Victor Davis Hanson sums it up for you
Hanson on the next steps in Egypt:
Few will shed tears for the demise of Hosni Mubarak. But his departure was not the result of an overt reform agenda, a new constitution, or even a group of new visionaries. It was ad hoc furor. So the present coup in Egypt is not the beginning of the end of the revolution, but merely the end of the beginning. Shortly we are going to witness a long period of revolutionary fervor, as small numbers of well-organized zealots, including clerical interests, vie for power. The latter’s ascendance will be marked by disavowals of political ambition, constant organizing for that very purpose, embrace of violence while professing renunciation of violence, and courting of Western interests publicly while privately mobilizing against them.
And I hope James Clapper reads it too.
From the same VDH article: “… when the crowds go home and return to their jobs, the most zealous, organized, and ruthless will go to work to consolidate power.” During the discussions here at neo-neocon many have said pretty much the same thing.
I’m wondering what is going on inside the Obama administration. Their frothy delight in ‘democracy’ doesn’t tell me much. What is their vision for a ‘new’ Egypt and what will they attempt as a means to influence an out come they wish to support?
I doubt Obama (or any Western politician) can influence what happens in Egypt over the next few years.
InTheory
Yeah, we can. But it would be bloody.
However, it would be well to know what is going on, what is likely to happen and to prepare for the worst case possibility.,
Which is to say, we’re so screwed.
Yeah, we can. But it would be bloody.
Haha, true, I suppose we could also drop a nuke on them…
I don’t think what happens in Egypt over the next couple of years really matters to the United States as long as the Suez canal stays open, which seems likely.
Were this administration really concerned about American National Security, neither Clapper nor virtually any other member of Obama & Co.’s National Security team would have been seriously considered for appointment, much less appointed. Were Obama & Co. really interested in fostering and increasing American National Security, clueless DNI Clapper–obviously deeply in thrall to PC–would have been fired immediately after his willfully ignorant, extremely dangerous, and embarrassing views on the Muslim Brotherhood that he gave to the House Intelligence Committee the other day.
That he is still today DNI tells us all that we need to know about the level and depth of Obama & Co.’s commitment to and concern for American National Security, and for you and I and our welfare and survival.
InTheory: I agree that the amount of influence one politician in the West—be it Obama or anyone else—will have on Egypt is small.
However, not non-existent. It’s not always the influence one intends, though. There’s the law of unintended consequences as well. For instance, vocally throwing American support behind one person or another can have the opposite effect (many people believe Obama’s public demands that Mubarak leave caused him to say longer than he otherwise would have). On the other hand, covert support in terms of helping out one faction or another (financially or otherwise) can have some effect. There also may be communications going on right now between the US and the generals in charge. There’s a lot of clandestine possibilities, most of which we don’t know about and won’t know about.
Wolla Dalbo: agreed.
There’s a lot of clandestine possibilities, most of which we don’t know about and won’t know about.
Neo,
I think it’s important that we learn from the past.
The current situation in Egypt looks exactly like the kind where any meddling on America’s part now will turn around and bite us hard in the ass later.
Best Obama and his people stick with vague, noncommittal words of support and avoid engaging in any “clandestine possibilities.”
Any nation that does not have numerous contingency plans, some clandestine, is a nation of fools or a nation led by fools.
I am done with InTheory. He is not here to learn or to add measurably to our fund of information or insight.
He is a soft highjacker of this blog.
People seemed to have forgotten that Egypt’s dictatorship problems is simply a mirror of America’s own.
Yes, what happens there doesn’t directly impact Americans here. Then again, Obama’s vacations at the golf course probably doesn’t do much good to prevent another terrorist attack. So there’s pluses and bonuses to the whole “We’re safe cause we’re far away” deal.
The USA is set to give Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid during this fiscal year. Additionally, we routinely provide them annually with many millions in development assistance. That is a large finger in the pie.
Tom: yes, he is a troll. But one I’m tolerating for the moment, since he brings up interesting points at times.
parker.
I suppose we can add a few strings. Bush’s Millenium project restricted such aid until certain assurances against corruption were forthcoming.
I believe that’s been overboarded. Rotten, fascist Bush and whatnot.
Besides, foreign aid is to buy the ruler’s cooperation, not help the people. If the ruler can’t send it to Zurich or Dubai pretty much entire, it doesn’t help Obama win friends.
InTheory: I mean “clandestine” in the sense of hidden or secret or underground, not in the sense of assassinating someone.
