Pace the Pollyannas that determine U.S. foreign policy these days, the Muslim Brotherhood is about instituting sharia, i.e., Islamic law, by means of jihad. As Andy correctly notes,

To this day, the Brotherhood’s motto remains, “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”

That seems pretty straightforward to me.  I admire the candor and forthrightness. The Muslim Brotherhood believes in waging jihad, i.e. holy war, and they embrace death as their highest goal. At least we know where we stand.

Or do we? None of this seems to have penetrated the smiling wunderkinder who staff our foreign policy establishment. “[O]ur  see-no-Islamic-evil foreign-policy establishment blathers on about the Brotherhood’s purported renunciation of violence,” Andy writes,

and never you mind that, with or without violence, its commitment is, as Qaradawi puts it, to “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” It is necessary to whitewash the Ikhwan’s brutal legacy and its tyrannical designs in order to fit it into the experts’ paradigm: history for simpletons.

I sympathize with the folks, here at home and in the Egyptian streets, who abominate Hosni Mubarak. He is, no matter what Joe Biden says, a dictator. But what is the alternative?  Something better? Maybe. But prudence argues that we exercise great care in disposing of the czar: the next one might well be worse. “History,” as Andy rightly observes,

is rarely a Manichean contest between good and evil. It’s not a choice between the pro-Western shah and Iranian freedom, but between the shah and Khomeini’s ruthless Islamist revolution. It’s not a choice between the pro-Western Musharraf and Pakistani freedom, but between Musharraf and a tense alliance of kleptocratic socialists and Islamists. Back in the 1940s, it was not a choice between the British-backed monarchy and Egyptian freedom, but between the monarchy and a conglomeration of Nasserite pan-Arab socialists, Soviet Communists, and Brotherhood Islamists. And today, the choice is not between the pro-American Mubarak and Egyptian freedom; it is a question of whether to offer tepid support to a pro-American dictator or encourage swift transition to a different kind of tyranny — one certain to be a lot worse for us, for the West at large, and for our Israeli ally: the Muslim Brotherhood tempered only, if at all, by Mohamed ElBaradei, an anti-American leftist who willfully abetted Iran’s nuclear ambitions while running the International Atomic Energy Agency.

That is the counsel of political wisdom. You don’t hear it echoing the Washington’s corridors of power. So much the worse for us as well as the Egyptians. We have plenty to worry about