Since Everybody’s Taking Names, I Just Wanna Say I Was Right
Back when Obama was dithering over “what to do about Mubarak,” I noted that it was an unpleasant decision, but that it was quite clear we should support the Egyptian dictator. Quote:
we have to stick with Mubarak, all the way down if he is indeed going down. We can talk about reform as much as we wish, 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. 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.
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.”
If we bail, then both our other allies and Mubarak’s successors will know that America is not loyal, cannot be relied upon, and thus that it is a mistake to cater to the Americans’ wishes (about democracy, for example).
So, as history unfolds through paradoxes, we have identified another one: if you really want to advance democracy, it will sometimes be necessary to stand foursquare behind a dictator.
If we had pursued our national mission for the past many decades, we might have avoided the necessity of doing this unpleasant thing. But here we are. If we jump ship now, as it seems we are, it is odds-on to make things worse.
So we jumped and things got worse. Now what’s all this talk about all the neocons being wrong? Or have I been thrown out of yet another oversimplified generalization?
Meanwhile, reread the whole thing. The “Problem of the Friendly Tyrant” is one of the basic issues facing American presidents, and it’s a good idea to think it through. This is one of those teaching moments, as Rush likes to say…
Wait. What? It was not “smart diplomacy” to throw Mubarak under the bus?
Of course, others commented similarly back then. It’s not like this President had no counsel against his actions. Well, no, it’s exactly like that. The Left marches in lockstep. If you are not wit ‘em, you are agin ‘em, and they are not interested in what you have to say. At all. No matter how right you may be.
don’t shock me. they’re not objective, balanced and fair?
You were correct back in February 2011.
Obama’s actions prove he has no friends, as he demonstrates that HE is no friend to historical allies like Mubarak. Ah, democracy is so fickle.
Fear is a great motivator, so I suspect the military that continues to rule, at the point of a gun, will be sure to avoid what happened in Iran. The big question, then, may be do they have enough money to maintain their grip. Soldiers need to be paid, and guns and bullets acquired.
Egypt—what a basket case!
As you always point out, Iran is the essential problem. I imagine the 81 million humans in the Land of the Pharaohs will continue to get by. So, either Iran ceases to be a problem, or not.
If “spring” finally comes to her enslaved people, the dominoes all over the Middle East should fall, soon enough. If not, and the Ayatollah is able to finance the Egyptian Brotherhood, maybe they can topple the military.
Que sera?
And Mali is falling apart in the wake of Obama’s marvelous Libyan adventure. Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt… the tree of “smart power” is bearing such wonderful fruits.
Hopefully we can survive eating them.
Sort of like the Russians are sticking by their boy in Syria. I wonder what message THAT sends to the Islamists?
At least, after this POTUS term end, many enemies of the US will be in the open and clearly visible. It is not so bad when the croackroaches come out of their holes and become easy to stomp.