 that destroyed a landscape that would have looked like any Eastern European nation looking at the US for support. You underestimate the cost of supporting tyrants. US’s quandary in 1979 was forged in 1953. Now it’s all good again because new generations have to forget the past sooner or later and they have. Young Iranian kids do not care about 1950′s anymore, it is ancient to them. But support Mubarak and wait another 50 years. That is a far greater cost.
ps: Mubarak’s thugs are busy putting civilian clothes on and clubbing and shooting, while Mubarak’s police cars run over innocent civilians and beating up journalists….
John McCain had this to say:
“We are paying a price for decades of neglect for what we traditionally stood for…in name of realpolitik.”
“…to stand for what is our existence”
The US senate has stood today for freedom in Egypt; McCain said all the right things including the fact that US should be active in this process.
Your post is fine, but frankly John McCain is the definition of RINO and a good example of what is wrong with this country. He and Kerry in a joint statement have told us that we should cut and run from Mubarak. Whatever these two say then I am for the opposite.
The Muslim Brotherhood will look Mubarak look like a saintly grandfather.
There will be a war and someone will launch a nuke.
We are in for one wild ride. Saddle up, the Middle East is about to explode and we will be in the middle of it or maybe we’ll just cut and run when they blow up Chicago. Who knows with the idiots in charge in this country.
V: i don’t want to wait 50 yrs. I want democratic revolution. But when you fail to support the democratic revolution you end up with situations in which there is no good option…so you have to choose the lesser evil. It stinks. But errors are costly sometimes.
This is the first huge divide in opinion I’ve had with conservatives (who seem to be lining up with this choice). I’ve truely enjoyed your opinions in previous articles, but on this one I not only disagree but do so as adamantly as I can. This choice we make now is so fundamental to the definition of who we are as a nation–and even of who I am–that it makes me question my connection with the republican party. If the people are saying they want democracy, and we say “no you don’t, you want to install a regime in order to attack the west,” then we lose the essence of who we are in exchange for a fleeting stay of stability.
The hypocrisy of choosing this course is off the charts. You can never achieve strength and stability by allowing fear to redefine who you are. This compromise would be devastating and a shame we would have to live with for the rest of our lives.
“You can never achieve strength and stability by allowing fear to redefine who you are.”
Keith these are noble sounding words but have no relevance to Mr. Ledeen’s article. I did not see or hear any proposed actions that seemed driven by fear. I did see an argument to support Mubarak long enough to get through this crisis then initiate a drive to push the Egyptian government to democracy. Bravado, macho talk or even action is not going to lead to a free and democratic government when it is delivered at the government’s weakest moment and convinces fence-sitting allies of our willingness to abandon them as well should the very likely need arise. I simply can’t see the wisdom of adopting a strategy of self-destruction.
Excuse me willis, I’m sure you are a very nice man but listen to yourself. Mubarak has been in power for over thirty years and promised reforms that were never realized. He had his chance. Any call for an “orderly transition” at such a historic moment would sound to the world (as it does to me) as nothing more than a mealy-mouthed bureaucratic technicality spoken by those with ulterior agendas.
We have a chance–a chance–for a democratic wave to take place in a very dark area of the world. Now is not the time to break the momentum. And anything less than a wholehearted Reaganesque call for freedom would give credibility to those who claim we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for ulterior motives, with “democracy” being nothing more than a sham.
I’m sure you weren’t preaching an “orderly transition” when the Berlin wall fell. Why now? This is the fear that I referred to.
The one thing we can be sure the Egyptians will NOT get out of this is democracy let alone freedom.
Keith,
I totally support your views and I find the ease by which some on the right are willing to sacrifice freedom-fighters of today for the fear of fundamentalists of the future, troubling.
In 1953 US acted in fear (British manipulated US to put it simply; how much I hate the influence of colonial minded old European semi-democracies like UK on American democrats) the result? deep animosity from Iranian democrats towards US which they nurtured and exported for 25 years.
In 1978, with some serious errors no doubt, US did simply nothing really. Iranian democrats mostly blame themselves. They now say they should have let go of Anti-Americanism which led to hostage crisis which led to Saddam’s calculation to attack Iran….
The result? US has won over the Iranian people. Winning over nation after nation is the correct course of action. The struggle for freedom is ideological not tactical. (unless when it is; such as war for survival, then everything is tactical)
What is the core, the source of the error? It is optimization over the immediate step. We cannot predict the future tactically any way for the shape of events in future is unpredictable. We can however employ general well optimized tools and strategies and apply them consistently. A simple and effective tool; one which won all the nations of Eastern Europe over was to always side with democrats (even if only moral support) such as those urban freedom fighters in Tahir square today and not with thugs running them over.
We have to do two things: win the battle of ideas by example and be willing to apply force, violent force, when we have to. We do not need to sacrifice our allies in Tahir square to save them from their future weakness and error; US has to stop acting like democrats elsewhere are children who do not know any better even if they sometimes don’t. This is the true lesson from 1953 and 1978, not the one Michael (in whose debt I am intellectually otherwise) advocates here.
Just as a note: the problem with democratic revolutions is that historically, the wrong people end up getting elected. Mubarak may be a thug, but if the Muslim Brotherhood ends up in charge it will be worse.
Indeed. We should stand for freedom and individual rights, not for democracy — which without constitutional constraints simply means the tyranny of the majority.
-US failed to forge an alliance with much of national liberation movements and hand them over to communists or Islamists (some because of great power alliances with European colonial powers or behaving like them, think the Philippines and South America and Iran)
-Kept legacy “war” and “cold war” alliances when it was time for change. Think Middle east.
-Does not have a citizenry willing to fight for liberation because liberals made war bad (think the volunteers in Spanish-American war) Strong support for Cuba’s liberation encouraged by media at the time. George Bush had to make up stuff about WMDs rather than tell the truth about his real reasons etc.
- Principles kept sharp are better than hodgewadge realpolitik solutions; rarely the opposite is true and in this case it is certainly not true. To line up with Mubarak and his thugs in Tahir’s square today beating up and killing urbanites freedomfighters is a cardinal sin. I am glad the US government is not taking advice from all you guys. It’s all good; we can say we did not betray them. We can say will never betray them.
-Think now hard how the 1 million Egyptian army with which US has good relations, the Urban centers who know what happened in Iran, the young can be organized to defeat Muslim brotherhood in the next 5 years. Stop wishing and start planning. Change has come and we will destroy all theses regimes in Middle-east you either wish for status qou, dream top down, slow etc or plan for reality. Didn’t you always say maestro that nothing like reality tests theories? The young in middleeast will not wait for stop-by-step stuff no matter what you wish. So plan and think Creative Destruction, be ready for it because that’s how it’s going to go.
-Freedom fighters of the world unite! 300 million Americans take up arms and fight! no one can stop you. The revolution is not over join the ones fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, quit college and “national service” and get guns. Then you can effect the change you want rather than play chess from 3000 miles away wishing for good things happen by great power manipulations.
With the Philippines, we did exactly the right thing. We eased Marcos out with a promise of sanctuary and kept the promise. Some short sighted Philippine politicians pushed out out of Subic Bay but that hurt them, not us.
I am talking about Philippines in the context of Spanish-American War not recent history
When you speak of your own country (Iran) I respect what you say. But you do not know about what happened in other other areas. There “movements of National liberation” you speak of carried the poison within them; the communist minority is always willing to use others to appear respectable, then posied to take over when the time comes. This happened in Russia, Viet Nam, and Nicuagua.
As far as our region (the middle east) is concerned, moderate dictators like Mubarak, Abdullah, and Abbas make semi-nice to Israel while feeding their people with the most horrific packages of Israel-hatred and outright anti-semitism, backed up to some extent by Al Jezeera and the BBC. This is their “poison pill”, that makes democaracy scarier than their dictatorships. (Do you believe there was a massacre in Jenin?)
I am not sure we disagree entirely, national liberation movements were hijacked by communists sure. But that is our fault for sure. We might disagree then perhaps that the Cuba of Batista where flies functioned as sewage system on Havan’s dried up streets in poor areas cleaning up dried up feces and 12 year old girls offering themselves for prostitution to US marines (memories of an American Marine in support or at least understating of the insurrection in principle) The Filipino freedomfighters betrayed and slaughtered in tens of thousands by American liberators turned imperialists (look at the discussions in US Senate in opposition to this, the term imperialism was used by dissenting Senators) the American democrats betraying Iranian ones on behest and manipulations of English colonial interests, the clause insertion of de facto militray supremacy of the United States over Cuba in post liberation constitution etc … were indeed nothing short of betrayal of American ideals and poisoning them. We might disagree in the nature and concussion of the poison; it was more complex than mere Communist propaganda: US entanglement with European ties not to modern ideas of freedom but to old ideas of oppression. I would include the French to American transfer of such old ties in Vietnam as well.
As my “own” country Iran; I of course have attachment, love and understating of it but I do not beleive you have to be from some place to understand it. Furthermore, I am not a “nationalist” I am a Universalist and perfectly willing to fight in any near or far place for IDEAS which are far more important to me than blood and birth ties. I am firmly opposed to strong notions of nationalism and ethnicity based sense of loyalties and attachments to a State. I am opposed to the European concepts of nationalism and nation states.
I was unable to fully understand the conflicting reports at the time of the battle in Jenin and pass no judgment whether civilians were purposely targeted by IDF.
You might criticize me for not investigating the matter fully; I was very busy at the time for one thing but another is that I do not really care about a single incident. Of course when two people fight over something as basic as land and water, I mean PEOPLE not armies, they are going to kill each other mercilessly sometimes. Israelis and Arab population of Palestine are not entirely engaged in a battle of principles and values to put it mildly. We don’t wanna get into it in a blog do we?
I replied regarding Jenin and IDF’s actions but my reply does not seem to have been approved or the site does not work well.