I mean “clandestine” in the sense of hidden or secret or underground, not in the sense of assassinating someone.
Yes, but isn’t the lesson of Egypt, Wikileaks, Hanson’s article etc. that nothing stays secret for long?
Richard,
I know that much of our foreign aid intended for humanitarian assistance does end up lining the pockets of corrupt individuals. We’ve seen that time and time again. And, I agree foreign aid is primarily seen as a method for advancing our own interests, as it should be. But our food assistance to Somalia in the early 90s is a good example to the contrary. Somalia was largely off our radar screens until the famine brought the suffering to the TV in dying color.
Here’s my theory, which I’d like to see discussed in this thread:
If, down the line, the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt and acts as our enemy, we can take out the Suez Canal.
At first, oil prices would jump, but then other suppliers would get into play, for example, our very own U.S. and Canadian oil suppliers.
Europe would get its oil from Norway, Venezuela, Russia, the U.S., and life would go on.
The U.S. controls the seas, and we could make sure that supertankers from various oil suppliers could reach our shores.
So do you all think the Suez Canal is as critical to the civilized world as we’ve been led to think? I don’t think it is.
Promethea:
A better idea would have been a takeover of KSA by Bush I. We had incredible military assets there before re-taking Kuwait, then failing to take Baghdad/Saddam, and many of those assets returned to KSA after. There could have been a Soviet-style “popular uprising” led by a US-selected cadre and entirely driven by USA strength.
Kill a few hundred princes, set up our own Ataturk, keep the bases & air fields, and bingo! Lotsa problems solved.
But (sigh) this wasn’t the 19th century.
Promethea:
If, down the line, the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt and acts as our enemy, we can take out the Suez Canal….
Undoubtedly, if the Suez Canal is shut down, there will be a price spike caused by an interruption in the regular passage of goods. It will take a lot longer to bring the goods around the Cape of Good Hope.
In previous years, I read that Egypt sets a price for passage through the Suez Canal that is marginally below the added cost of transport via the Cape of Good Hope. This suggest to me that once supplies begin to regularly arrive after passing through the Cape of Good Hope, that prices will level off to a price marginally above what they once were.
Another issue regarding shutting down the Suez Canal is that Egypt imports about half its wheat. IOW, Egypt has an inherent interest in the safe passage of goods.
Just a point of fact:
Unlike, say, the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal has no locks or other components to “shut down,” it’s just a big sea level ditch…
InTheory . . .
You aren’t very imaginative.
Gringo . . .
The dependence on food exports is Egypt’s major weakness. The Muslim Brotherhood was quite stupid to declare war on the United States.
However, knowing what I now know about Americans since 9/11, it will take a rather large event for us to take the MBs seriously.
Parker
Read a couple of reports by O’Rourke and others. No famine in Somalia. The bad guys had rounded up all the food.
Guy named Natsios, Bush 41’s foreign aid disaster guy did a report on C-Span back then. Unbelievable how much food the US had stocked around the world just in case. Guy said there are no famines due to a shortage of food. In every case, it’s a matter of bad guys who will the famine, or whose actions cause the famine as a byproduct and they don’t care.
Now, because we’re turning our food into gasoline at no net energy savings, the price of grain has gone up. People going to starve, but the well-fed greenies get to preen–their favorite thing.
You aren’t very imaginative.
Promethea,
If you’re talking about turning the U.S. Navy into a better armed version of the Somali pirates, I’d say your imagination is working overtime.
The idea that America should become an international pariah just because the American Right gets upset about who the people of Egypt elect to govern them is…how to put this politely…far fetched.
Hanson pithy and right on target, as usual. The playoffs just started in Egypt. And the top seed lies through their teeth.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
InTheory.
As Donald Sensing says, Islam is compatible with democracy. Muslims may vote themselves a repressive Islamic theocracy and live happily ever after.
Islam is not, however, compatible with the concept of individual liberty. “Submission” to Allah and his (self)-appointed representatives on Earth as a concept of how to order one’s life does not appear in the Declaration. Which, to be fair, is over a hundred years old and written in confusing language.
I suspect it will be more than the American right that gets upset of the Egyptians vote themselves a repressive theocracy whose foreign policy is informed by jihad and the expansion of the ummah.
However, however awful the human rights situation, InTheory, you will have plenty of company in ignoring them. Also plenty of history and practice.
Promethea:
I don’t know for sure, but I would imagine that the Suez Canal is more important to Europe than it is to us.
However, however awful the human rights situation, InTheory, you will have plenty of company in ignoring them. Also plenty of history and practice.