Either way, I am quitting this site. I am allergic to both censorship and incompetence.
You’re spot on 99% of the time, Michael, but you’re wrong on this one. What’s taking place in Egypt right now is not an insurrection, but mass protest along the lines of the Philippines People Power rallies in February 1986. Do you remember the millions on the streets of Manila in the midst of the military coup? Had the Reagan administration followed your advice–which was Reagan’s first instinct, because Marcos had been a staunch anti-Communist and good ally–we would have sided with Marcos, been denounced for abetting the mass repression that surely would have followed, and we would have given the NPA a major gift for their “people’s war.” Thankfully, Reagan is now remembered for being a promoter of democracy abroad and not for siding with dictators to the very end.
I’d like to see Obama remembered the same way. Difficult? Yes. But would it even be possible if he were to throw America’s support behind Mubarak as you suggest? No.
1980s: there was no Brotherhood or Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad in the Phillipines.
The Philippines has had a nationalist insurgency, a communist insurgency, and an Islamist insurgency for over a century. Egypt may not be analogous, but let’s not short the Filipinos.
There are 17 million people in Cairo. So far, by the tall estimate, we’ve heard from one million of them. I can see that as a call for an election. Only by the rules of the left can it be seen as the election.
There was, and is, the Moro National Liberation Front, by whatever names, still murdering, raping and robbing, as moslem terrorists always do. Working together with the communists, New Peoples Army, they still control and rape substantial parts of the Philippines.
More importantly, it is never right to do wrong; there is no right way to do wrong. Mr. Ledeen’s notion as to moral relativity is dead bang wrong, and implies a rejection of biblical morality.
For the Christian, God has spoken in Scripture. Those who obey Him will be eternally blessed, and those who disobey Him will be eternally punished. Ledeenists, by definition, fall into the latter category. We must learn to that which is right, and let the chips fall where they may.
The only real wrong is disobedience to God, and He always commands us to do that which is right.
Most will not choose to believe the above. On Judgment Day, we shall see, shall we not?
Don’t befriend tyrants period. The US didn’t befriend the USSR. That was the right choice.
No military cooperation. No financial support. No “my good friend the king” talk.
Of cause there are exceptions like WW2, where you have alliances. Shortly after the first Golf war the US had military in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. There was an eminent and credible threat.
But for anything else, only naive bloggers believe the myth that National security has anything to do with it. National security is the excuse. But the real reason is usually lucrative deals for individuals, politicians and companies.
It might be the real world and there is not much to do about how the real world works. But bloggers proclaiming some kind of higher purpose with slaesy corruption is BS.
The Muslim Brotherhood is Islamist to the core and will fight all and sundry in an attempt to “win” this fight. The rest of the opposition is bumbling around; most are coalescing around individuals, not actual goals or programs. The MB is organized, dedicated, and knows exactly what its goals, programs and objectives will be. It is very likely they will win if the Egyptian military crumbles in the near future.
The best outcome for the U.S. will be for the military to remain in power but begin the transition process now. Call for new elections. Allow some opposition parties to actually campaign. Set up a French style parliamentary system where the president has real power and let the military have that slot.
Don’t forget that this is also both and economic and an economic freedom crisis. That is to say, on the economic side it is fueled by rapidly rising food prices and declining domestic agricultural production. It is an economic freedom crisis because the Egyptians, like so much of the third world, do not own the land they work nor the land they build on.
Mr. Ledeen, normally a reliable analyst, has based his thesis on an entirely unacceptable premise: that one must choose which of two evils to support, rather than to remain aloof from both.
Among the greatest of Washington’s errors in the post-World War II years has been to nominate “friends to be supported” and “enemies to be opposed” in foreign lands as if we were involuntary bettors at a horse race, compelled to put our money down on one nag or the other in every heat. Mark Steyn has called this the “sonofabitch system,” as in, “He may be a sonofabitch, but at least he’s our sonofabitch.”
Steyn took the proper tack on this in America Alone: “He may be ‘our’ sonofabitch, but he’s still a sonofabitch.” In innumerable cases around the world, it would have been far better for America to remain uninvolved with local conflicts and struggles over power. When that’s not possible — a rarer case than is generally supposed — the third option of condemning both sides, up to and including the use of military force to suppress both, should always be considered.
The reason for this, though it should be clear to any thinking adult, apparently escapes most people, and nearly all politicians: You cannot claim to be a servant of good if you support evil. Nor will anyone accept your apologies afterward, when it’s all too clear that you knew precisely what sort of villain you elected to support.
It’s long past time for Washington to learn the virtues of silence and non-involvement. The world has many troubles; not all of them are ours to remediate.
I have to agree with Mr. Porretto. There are bad actors on both sides of this issue of enforced secularism maintained by dictatorship versus enforced theocracy maintained by fundamental enthusiasm in the Arab world. We in the West believe in a people’s right to self-determination, but it’s awfully hard to discover and nominate a single “people” to speak for any country. The West’s past involvement in this region seems only to have thrown gasoline on these issues, and so we have no credibility to fight the rising tide of Islamist extremism.
It may be time to relearn some of the isolationism we practiced before the last two world wars. Tend our own garden, build our strength, support our friends who really do share our worldview and political aims. And stand ready to guard our shores, our people, and our way of life against the rising tide of darkness. We can’t fight it out there, but we can protect it here. For an example of armed strength, read John McPhee’s “La Place de la Concorde Suisse.”
More and more I’m coming to appreciate Anne Boleyn’s personal motto: “Me and Mine.”
I like
“suppressing both” +plus+ “support democrats”
better than silence though.
US should end support for Mubarak regime and declare very clearly that any kind of fundamentalist Islam too is an enemy of freedom and progress. US has enough allies in places like Iran and Iraq and Egypt to make this work.
The beauty of acting with principles is that once you are consistent, you get to use greater force. You become predictable and clear. Your allies can depend on you; realpolitik by definition is about lack of permanence in friends and foes but only ill defined “interests”. Nothing short of survival should force us to compromise. Certainly not now; we are ascendant and this is the time to clear the periphery of rising Chinese fascist state and win the ideological battle in Western Asia. The fundamentalists in Iran managed to erase the 1953 coup from the collective memory of Iranian democrats and turn the Iranian youth sharply toward the US. George Bush wrote in his new book, he avoided any confrontation with Iran (your silence method) despite the blows from the regime because he was waiting for the Iranian democrats to get stronger and war with US would have ruined it (now who says GW was not smart?) He says he was proved right and he was. In 2009, a strong show of support from US plus US fleet and marines would have finished the regime. It really would have. No matter, another wave will come, history is unpredictable and full of surprises. The key is to understand unfolding events fast enough to ride the wave when it comes right under you.
“You tell all our allies that we’re weak and unreliable — which discourages them, along with all the would-be friends and allies who are trying to figure out what to do.”
While here we have no leverage on the ground, it can also mean we are strong and reliable to our principles.
Whenever possible that is a better course, and Kissinger’s opinions be hanged.
Jimmy Carter tried to take the moral high ground and not support dictators, and that was even during the Cold War when we were fighting the Soviet Union and needed all the help we could get, even from dictators. And we all saw how well Carter’s policies worked out in Iran in 1979. Sometimes you have to deal with a turd if the alternative is a madman, especially in the Muslim world.
But, there could be another way. Why not speak directly to the Egyptian Army and sell them on the idea of an interim government? Have Mubarak step down and have the newly-appointed Egyptian vice president assume power. That will make the protesters in the streets happy and maybe stop the riots. Then have the army force the vice president to hold those elections as scheduled in September. That will give the Egyptians enough time to form free political parties and come up with some candidates. If an army could guarantee free elections in Iraq, why can’t the western-influenced and trained Egyptian army guarantee Egyptian elections? If the army decides NOT to take over power (which it looks like they will not), then they can do it.
Problem is, even if there are “free” and “fair” elections in Egypt, I still think the Islamic radicals will win. Just look at what happened in Gaza when they had their elections. They came up with Hamas. Even Lebanon has basically been taken over by Hezbollah, which is a crime in and of itself. So even if they had elections, I’m not too optimistic on the outcome. But at least they will have had a shot at democracy and I guess you have to start somewhere with these people.
“Many people are now saying that it is always wrong for America to support dictators. “Always” is too much.”
No, in my opinion, ALWAYS is not too much. It is *always* wrong to support a dictator: but it is *sometimes* necessary. The Soviets were always an evil regime and they were at their very worst under Stalin, but I don’t like to think where we’d be if we hadn’t stood by them in World War Two, as you pointed out.
But it’s important never to lose sight of the difference between necessity and morality: necessary evils are still evils. (I know what you were trying to say, I just think it’s important to clarify
I just talked about this on my blog:
http://iwantanewleft.typepad.com/i-want-a-new-left/2011/02/a-challenge-to-all-lovers-of-democracy-what-foreign-policy-should-democracies-have-for-dictatorial-o.html
The problem often isn’t the dictator, but the people he’s ruling. There’s an interesting article I just read arguing that on female genital mutilation, for example, Mubarak is more enlightened than 90% of all Egyptians:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB02Ak01.html
I doubt if the Shah of Iran could have done much more than he did, and I doubt if Mubarak could have done much more than he has done.
What we need to do is not to push the leader to make reforms, but to encourage the leader to push his people to become more moderate. There are just too many people there who think Egypt should be like Saudi Arabia. You can’t have a modern democracy under those conditions.
The advantage of this policy is that if the people do become more moderate, then democracy is much more possible and likely, and if they don’t, the leader can legitimately say both to Americans and to those people in his own country who want democracy that he tried to get the anti-democracy forces to be more moderate and he hadn’t succeeded, so they will have to put up with dictatorship for now.
The normally astute teacher, Michael Ledeed, misses a key point. His “problem of tyrants” argument applies only to half of the tyrant population – those dictators who are allies of the US. American public opinion will not turn against Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, the Iranian Ahmedinejad, Jintao Hu, or the North Korean nut job. The elite American opinion (the Left) does not see it mission to take democracy to any of the above. As a matter of fact, their mission is to support these dictators who oppose US values. So there is no media pressure on any of the above tyrants. The ONLY tyrants that experience the US media pressure to democratize are those tyrants who are friends of the US – Mobarak, Marcos, Shah of Iran, King of Jordan, etc.
Michael Ledeen is an excellent scholar and I apologize for having to point out this flaw in his article. He gives the US far too much credit in supporting true democracy movements. He should know better. Look how much support his own earnest pleas for the US to support the freedom movement Iran have received. Not much, sadly.
Kent, we agree. The article is not about tyrants in general but about “friendly tyrants”
That is the right policy, even if Mubarak goes down. If we do that, we can say to his successors: “We were loyal to him because he was a good ally, and we do not abandon loyal allies. If you are good allies, we will be loyal to you too, even at your darkest hour.”
Your advice is excellent Mr. Ledeen but it’s too late. Barack Hussein Obama has already ordered Mubarak to resign. (And then in the next head-cock said it’s up to the Egyptians to decide on their government.)
The question is why did Obama remain silent throughout the pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran, yet in Egypt he demands that Mubarak step aside and that a new government be formed with a role to be played by an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the creators of modern Islamic terrorism.
Apollo Speaks said here yesterday the MB is forbidden by the Egyptian Constitution to be a political party that contests elections. Is that true? And if so, shouldn’t the Obama administration be supporting the Egyptian Constitution? Or does it have the same regard for that constitution as it does for the American Constitution?
Michael, a very interesting analysis. Here’s what I wrote a few days ago:
It is said that a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience. Right now, the optimism that I hear from the administration and the MSM in the midst of a very fluid situation sounds very much like the hope for the second marriage.
The problem with the optimism that many are expressing for the revolutions in the Middle East is that, while there are many examples of happy marriages, there are no examples of democratic Islamist regimes. The Middle East was substantially converted to Islam following the dictates and example of Muhammad who’se rule and religion was spread by the sword. This situation has not changed substantially since Mohammad’s death in 632. Before Mohammad the region was ruled by Romans, king and Pharaohs; after him it was ruled by Caliphs. There is no – zero – example of Democracy in the Middle East with the exception of Israel and a very shaky state – Iraq – which was created, nurtured and shaped by the American military following the invasion under George Bush. To repeat, there is no history or political culture of representative government in the Middle East.
The one unifying factor in the region is Islam, a religion that demands submission to its political and theological dictates on pain of death. Not since Henry the Eight created the English church and became its political head have rulers held such secular and religious power.
It is said that in every human breast there is the desire to be free. Perhaps, but it’s also true that in many human breasts is the desire to force others to our will. To believe what we believe and agree with our ideas. In the dominant culture in America that wish is expressed in the demand that Glenn Beck should be fired, that Rush Limbaugh should be banned and Sarah Palin should shut up. In many Islamic countries it’s expressed in beheading, hanging or stoning.
The Egyptian people have been misruled by Mubarak for decades. But he’s not the first or the worst. The people in the Middle East have been misruled for centuries. If the levelers in America were truly concerned about wealth discrepancies, they would slink away from criticizing American wealth disparities and focus on the truly incredible differences between the rich and the poor in Africa and the Middle East.
With no history of democracy and a culture and religion that disdains individual freedom, the concept that democracy will spring from the revolutions that are now engulfing the region is unrealistic. Remember what we were told about the revolution in China: that Mao was an agrarian reformer. Castro was sold as a freedom fighter. We helped overthrow the Shah to usher in a repressive theocracy despite a population that favors Western values.
And, God help us, we have a President who really doesn’t like the America he was elected to lead.
I would like to be wrong, but Democracy is a rare flower; repression and authoritarianism is the global rule not the exception. Hoping and wishing that the people of Egypt will throw off the yoke of literally millennia of repression – all by themselves – and usher in the rule of law and a representative government is as believable as the Easter Bunny.
I pray I’m wrong, and would love to have to eat my words in a year. But the odds are loaded heavily in my favor. The problem is, if I’m right, we lose and so do the poor people of the Middle East.
Who says Iran has gone completely badly? It has gone very well in some ways if you ask me; if we are willing to act.
The Iranian fundamentalists have managed to erase the 1953 betrayal of Iranian democrats from collective memory (will you ever begin to comprehend that “friendly tyrant” coup was a thing of mythological proportions in the minds of Iranian democrats? Will you ever being to see how it rippled over decades and led to the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Western Asia? will you ever see that the pen which approved operation Ajax, approved 9/11 and catastrophic evens yet to be absorbed? )
Iranian youth now is firmly an ally of American republic.
US only needs to seize another 2009 explosion and apply all means needed to make it succeed.
Egypt is not Iran and things are of course different. The best policy is to think down the road and think of opportunities to prevent a shift of power from Urban centers to the countryside. This is the key: to keep the main cities firmly in control of the country. This means keeping the military intact, melting the old guards with the the Urban youth and fusing them and pouring cash in that alliance, buying out local leaders and key local religious leaders that can be bought (think lessons from Sunni insurgency in Iraq).
It is not time for wishful thinking. The old regimes will be replaced with revolutionary ones as the youthful populations of Western Asia will not allow any kind of slow, top down etc. The only question is what will rise form the revolution. Will the US be active in multiple dimensions? will it be shrewd? will it use its overwhelming cash advantage? will it correctly apply force and violence? take out quietly the key obstacles by all means in the present and emerging chaos where things are fluid? Where are the Egyptians speakers (not Arab but with Arabs with the right accent) recruit them now…..
I agree we should stick with Mubarak. To not do so is to risk civil war in Egypt. Even with his presence the streets are more or less lawless right now. We’ve been with him for almost 3 decades; to wait another 7 months won’t stain us any worse.
The comments coming from the Obama administration are ill advised for this reason but also because they endanger the safety of over 50,000 Americans in Egypt and also other Westerners.
When I was briefly taken into custody yesterday by pro-Mubarak supporters and soldiers, they said right out they didn’t like Obama. Luckily I told them I didn’t like Obama first. I don’t know if it helped but it sure didn’t hurt. Even so, some didn’t want to let me go and I had to pull away from their grasp while others among them said it was okay.
One of them, an older woman in a black jilbab but with no niqab, was the closest thing to a Madame Defarge analogue I have ever seen and she was not thrilled with me leaving.
The shallow sheen of Obama’s Cairo speech has entirely worn off among Egyptians and didn’t have that much traction past the words in the first place.
It is unknown whether the lack of some uniformed presence on the streets past the early evening is a deliberate ploy or whether it is a sign of weakness and lack of control. Can you imagine what it would be like if the gov’t were to fall?
The outcome of a civil war is also an unknown in terms of the eventual winner, should there be a clear cut one, being hostile to the U.S. or other polities in the region.
The Obama administration should be asking itself what it can gain by siding with a loose Facebook confederation of grass roots street protesters with no real leader and goals that seem to not go beyond saying that Mubarak should leave.
The Wikipedia entry about ‘The Terror’ says, “revolutionary France was beset with real or imagined conspiracies by internal and foreign enemies.” This is very much the case here and one can see on every street corner and in citizen checkpoints all over the seeds of “Jacques”, puffed up citizens who pass judgment on you on the spot. You may be beaten and robbed, taken to jail or let go; one simply doesn’t know.
The fear and tenseness among the average citizen is palpable and everyone looks at me quite differently than 2 or 3 days ago. I am no longer thought of as entirely innocent. When I was taken into custody they said nonsense about why I was in Egypt so long and that I needed “papers” to take pictures. I told them that was nonsense but you get the idea.
Reagan could handle the removal of a friendly tyrant.
Carter, of course, could not.
Can Obama? The difference between 0 and Carter is that 0 secretly likes dictators. I betcha Mubarak ends up remaining.
Let’s not forget that those ‘friendly dictatorships’ can also be bent under American tutelage into free societies: Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines.
Would it be so very hard to let all Nations know that we support the respect of inalienable rights for all peoples, and that governments need to respect those rights and listen to the governed? We can make our support outside of wartime conditional: if you wish to be a friend of the US you must be a friend of human liberty and seek to change your system to embrace that, without rancor, hatred or discrimination upon your fellow countrymen.
Tactics in wartime are one thing, diplomacy on the world stage another. We can prioritize those we respect and adhere to in this life, and say that those that befriend us and who work to embrace human liberty via civil means are friends of Liberty. Those Nations deserve our respect and honor for going against the path of power to the few. When done without favor, without fervor, as an equal standard to all Nations, it would then be understood that this is where the US stands. Tyrants, dictators and despots wanting to be in our good graces get no goodies, no freebies and no monies: our welcome has strings attached to it that requires change so as to respect human liberty, everywhere.
To befriend the US you must BE a friend to human liberty. You will still be able to trade with us, have discourse with us,and ask us for help in times of distress… which will be given freely to the people in distress. If such regimes want more, then they must understand that the power of their Nation is not in any party, any individual, nor any single faction, but rests with all the people of their Nation, and that to respect the US they must respect their own people first and foremost, without exception.
It is a harder way to go, foreign policy wise, to do this, but it also lets everyone know where they stand and why they stand there and what they can do about it. And it gets the US out of the nasty predicament of supporting tyrants and despots without reserve and being unable to properly espouse the civil path to governing… that for an orderly transfer of power to take place requires time and input from all the people of a Nation to have their say without discrimination based on race, creed, religion or any other thing. That might not quell riots, abroad, but makes it known that those seeking to use them as a path to power have no friend in the US, either, unless they immediately establish a civil procedure to get a wider input into the governance of their Nation that allows everyone a say.
You can stand a higher moral ground, discriminate between those working towards liberty and those denying unalienable rights, and still function in the world. Is it harder than just wholeheartedly supporting despots and tyrants on a tactical basis? You betchya! That’s why we are supposed to elect good leaders to govern us, no? It is a hard path to go down because the siren’s song of tyranny is so alluring… and must be resisted at every turn. Otherwise you can no longer support basic human liberty, which is just where we are at now with a fully relativist foreign policy that holds no absolutes at all.
ML, I expected you to treat issues a bit differently than you did in this particular article. Each country is different and many factors including cultural and historical issues must be considered. We should not try to compare any society with our society here, even Europe is not the same. My question, first is why none of these reporters particularly the big ones were in China during the uprising? Do you think if the events in Egypt doesn’t go the way BBC and Khamenehi predicted today, Mubarak get royal treatment as Hu did? Second, why every time a democrat is in power, system tries to fry a long time friend? Is this to tell the world don’t get too cozy with US? Third, given the poor economic conditions in Egypt, what exactly any leader can do for the country that Sadat and Mobarak didn’t? Fourth, given the level of education in Egypt, the religious background where in recent pool 80% want sharia law and said a person converting from Islam must be beheaded, what is the meaning of outright democracy in Egypt before they are educated enough to be able to understand non muslim don’t deserve to be murdered? Now as far as Iran is concern, if I was you, I studied the history of Ghajar dynasty before Pahlavi Kings. The biggest crime of the former King of Iran (Shah in Persian) according to his enemies, was his close relationship with US. That was the focus point of all backwards from Islamists to Marxists and terrorist group like MEK who were confused between Islam and Marxist and still are. However, given the period he ran the country which was mainly during the cold war, what else he could do particularly when he had no money (British were stealing Iran’s oil) most of his reign. Yes there was lack of democracy with western standards, but The King wanted his people to become more educated first that do not get tangled with Khomeinie and Marxists as they did. Then when he started to get Iran’s right and some of the stolen money by the West back, there was 16 media outlets in US alone against him. That is in addition to amnesty International, BBC, Mike Wallace, Newsweek, Oriana Falanchi, and all other liberals. Do you think all of these people and entities were concern about democracy and right of the people in Iran? If so where are they now and in the past 32 years, while the worse kind of government is in place in Iran? How come, all European and sometime even US have had economic relationship with Rapist and murderers of Iranian people and some countries like Germany actually has enhanced its economic ties even during the last two years. I hope we don’t create another IRI in Egypt, as Khamenhi has invited Egyptian to establish Islamic government in Egypt today. I believe if Mubarak stays in power for another 100 years, can’t commit as much crimes as Khomeinists do in one month.
Yes Mubarak has been a loyal ally but that’s because it served his purposes so I don’t think we need to romanticize this relationship and vow to stay with him ’til death do us part. In the end he’s not been such a good ally if he governed his country in such a way as to bring us to this current predicament.
Loyalty is overrated if it means that we hang on to relationships just so that other leaders will think we’re devoted and won’t worry about losing our backing. They should worry about that. Our alliances with them may serve our strategic purposes but that should never be taken as a permanent commitment to backing them no matter what, and certainly not when a regime’s corruption, brutality and incompetence has become unacceptable to its own people.
We don’t always have to stand tall in this world but there are times when we do need to stand up for what we believe is just and proper. And Mubarak’s regime ain’t that.
“But we have to say — above all, privately — that we’re with him, and that while we want serious change in the future we will not abandon him.”
I concur, but most importantly is that politicians here do what they can not to make the situation worse. Someone needs to get a note to the mental deficients in the Senate and let them know their pronouncement last night is not likely to help (non-binding resolution calling for Mubarak to step down), and will most likely embolden the more violent factions in Egypt.
Mr. Ledeen, If morals, ethics and principles are cherished values and mean anything to America and Americans, they should adhere to it regardless of the cost. Choosing when it is convenient to be a country with principles and when it is not, is the wrong thing to do at any time. America can not claim as it has for decades to be the beacon of freedom and supporter of democracy, while it wines and dines with the dictators, at the expense of freedom and democracy seekers, to safeguard the flow of oil and ensure a “false” sense of stability. There are obvious consequences for such a double standard and duplicitous behavior. Once a country that stood for freedom and democracy, America has lost much credibility in the past 32 years. With the advent of Internet, news travels fast and access to information is instant. Iranians heard it loud and clear when Carter traveled to Iran to visit a “log term” US ally and calling Iran under his leadership “the Island of stability.” while working behind the scenes to destabilize him by aiding Khomeini. Likewise, I do not think Egypt uprising is as organic as you are leading us to believe and Americ is simply reacting to it to safegurad its interests. Obama’s affiliations with Islamists, and Socialists (Marxists in disguise)clearly shows his lack of respect for Israel (a US ally) and his liking “much like Carter” to see Islam as a solution to solving social ills and providing “social justice”, freedom and democracy to people who have suffered so much in the hands of tyrants. Americans have a convenient and short term memory, while memories of American foreign policy blunders are much fresh in the minds of the people who have witnessed its disastrous consequences from Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Egypt. As Americans, when are we going to learn to stand up for what we “believe” and support those who share our beliefs and values?
The choice in Egypt is not between a friendly dictator and democratic reform that the government controlled US media tries to portray, it is between a friendly or unfriendly dictatorship.
The official US government position is that any new government in Egypt must include a, ” whole host of important non-secular actors.”
Good luck to us all.
The choice or the options on international relations with friendly tyrant needs a new definition.But the time runs fast.
When I first saw the title I thought the article was about our first American wannabe tyrant Barry Soweto a.k.a. Barack Obama.
What the Muslim Brotherhood will impose on Egypt if they attain power will make anything Mubarack did look like a walk in the park.
Sometimes you have stick with the devil you know, in this case Mr. Mubarack. It seems that Obama and his merry band of marxists will always pick with unerring instinct the worst possible course for our country both domestically and in the foreign policy sphere.
Bingo, Smugs! If anything other than a theocratic thugocracy had any reasonable chance of being the gift bestowed on the Egyptian people by this revolution, then maybe the president, the Senators, many think tank illuminati, and the msm pundits would be better used turning their talents toward achieving the alchemist’s dream of changing base metal into gold. As we, with willful blindness, enthusiastically support the transition of yet another Middle East country to the control of psychopaths and their benighted adherents sworn to bring about our absolute annihilation, one can only ponder Toynbee’s ominously applicable observation that “civilizations die from suicide and not from murder. “ I think Caroline Glick’s “Clueless in Washington” states the case quite well:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0211/glick020111.php3
I completely disagree. You haven’t provided any reasons to remain in support of a dictatorship that its own citizens do not want. To say that ‘unrest’ is not the time to make a change is irrational, for if changes were not despertely needed, there would be no unrest. And we could continue on with our ‘satisfaction’ about Mubarak and stability in the region.
The common supposition that it’s either Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood is a fear in the West but I suggest has little weight in the Middle East. The people demonstrating for freedom do not want yet another dictatorship. The fears that this would happen seem to come from people whose opinion of Arabs is that they are all ‘brutish, illiterate thugs who must be constrained or they will murder everyone’.
And, your comments imply that their governance is heavily up to us; that is, that it’s us who ‘insist that Mubarak democratize. And if he refuses, as he has done over the last 30 years? He’s not our President.
You are ignoring that stability achieved by dictatorship has its own critical threshold – and the causes of arriving at this critical threshold are not within our control. The key causes that are forcing change in the ME – are the exponential increase in population in Egypt – with its population doubling in the last four decades, and the fact that the economy has failed to provide a sustenance base for this massive increase.
The economy has, as in all socialist regimes, functioned within a tribal or two-class economic and political structure: Rulers and the Ruled. This sets up a statist or public set of institutions: the revenues from the Suez tolls (about 4 billion a year); tourism; and some agriculture. All of this is government run, the only viable jobs are in the public sector and bureaucracy.
But this is not enough to support the population – resulting in a requirement for international aid, both from the UN and the US. And, it has set up a situation where the majority live below the poverty line – and the youth (average age in Egypt is only 24!!) have no opportunities, no jobs, no future.
What is totally, completely lacking – is a middle class economy made up of private small and medium businesses. It is this lack of a middle class economy – that has led to this crisis. Democracy is the political system that empowers a middle class – and Mubarak’s tight and increasing grip on the nation has prevented both the emergence of a middle class economy and a government in their control.
If we assist dictators to continue to repress a population whose numbers have grown beyond the carrying capacity of a statist, socialist economy, then the result will be that the people will turn to ‘magical solutions’.
By this I mean that they will, prevented from changing their current actual lives, move into the ‘hope and change’ or magical tactics mentality that is based only in emotions and the imagination. A people then move into ‘If we became pure and good, Then, everything will be OK’. And that’s, in the ME, Islamic fascism, which is all about ‘the reason everything is terrible is because we have been bad and haven’t been pure and now, we must become pure and ….
Magical thinking is the refuge of a hapless, helpless people. People who are actively engaged in the day to day betterment of their lives and who know that they have the power to achieve these results – via participation in the govt, via being able to set up private businesses – won’t turn to magical thinking.
So- I disagree with your suggestions and instead point out that the era of tribalism or two-class economic and political systems, and the lack of a middle class – has reached its critical threshold in the ME – and if freedom doesn’t emerge, and if we insist on a continuance of the old structure – then, magical thinking or fascism is the result.
“The people demonstrating for freedom do not want yet another dictatorship. The fears that this would happen seem to come from people whose opinion of Arabs is that they are all ‘brutish, illiterate thugs who must be constrained or they will murder everyone’.”
I think I’d put it a bit differently. The demonstrators definitely do not “want” another dictatorship. However, judging from the Iranian revolution (I know, they’re Persians not Arabs), it would appear that some people in the Middle East don’t actually know an impending dictatorship when they see one. Until they get over their awe of “religious leaders” like Khomeini, they’ll always be slaves to unelected theocrats. So how about the Egyptians? Are they going down that road?
There are three important issues: a nation’s economic carrying capacity; the population size; and the political system. These three must be closely integrated.
What this type of thinking is ignoring – apart from population and economics – and the assumption that all Arabs are illiterate brutes…is that the FIRST thing to enable is not the political system but the economic system. The economic system must be released from a focus on statist regulations and public institutions (where you get a job only in the bureaucracy)…and moved into a focus on enabling small private businesses. Then…at the same time or a little later, you set up a democratic system…BUT…within a constitution with limited terms, clear definition of govt powers, a free press, etc.
The point is, a political system must always empower its productive class. And in a population in the multimillions, you cannot sustain them with only state-owned large industries or public bureaucracies; you can’t employ everyone in these two zones. So, you must have the majority of a multimillion size population engaged in private enterprise.
And – the political system must empower this class, the middle class – to make legislative decisions.
The pundits who ignore this..all point to Gaza – where ‘free elections resulted in Hamas’. But, what other result could there be? The only option was Fatah, which was hopelessly corrupt. AND – importantly – there is NO ECONOMY in Gaza. There is no ‘middle class’; there is simply nothing but international aid and a peasant scrape-from-the-ground local economy. So – naturally, you’d get Hamas. And, magical thinking.
Same thing in Iran. In Iran – you didn’t first set up a constitution with term limits etc…and you didn’t set up an economic infrastructure that removed a statist economic structure and enabled a middle class who could set up private small businesses.
Democracy is linked to only ONE economic mode: a middle class private enterprise system. These people, engaged in private industry, must have economic and political power. If you have so-called democracy in a population where the economic strength is vested in an elite – such as in Gaza and Iran – who alone are able to get international aid or run the state institutions…then, this set of tyrants will be ‘elected’. That’s degenerate democracy. The robust democracy – and it IS robust and works as well as we fallible humans can make it do so, is one where the productive class is in power. And this class must be the private businesses.
The problem with maintaining a two-class system in a nation whose population has outstripped the carrying capacity of a statist economy to provide jobs for all these people – is that the result is..poverty, rampant corruption in the race-to-get a state job (families hire families, bribes to get jobs)..
Egypt’s population, as I said, has exploded and a state-run set of industries can’t employ them. And – the median age is only 24! Where are they going to get jobs?
Iran and Saudi Arabia have managed to maintain this tribal two-class structure – repressing any emergence of private businesses, because they’ve had the resource of OIL – to sell-for-food and subsidize their population. But we’ve seen that this won’t last; Iranians want their freedom as well. Egypt has no oil; all it has is the Suez Canal – and those tolls won’t maintain their new generation.
So- what has to happen is that the old dictators – everywhere in the ME – all of them in power for about 30plus years, must go, and the economy must move from topdown statism to private enterprise..and a constitution to enable and empower this new middle class…must be developed.
If we don’t accept such a change, and instead, continue to support the dictators – we’ll see an explosion of ‘magical thinking’ and fascism.
and the assumption that all Arabs are illiterate brutes…
ETAB
You are capable of much better than this. No one says all Arabs (or Egyptians) are brutes. The issue is what kind of government will the Egyptians choose at this time. The polls I’ve seen indicate they will likely choose an Islamic theocracy. There will be one man, one vote, one time. And we will be headed for Armageddon. Is that what you want?
The present choice seems to be between a 30 year dictatorship and a 1379 year old one.
Terry- what polls show that the Egyptian people want yet another repressive dictatorship? After all, a theocracy, and they know this, is as disempowering and statist as a dictatorship and says nothing about employment and poverty.
The PEW polls, which have, in my view, serious problems with both reliability and validity, show a deeply skewed set of responses – everything from support for executions to support for more democracy. And, notably, don’t define their terms. After all, what the people there understand by the term ‘Islam’ and what we here in the West understand by it – can be miles apart.
You are totally ignoring that ancient Egypt and modern Egypt are not, demographically or economically, similar. I repeat, a statist political and economic structure cannot support a population that has doubled in size in 40 years and is now 80 million. The Egyptian public economic infrastructure can’t supply the jobs or even, the welfare. They have no choice but to move to a private sector economic system.
And yet – the key variables of: the population, the economy..and the political mode that enables this economy..are never discussed here.
Do you seriously think that a theocracy, which is, I repeat, a two-class structure – and which MUST repress its population to maintain power – can support those 80 million? The current system, a two-class no-private sector economy – can’t do it.
Obama is guaranteeing America’s mutual destruction with another nuclear power. Most likely Iran. Dealing with Ahmadinejad is like trying to deal with the main stream American Democrat/Socialist media; Like having an intelligent argument with a three year old.
And this is the major reason Obama is in the White House; Because he is such a useful idiot.
The United States is without any cogent leadership, and the rest of the world is well aware of this fact.
Michael, I hope you read these posts. I want to raise what I feel is a big big big point with you. I trust your judgment and wisdom is hard to come by – that is, real wisdom.
I heard you yesterday, or the day before, on a radio show talking about our incessant tendency, aka J. Carter, to ruin our friends and leave our enemies alone. And you were at a loss to explain why this happens.
Is it not the case that this happens because of the consensus of those who are thrown up for ruling think this way? Isn’t your complaint, and thank you for voicing it, exactly the old American right’s objections to the Roosevelt/Marshall/Eisenhower “groups” that appeased Stalin at the expense of our Allies in Eastern Europe?
And didn’t the Eastern Establishment expel that entire American Right to keep them away from securing National power? And, as a consequence, didn’t the template, if you will, from WWII become the goals of that establishment’s foreign policy?
Who stopped enforcing the Monroe Doctrine? On what basis, or with what conception of what American Sovereignty and American Security was this done? Or perhaps not what concept, but whose concept.
I confess to you I an a completely unapologetic Bircher. The expulsions at the time of the JBS expulsions, was for purposes far wider than the basis on which is was justified – a few characterized conclusions made by Mr Welch, controversial or misstated as they may or may not have been to the degree they were or weren’t. This was an expulsion of an entire Conservative Right in America that encompassed far more that the Birchers who were, of course, and appropriately, part of that Right. Many who were thrown out were people like McCarthy and his defenders, Taft Republicans, Clousen, Smoot, Sobran, Bozell, Rothbard, Feder, Evans, Fenwick, and the list goes on an on.
Some were banished outright, some were intimidated, some were “merely” chastised, only some were excoriated – but none were allowed to achieve national prominence no matter what, although some did manage to anyway. This whole group is inseparable from the Birchers, using the term Birchers as a icon.
Continued
My point is that if we want to behave differently in the international arena, we will not do so under the current assumptions of American interest and American Soverignty as currently thought of.
Lots of issues have to been argued and gone through. My concept of American Sovereignty and Security is by no means anything isolationist. But I do strongly support Ran Paul’s call to stop all aid to the Mid East.
Israel will never be able to defend itself if it depends on the United States. Israel is now on a precipice facing the creation of a Palestinian state. This was the focus of the left and the left/liberal eastern establishment.(The left previously never thought of getting their hands on Egypt but that has now changed – they will fail, by the way.)
The greatest disaster that could occur is to give the left a stronghold via a Palestinian state. You Eastern establishment can’t wait to create one in the name of Peace.
Let Israel go it alone, they would have been far more secure.
Peace for now, Mr. Ledeen
Perhaps the fundamental flaw in these international manipulations and understandings goes like this: If they only would think like we do then the world would be a better place.”
Just maybe there are mindsets that want to be ruled by tyrants, have no particular freedoms, and have no interest is self reliance and self governance. Perhaps the Egyptians can reconcile as to how to have a functional theocracy/democracy. Perhaps 10s of thousands of people having rock fights in the streets is a way of conflict resolution. Friendly tyrants is an oxymoron, which is paying the devil his dues and generates shades of gray in a black and white world.
Who are we to judge what the people of another country “want”? We can’t even figure out what we want. Polls show 60+% want Obamacare repealed, yet here we are jamming it down the country’s throat.
In Egypt, do demonstrations by a handful of people (relative to the population) represent what “the People” want? What utter arrogance to say that we know.
Sure, freedom for everyone is a worthy goal. But so is life for the population in question, their personal well being, their attitudes toward the leadership, the country’s political stability, our relationships/alliances with the country, the leaderships attitudes toward nuclear weapons, the intentions of the leadership and the rivals for power, our own ability (or not) to influence events now and in the future, and many other factors.
To pick out “democracy” or any other worthy goal without considering the entire spectrum is dishonest and naive.
What the little lenin has done is to back the unknown in favor of the known. Mubarak has many flaws, but Egypt has been stable, has not sought nuclear weapons, has not tried to destroy Israel, has not allied itself with Iran, and has not been as cruel as most most other regimes in the regime. To throw him away for an alternative that will probably be much worse is hopelessly clueless, or much worse, the mark of an ulterior motive.
This administration has already done the opposite of what you advise to do.
And in doing so it has betrayed America by legitimizing the muslim brotherhood, from which both hamas and alqaeda stemmed.
This administration must be impeached.
Once again, the Republican majority in the House doesn’t do what it is supposed to do.
It is the darkest hour of this Republic, ever.
I totally agree with you about the MB. It is just amazing to me how absolutely ignorant most of those in DC and the Media are about the Muslim Brotherhood, let alone Islam. It astounds me that Obama is aligning himself with the MB. It’s like he is asking for this country to be sodomized. My heart goes out to the people in Israel who must be consuming mountainous quantities of antacids at a time when it appears they are being left to fend for themselves. I feel for all of us in the US with a president who seems hellbent on turning this country into a Caliphate. I thought all that was bs at first, but now, now I am really starting to beleive it. And are we not extremely fed up with Obama’s arrogance and that hideous snooty stance he does?
Zangpo is right on!
Oscumbags game here is to set up a takeover of Egypt by his moslem brethren.
Then he will help the raghead crazies to attack Israel.
Over 60 million loonies put him in power.
Why will we allow them to vote again?
why don’t we look to what the Egyptian constitution (I assume they have one)has to say about succession and changes in power
IMPEACH !
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/31/world/la-fg-us-egypt-20110201
January 31, 2011|By Paul Richter and Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.
I think you’re correct, Mr. Ledeen, that we should be behind Mubarak, until he soon enough realizes that he is not indispensable, as we all are NOT.
Then, my guess is that the only positive ORGANIZATION in Egypt, the military, will maintain their control, NEVER letting the Muslim Brotherhood fanatics gain anywhere close to enough power to take over,
Essentially, Mubarak is just the top dog of the military, so when he goes, next in line should be able to assume command, and as a mostly benign “tyrant”, start to move Egypt into modernity, by opening the political process.
Nobody knows, the trouble I’ve seen…..
I well remember in the early 60’s, when coming aware of the world’s political problems as a twenty-something, the war all those mean old baddies in the Middle East waged on tiny Israel.
Naïve me, looking at a map and counting the hundreds of millions of people against, what, 5 million Jews, figured it was all over but the shouting.
So, it was a huge surprise when Israel won.
Imagine that Egypt AND all the other “counties” in the ME currently in play do go the way of Iran. Could even Saudi Arabia be the next domino to fall, so that INDEED a true caliphate is set up in that area?
Yes—let Mohammed rule that benighted area of the earth, albeit with Israel holding out.
At least, THEN, the correlation of forces would be clear for ALL to see!
You can bet that this outcome would wake up a vast majority of still-free people in the West, so that suicidal policies now regnant would be dropped.
I picture Israel, the canary in the cold mine of do or die, like a fort in the American West, back in the day of our Manifest Destiny, when pioneers bravely moved to the Pacific coast.
Instead of a wooden wall, though, these days picture that tiny democracy with a boundary that has “guns” pointing out, so that any invaders would be wiped out, if they even tried to attack. The arsenal of democracy, the USA, must keep Israel locked and loaded, so that if needed, a “wall of bullets” could sweep out any invaders too close for comfort.
And, that especially means enough reliable missiles to shoot down any incoming atomic bombs!
Also, want to bet that targeted assassinations become another way to keep the Islamist hordes as impotent as possible?
When the free West is faced with an existential threat, if the caliphate does arise, you can also take it to the bank that it will NOT hold back, as it did in the war in Vietnam!
NOT following the Viet Cong into Cambodia and/or doing to the North what the South was doing to it, won’t be the way to go, then.
Somehow, the ME reminds me of that Peter Sellers movie, “The Mouse That Roared”.
Maybe unwittingly, or subconsciously, the most ruthless Muslim Brotherhood types are definitely picking a fight with the USA, because it seems like that will be the fastest way for the latter to finally beat them to a worthless pulp, so they can at last gain from LOSING to us, and enter the modern era.
One way or another, we’re getting cracking!
I don’t recall Mr. Soros ever penning a similar article in the Washington Post about the US needing to support the legitimate demands of the Iranian people during the Green uprising or those of the Venezuelan people when they took to the streets against Chavez.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html
Mr. Ledeen, do you know the word ‘Mameluke’ ?
http://www.answers.com/topic/mamluk
Perhaps ‘Junta’ is more familiar.
Egypt was, is, and will be controlled by the military,
because they have the power; Mubarak was/is their choice
to administer the country, keeping the masses happy.
The political future of Egypt will be a contest between
the Muslim Brotherhood and the Educated Youth, first for
the approval of the military to administer the country,
keeping the masses fed and improving their lives, later
to influence the military’s definition of improvement.
Which faction should the US support, and why ?
The answer is, one would think, clear;
An existential danger trumps economic or political gain,
and the MB wants us all dead.
I think obama has let the world know he will not stand by the traditional allies with his Cairo speech.
this probably would not be an issue today (egypt) had it not been for obama political policies and his economic policies.
and we should not have supported stalin in the war with hitler.
This is from David Horowitz:
“Egypt is on fire and the flames may soon spread to Jordan and even Saudi Arabia.
The situation on the streets of Cairo is confusing, but so too is the message coming out of the Obama White House. The White House appears to be leaving Hosni Mubarak, an ally for three decades and lynchpin of Mideast stability, twisting slowly in the wind. And worse, it appears to be open to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood play a key role in a “reformed” Egyptian government, as long as the organization renounces violence and supports democracy.
If the Obama White House really believes this is possible, it is even more hopelessly incompetent than we imagined!
The Freedom Center has been warning about the Muslim Brotherhood since 9/11. The Brotherhood is the godfather organization for jihad in the Middle East (and, for that matter, in the U.S. where it operates through the Muslim Student Association and other fronts). Its Palestinian branch, Hamas, is a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the annihilation of Israel. Osama bin Laden was a graduate of the Brotherhood; so was the mastermind of 9/11, Sheik Khalid Mohammed. It opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, without which Israel would be under the gun as it was in the first few years of its existence and will be again if the Brotherhood takes over.
In suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood can be a democratic partner in Egypt, the Obama White House has outdone even the Carter administration’s destabilization of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and its welcoming of the theocratic fascist Khoumeni as a “saint.”
During the present crisis, the Freedom Center has been contacted by talk radio and cable news shows for its take on the Egyptian situation because we, more than any other organization, have documented the “Unholy Alliance” between the Left and Radical Islam. That is the title of a book I wrote documenting the collaboration that is now bearing fruit in the demand for “change” in Egypt. From the Bolshevik Revolution, through Mao and the Ayatollah Khoumeni, the left has always seen figures who turned out to be monsters as “reformers.”
Dearest Kourosh, and hoping that someday all of us Iranians will be called Kourosh. Please refer to my post at the top of this blog.
Whew, at first I thought you were writing about my wife.
…but it’s as crazy to try to institute reform in the middle of an insurrection as it is to raise taxes in the middle of a depression.
Give Obama and the Democrats a chance and they’ll do both.
Michael, people need to be more bold regarding objective analyses,
instead of just going along with political correctness.
Neither Freedom House, nor Transparency International, have an axe
to grind when they get their answers to the questions they pose, and then crunch the numbers.
Who are the people who side with Mortimer Adler, if he were alive today?
Gaza and Egypt and Afghanistan plus other ME states propped up by oil are all artificial economies that didn’t produce much on their own except a population explosion. Now they need to switch from an artificial economy to a real economy in order to employ that large population. That cannot be done under totalitarianism, fascism or Islamism. It can only be done by democratic capitalism. It can’t get there by a straight line anymore than France went from the Bastille to the Tour de France without first suffering from the Brotherhood of Napoleon.
Similarly the ME will eventually get to civilized solutions as long as we don’t keep propping up the artificial economies and their pretend leaders who are really nothing other than Mafioso.
Conservatives advocating the status quo and “containment” in the ME are really saying Chicago should have been left in the hands of Al Capone. Does anyone really think that that those mobsters would have given Chicago the Magnificent Mile? Of course not. So how can Mubarak or the rest of the modern day Capones provide real jobs for an exploding population?
No wonder the GOP has been splitting itself with its establishment on one end and the Tea Parties dragging it kicking and screaming into a small government, pro-business model that launched American exceptionalism. Basically what we are seeing through the lens of Egypt is that right here at home we do not understand the cause and effect of an economy based on democratic capitalism.
Exactly. My concern is that so many totally ignore the crucial variables of: population size, economic mode and political mode. Instead – everyone just focuses on ‘ideology and religion’. And suggest that ‘those people’ will opt for fundamentalism every time. Oh?
Look – a statist, which is to say, a two-class system, can’t provide enough jobs for a multimillion size population. And, if it doesn’t have massive resources to sell, such as oil, it can’t provide welfare for these people. The key is: the population size. If it goes beyond the carrying capacity of a statist economic system (every job is in the public sector)..then, there’s trouble.
If your statist dictator represses change – as Mubarak has done, as the Shah did, as Iran is doing…and doesn’t permit the people the freedom to set up private business..then, they’ll turn to MAGIC. That’s utopian imaginary worlds. Islamic fascism.
Remember, fascism is socialism; it’s two-class as well. The big bosses who run-the-place..and the slaves who are run. This can’t function economically. Again..you need a private capitalist economy if your population is in the multimillions!!!
So – what must be done..is first, enable that private sector economy to develop, AND, enable a middle class to develop and gain political power within a democracy..which must have term limits, power limits and so on. It can be done; in Egypt, there’ll need an interim government with the military providing stability, while BOTH these agendas are publicly worked out: the economic and the political.
But if you instead promote More Mubarak style…the result will be the despair of Magical Solutions. Fascism.
Who’s advocating the status quo? You sound like Obama and his straw men.
But I’ll give you credit. You’ll never lose an argument with a fictional opponent if you make up the oppenent’s arguments and then bat them down.
IN Nixon’s book “the Real War” he intelegently lays out the case for the Shah and south Vietnam’s Diem. After both’s removal chaos followed. He also explains the problem with the American public’s lack of understanding of 3rd world countries and their required leaders. Every Iranian I have met says the same thing,”God damn Jimmy Carter” followed by a spit. They all profess how private ownership of land and rights for women were moving forward. Nixon makes the valid point that these ideals of liberty take time to sink in into the minds of these citizens. Much to our chagrin 3rd world countries require and desire stronger leadership than we in the West will tolerate, remember it is our tradition not theirs. Mr. Ledeen is correct, Kennedy should have stuck with Diem and Carter should have done the same with the Shah.
Given what we did to Southeast Asia when we withdrew financial support for a South Vietnamese government that was holding its own against its communist brother to the north, given what we allowed to happen to the Shia in Iraq after we urged them to revolt against Saddam, and looking at how we have recently treated our allies in Eastern Europe and how we have turned against Israel, why on earth would anyone trust us?
I find it interesting that the same people who have decried our involvement in other countries politics, are on the bandwagon to run the leader of Egypt out of office. I guess we should stay out of it unless it is someone they don’t like. What would it be like if thousands of people went to DC and demonstrated demanding that the President of the United States leave office immediately? What would it be like if our allies agreed, or seemed to agree with the mob? The Egyptians need to be careful of what they ask for. We have recently seen that the change we get is not what we think we were promised.
Robert – you are ignoring that the US provides billions – yes, that’s the correct term – billions in aid to Egypt every year. The US taxpayer does that. The Egyptian nation is the second largest recipient of the US taxpayer’s foreign aid. Hmmm.
Therefore, we DO have a right to comment on how our money – that’s our money – is being used. If it’s being used to enrich a mafioso elite, who have siphoned millions off the economy into their own coffers, while repressing the people and preventing a robust INTERNAL economy that doesn’t need our taxpayer money – well, do you support that?
I agree – the ‘change we were promised’ within Obama’s campaign is not what has occurred in reality. But, unlike the people in Egypt, we have freedom of the press, and can discuss our rejection of his policies. And unlike the people in Egypt, we have opposition parties in power in our government and so, can hand Obama a stunning November loss of House power..to weaken his ability to carry out his agenda. The Egyptians have no such ability to stop Mubarak from doing precisely what he wishes – including censorship, imprisonment, and enormous propaganda via his control of the media.
And why do you call the protesters ‘a mob’? Are they bereft of specific demands? Are those demands – which are for a freer economy, and democracy and removal of censorship and free speech – are those unreasonable demands? Since Mubarak won’t allow opposition parties in the govt, and won’t allow a free press, then – who will express these desires? Other than a so-called ‘mob’?
ETAB
the muslim brotherhood will control egyopt after this.
you have the same arguments carter had in 1979 about the iranians.
obama has been supporting the muslim brotherhood since coming to office …even before he was sworn in!!! does that not provide any modicum of WTF ?
Having specific demands makes a MOB no less a mob. Lynchings are performed by mobs with very specific demands and objectives. I refer you to Jimmy Carter and Iran. He brought about what we have. History is packed with instances where revolutions have been cooped into a demon worse than the one expelled. Our government should should not be the vehicle of that exchange. As for aid, we got what we paid for, and now have no right to demand a rebate or say in internal matters.
As I have already pointed out, our (the US that is) problem ISN’T Egypt or Mubarak or the MB; it’s B. Hussein Soetoro and his handlers.
How can we sound credible debating Mubarak’s Egypt and its possible and/or desirable (to us) futures, when we haven’t yet resolved OUR little problem?
Let’s clear up whose America we’re referring to (our America, or B. Hussein Soetoro’s “America”) before addressing what we want to see happening in Egypt or elsewhere in the World for that matter.
And notice something else – the other Arab/Persian nations are worried that, possibly, just possibly, the fight for freedom in Egypt might be successful. Boy…that’s a worry, because that could spread to their own dictatorships.
The Iranian Ayatolla Khameini spoke out today, suggesting that if the Egyptians remove Mubarak.. well, then fundamentalist Islamism will move in..and the Caliphate will rise..and the US will be defeated…and..
What’s that all about? It was meant for the West; it was a speech to the West, asking us all to, as did Chicken Little, run, run, because the sky is falling and the Islamists are coming.
The reality is – that Iran (and the other nations in the ME) are very worried that a free economy, and a middle class and a democracy based around that economic reality in Egypt..might inspire their own repressed millions to rise up, as they tried to do a year ago in Iran, and again – demand democracy and freedom.
So, Iran is telling us – Hey, you western chicken littles – if you get rid of Mubarak, The Fundamentalists Will Come…So, you’d better keep him.
And (then, whispering, as they sigh with relief)..that will keep us dictators secure for a few more years/decades.
After all, think about it. If the Muslim peoples around the world, really wanted a fundamentalist regime and lifestyle, then, why don’t they have it? Are they having demonstrations that they want it? Hmmm?
Instead, radical Islamists are finding that they have to kill, murder, slaughter their own Muslims – in Iraq, in Africa, in Egypt, in Pakistan…to enforce radical Islamism. The people, strangely, don’t seem to accept it without the use of force.
So – who’s worried most about change in Egypt? Mubarak, certainly; he’s addicted to power. The West, horrified that All Muslims really want Islamic fascism. And, the Islamic nations..who are terrified of losing their totalitarian theocratic power…to the people. The people want freedom and democracy. Not dictatorship or theocracy.
the problem in a place like egypt is there may not be a good time to transition to democracy.
for christ’s sake look at the USA …it is closer and closer to ONE MAN ONE VOTE ONE TIME.
THE VOTER FRAUD IS INCREDIBLE, THE FAILURE TO UPHOLD LAWS IS ALSO INCREDIBLE.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE FOE DECADES.
if the USA is failing at democracy how in hel! do you think a backward country dominated by islam stands a chance.
wake up …egypt isn’t ready today and will not be in september.
I don’t believe in magic. egypt is doomed until islam is discarded as the foolishness it is.
I cannot understand why conservatives think democracy will happen anywhere in the middle east …islam is NOT compatible with freedom . PERIOD. PERIOD .
Here’s a summary of what is taking place in Egypt at present from a socio-political standpoint: the urban communists are fighting against the islamists and both are fighting against the rural poor, the Fellahin (the ones you saw riding camels into Cairo). All three are opposed by the military and the bureaucracy, the Turko-Egyptian version of “secularists.” Add to the mix, Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, Iranian Shi’ite agents, and agents of Israel and you get the picture.
It’s the n-body problem of instability in physics, for those math inclined.
We (Israel) have agents there? (I mean, aside from intelligence?)Why would we get involved? How would we even know whom to back?
I think it is a distortion to say that “Franco laid the groundwork for democracy”. In the last years of his rule, he attempted to set up the basis for an ongoing conservative and authoritarian regime, but without any real conviction. He had long since crushed the Red leftists whom he truly feared. He arranged for the restoration of the monarchy, apparently believing that Juan Carlos would rule as well as reign, and continue his policies.
In fact Juan Carlos (who had been a de facto regent for Franco in parts of his last two years) had met secretly with Spanish opposition politicos, and had decided he would restore parliamentary democracy. This he did immediately after Franco’s death. He, not Franco, deserves the credit.
On the issue of the “friendly tyrant”: in many countries, there is no clear line between “really successful politician” and “corrupt dictator”. If the U.S. had openly criticized Mubarak and pushed for his removal 10 or 20 years ago, Egyptians would have howled against U.S. interference.
“If we jump ship now, as it seems we are, it is odds-on to make things worse.”
Whatever will worsen any given situation is what the Obama administration will do. See it for what it is, Mr. Ledeen: This admin is dismantling the USA, piece by piece. It is deliberate. It is calculated. It is treason. We should be following the Egyptians’ lead. I don’t know that we can hold out for two more years.
Luckily, he is incompetent.
The problem that the intellectuals ignore! America discarded our constitution replacing it with the UN’s Supreme Global Charter. Today, as a result, the U.S. has lost its global credibility and influence inside the UN….AND….around the world. Our Traditional American social and political moral values are gone, our once great industrial and economic base gone, out ingenuity gone, our once exceptionalism gone, our nation on the verge of bankruptcy and a divided nation over further transformation to some evolution of socialism.
Yet, we’re about dictating to foreign nations around the world to transform to what we wish/demand for them. Yes, of course there are granted exemptions! We don’t demand much of Western Europe and Japan since for decades, we’ve sought to be just like them.
I respectfully disagree. I love and respect President Ronald Reagan, but even he was wrong re Russia being a trusted democratic ally. That is ‘one’ of the ‘two’ reasons why I’ve been referred as to a “to the right of Ronald Reagan” conservative. My expertise is in Counter Terrorism, intelligence, law enforcement and Theology.
While working the LAPD, I learned that the Russian Mafia was setting up shop. I was an LAPD under-cover cop for 2 ½ years. Some of my bookmaking investigations led to the Russian Mafia. I also learned that the Russian Mob was working with the Iranian Mob (also within Los Angeles and all to defeat the US.) This was all before 9/11.
Most police officers look at criminology with a secular world view, not a Biblical view. The LAPD still can not locate the millions & millions of dollars that was taken in a series of bank robberies. Two of those suspects were later killed in what’s now known as infamous North Hollywood BofA shootout. Without a doubt that outstanding money went directly into the hands of the Russian Mafia in Los Angeles, and has since been laundered. Since then, Al-Qaida has already purchased suit case nuclear bombs from Russia, and there are confirmed to be inside the U.S.
After 9/11 I felt it was morally egregious to withhold some confidential information, so thru speaking engagements I leaked some out to ‘we the people.’ I currently have a clearance and still receive confidential information re threats to this Nation.
MORE importantly than our skills, knowledge and education; the Bible tells us that Russia can not be trusted. Russia is the Country specifically mentioned in an unfulfilled prophecy. We must never compromise, we must not be bipartisan. Bipartisan is tantamount to being bisexual. You just can’t tell which side is which.
For more info, my below article explains better. Gods speed.
The soon coming war with Russian, China & Iran
http://www.hi-caliber.org/WWIII.pdf
How do you write something like this and not mention Jeane Kirkpatrick?
Hi Dr. Ledeen,
(it is off topic, but I didn’t have your email…)
I’m a young Iranian that is studying in the USA. I came here after the coup that happened in Iran last year. I was raised in a secular family and the only religion I have faith in is the humanism. (I’m telling you this short story of mine so you could have a better picture about who is writing here, a person totally unbiased towards every race and religion.)
anyways, I’m writing you here to tell you something I see, which I’m sure some people, including you, can see; but maybe I have a different way of looking at it. I would like to tell you my point of view about this F..king government of our country and since you have connections inside the US government, you might be able to make my voice be heard.
Couple of months ago, I was thinking about our rotten government and I figured out that the best metaphor to this government of Iran, is CANCER metaphor. just look at it, it started by a single, malfunctioned cell (Khomeini), it gradually became a tumor (our Iran in the mid 80′s), then it became too big that the body (i.e., world community) started feeling it and the pain it incurred. however, since the world leaders were preoccupied with day to day activities, and they didn’t want to take serious measures, OR MAYBE BECAUSE THEY LIKED OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!???? they decided to overlook the pain of this RR (rotten religious) regime, and instead of taking long term actions, like a dumb patient, they started taking sedative pills! OK, what would happen if someone with cancer, starts taking anti-pain pills instead of going through painful surgery and chemotherapy? well, pain will go away for a couple of months maybe, but cancer will spread even more! and the later you FACE THE TRUTH, the more pain you will have to face in future! see the point? cancer metaphor really suits this regime!
however, things can go even more wrong! again, like a cancer, you might reach the point of no return, so your illness might become terminal. something that could have been solved with a surgery and maybe couple of months of painful treatment, because of lack of responsibility, laziness, and more importantly, IGNORANCE, can turn into something REAL BAD!
I really wonder, why you guys (I mean world leaders) do not take these guys (our leaders) serious? can’t you read their mind? come on you secular, polite, tie wearing leaders! have we forgotren how Hitler F…ed the world? can you really imagine what would happen if Iran regime, becomes JUST A LITTLE more crazy? with a president, just a bit more radical that Ahamdinejad, or a leader just a little more delusional than Khamenei? are you waiting for that point of no return?
I really wonder, why no one has balls, BIG ENOUGH to deal with this regime? when would be that day? have you really noticed dynamics of change in our regime? yeah, we had some relatively better days. during Khatami era, things were getting gradually better, and if we had same trend, I would bet, in 20 years, all the pain would have gone……. but please, tell me, have you noticed DYNAMICS of this regime? it simply, GOT_RID_OF_ITS_REFORMISTS! so, face the real thing for god’s sake! dynamics of this regime, resulted in termination of internal reforms. As an Iranian, seeing my country moving backwards is as bitter as you can imagine, but thanks god, I’m a pragmatic patient, I know I have cancer, and I want to be CURED!!! no more acetaminophen and ibuprofen please!
yeah yeah, I hoped khatami would have done better. I hoped khamenei would have died a couple of years ago. but since reformists are history, and radicalism and craziness is fashionable in Iran’s government nowadays, the tumor decided not to become a benign tumor, and it is now on its way of getting bigger, stronger and it will spread, like a cancer! oh god! I don’t like to think of our regime as a caner, but they are
and believe me, there can’t be a worse dictatorship than a religious, well equipped dictatorship in the 21′st century.
to summarize, in my opinion, if we are brave enough to see the naked ugly truth, and if we are responsible enough with regard to future generations, and we are visionary enough to see, 10 years from now, we have to take serious, thoughtful measures to get rid of this regime. their history of dealing with reformist showed that they can not be reformed, they will not become a compliant member of world community.
I personally think that a hybrid action method can collapse this tyrants. use tougher sanctions, spread propaganda more, (for example, use stealth bombers to spread papers full of different propaganda over Iran’s sky. believe me, they will s..t in their pants if they see papers falling from the sky!) give those middle managers (in sepah, in government, even in khamenei’s own beit (house)) security so they know they will not be hurt during transition period, and start tactical military attacks, like accidentally (yet intentionally!!) fired missiles, then apologize for that! well, hmm, I don’t know, you should have bright strategist in pentagon and other places!! think of an all inclusive hybrid action, and I assure you, they are fragile these days, use this window of opportunity, they are too busy with their stuff, now its time for an uppercut in the head, then while they wander around the ring, knock’em down! believe me it is doable, it is not a dream any more
and as you VIVIDLY know these days, Iranian people are in favor of a regime change….
as one of our modern and beloved poet’s used to say: eye’s shall be washed, things shall be seen different
Dear America and president Obama, you’ve provided your hand to shake, so now what? it’s time for a change!
Let’s hope for a better world for all human-beings, including my poor countrymen, my beloved Iranian inside the biggest cage in the world: Islamic regime cage!
I have a dream ………
well said. i tried to explain the long failure of the West–especially the US–to come to grips with Iran in my recent book, “Accomplice to Evil” It’s at http://www.amazon.com/Accomplice-Evil-Iran-Against-West/dp/0312570694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296941450&sr=1-1
I have a few questions for you:
Why do you want OTHERS (in the West) to take care of YOUR problems in Iran?
Why don’t YOU go back and take care of these problems?
Do we ask you to solve OUR problems here in this country (the US, that is)?
JKG,
American Republic can do whatever it wants of course but without being asked Lafayette came to fight for YOU as did many other French supporters, (Without the French assistance btw the revolution would have probably failed)
Robert D. Burgener (look it up) died defending OTHERS’ democratic revolution. He said to the American embassy advising him that this is OTHER people’s problems, as you do, that only difference between me and these Iranian freedomfighters is the place of birth and that is not enough for me to separate myself from their cause of freedom.
Did communist ever ask that question? Do fundamentalist muslims ask that question?
Ideological states (and US is the supreme example of one; one nearly solely based an idea) are Universal in conception, influence and are influenced as such. Inexorably, despite your question, they will be led to the violent currents of universal struggle over ideas and come into conflict with the ones that unlike you fully comprehend the true borderless character of the American Republic ie your enemies fully understand what you don’t. American Republic will rise and fall with the Universal democratic revolution.
I am sure Michael can articulate this better than me as I learned all this from him really.
roger that
I would like to emphasize and dido something written here I saw about the nature of militarism in Egypt. mubarak is merely a symbol of military establishment in Egypt; he is not like Shah of Iran. He does not draw any power over the armed forces by mythological bonds that a Persian king had over the warrior caste of the Iranian nation; he is not attached to the past or history.
So he is fundamentally much weaker than some beleive.
This is of course both good and bad. Good is that he can be sacrificed. Bad is that the armed forces might not fuse properly with aspirations of urban youth and consequently turn them toward radical Isalm.
US here is to do in fast motion what EU did slowly in Turkey ie get a military backed regime to give way to the modern institutions and ideas of Egyptian democrats.
If EU had time and US does not, US has something EU did not have: money. US can influence the armed forces to behave. US must exert maximal pressure on the armed forces to understand that if they replace Mubarak and maintain the corrupt closed system, sooner or later, the only other organizing force will dominate the insurrection: Islam.
2/ Horseradish. Yes I just checked . Great comment and absolutely to the point. Today, I came about at least 10-11 articles in UK papers, who all either criticized US for not toppling Mubarak, or support the anarchy in Egypt. I concluded that there can be only 2 reasons for these type of Islamist / Khomeinists / Terrorists support. First, all these groups have one thing in common and that is their hates for the most progressive country on the face of the earth (US). So by supporting these terrorists by certain leftists in Europe and particularly in UK, they guarantee if there ever be a change, it would be in line with Khomeinists, That is hating US. Second, these leftist forces who are oily want to push back countries in that area 100 years back, and never let them to recover, civilize,modernize, or make progress. If they ever come out of backwardness, they would be in several small pieces. Just like Ghatar, UAE, and Kuwait. BTW, I love Horseradish, particularly on my Oyster.
again i find myself agreeing with mr. ledeen. our (u.s.) foreign policy requires “flexibility” from time to time.
this webiste is a revelation for me. i consider myself a social liberal, but much of what i read here about foreign policy and economic policy makes a lot of sense to me.
where can i find my political clan? help me!
jonathan: when you find your clan please tell me where they’ve been hiding, chortle.
“flexibility” (realpolitik) has never been a problem for the United States policy makers, time and again US has come to the support of dictators and Michael’s (profoundly disappointing) call here is the norm of the American political machine.
Now let us be clear and I know I reflect the views of many:
Today those of you who stand with Mubarak and SULEIMAN’s thugs running over freedom-fighters in liberation square, stand with enemies of freedom. You stand for the past, for fear, for oppression.
I have written and re-written above on this page what should be the correct course of action in Western Asia and will not repeat. But make no mistake as what we, freedom-fighters, think of you there, no matter what your intentions, you stand with enemies of freedom!
Maybe, just maybe, when we have Western analysts constantly affirming the narratives of the enemy dictators in crude propagandistic fashion, we are actually strengthening the hand of these regimes.
Take Iran, for a nation which we are told is being run by religious “Mullah Zealots”, they sure have a lot of open Marxist-Leninsts on their English language satellite channel (Press TV). Funny, I can’t recall ever seeing any GCC government television station graciously hosting a Marxist-Leninist.
Only the simple minded could believe that a sincere religious government is offering up daily airtime to its sworn enemy… Oh, but we’re not allowed to talk about that are we? Let’s get back to what’s fashionable these days, psychotic anti-Muslim hate speech, facts be damned.
In Iran those same “Marxist-Leninist” organizations and groups that you are talking about joined collaborative forces with the Khomeini and his Islamic clan to usher a new era of Islamism back in 1979. As soon as Khomeini consolidated his power and rule over a “secular” nation the first groups of people he slaughtered was those same “Marxist-Leninist” who naively and stupidly paved the way for his power grab. You need to read a bit more of history and facts before these utterly naive rants.
Ask any Iranian if Islam is not actually hate!
You will get a real education then!!!
The sad truth is most of you people who side with dictators wouldn’t survive one day living under a dictatorship. You would weep and cry and come crying back to papa. How dare you barter other people’s dignity for your false sense of security. Let the people be free. If it makes the price of your gas tank more expensive, suck it up. If you dont want to fight wars treat people better and maybe they wont hate you.