Richard,
The American people have just spent of $1 Trillion and thousands of lives installing Islamic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And now you’re saying we should be upset if the Egyptian people do the same thing?
InTheory: that’s fallacious.
If it stayed secret, you wouldn’t know about it, would you?
Richard, Yes, the warlords certainly helped cause the famine. Nonetheless, there was still a famine & Bush 41 sent food & Marines to guard the food for humanitarian reasons. However, I will check your reference to O’Rourke if for no other reason than I always enjoy his perspective.
As you mention, the ethanol subsidy is a terrible policy. Both of our Iowa senators are 2 of the prime lobbyists for the ethanol cabal. I understand their motive (campaign $) but find their involvement despicable. Our ag policies and our monetary policies are fueling unrest around the world as the developing nations scrabble to compete in the global grain market.
We are starting 2011 with very low reserves. The world needs the major grain producing regions to experience ideal conditions and huge harvests this year. Hungry people are desperate people.
According to the information I have at hand, somewhere around 7-10% of all crude oil is transported to the end user (primarily Western Europe) via the Suez Canal. Shutting down the canal would have a (surprise, surprise) effect on not only oil prices, but every other economic activity world wide. For Egypt, shutting down the Suez would be “cutting of your nose to spite your face”. The Egyptian military can’t be that dumb.
If it stayed secret, you wouldn’t know about it, would you?
That’s true, but how can Obama know in advance which of his covert actions will remain secret and which ones will be exposed?
Unless he plans to leak them himself, of course.
Obama is playing 3-D chess, while everyone else is playing checkers; in the meantime the Egyptian military have confirmed that Egypt will continue to honor the peace treaty with Israel. We’ll see if the military is able to continue to garner the critical level of support from the masses which empowers them; and if the Egyptians are pragmatists before they are loyal islamists. Of course, in a truly life and death struggle in another war against the Israelis, there is the Aswan Dam; a strong case for pragmatism. As muslims they can still have their cold peace while continuing to denigrate Israel and the Jews in general, as good muslims are essentially obligated…..
“…choosing ideology over reality…”, more on 3D chess vs checkers:
Caroline Glick: “As the lies come crashing down.”:
http://carolineglick.com/
InTheory is not that interesting. His manners are decent enough, but his style is all juvenile provocation. I wait–I fear in vain–for him to make a point that is novel. I would suspect that he is around 19 years old, but the last time we had someone like him, it turned about to be a man in young middle age. It is unfortunate that some people remain sophomoric their entire lives. Perhaps they make good social psychologists. InTheory, you aren’t are social psychologist by any chance?
I’ve simply been staying out of these threads because I really don’t claim to know what will happen in Egypt, though I must say that it’s good to see there’s plausible scenerios of how things could go without the MB coming to power.
Perfected,
I have to disagree about Obama, he’s not the brilliant 3-D chess player he (and the MSM) project. Events, whether its Egypt or the economy or any other issue you care to name, are not his to command although he believes he is in control. (And he is desperately wants to be in control.)
Instead, I see him as a fragile little boy who in his secret heart doesn’t understand why his father and later his mother abandoned him. His autobiographies tell you all you need to know about him. IMO, if you haven’t read them you can not grasp his inner frailty papered over by the narcissistic personality disorder he has developed to compensate for his desire to be loved. In many ways he is a pitiful creature. Destructive yes, but a bit like Gollum. He lusts for that which will consume him.
Disclaimer: I’m not a psychologist, nor have I portrayed a psychologist on TV or the silver screen.
Perfected,
Glick has the ‘skinny’. In the Islamic world Pakistan is the most dangerous loose cannon. Compared to Pakistan; Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even Iran are merely minor irritations. If zealots seize control in Pakistan the whole world is in for serious trouble.
Parker, perhaps you misconstrued my sarcasm about Obama thinking he is playing 3-D chess when… actually, I agree with you almost entirely. I don’t know everything about everything, but I’m a complete junky with this kind of stuff, read piles of books and thousands of pages on the internet, including Obama’s background; also dabbled somewhat significantly when I was in my twenties (am 63 now) in psychology. I think O is less motivated by his complexes, of which your observations may have some relevance; but more so by a less complex aspect, basically, and somewhat common in left-wing circles, an arrogant adolescent personality, not unlike Ayers, Castro, Hugo Chavez, or the monster, Mao; simply a shallow, arrogant, committed left-wing ideologue. From my point of view it is the difference between being fully culpable, versus being a somewhat explainable psycho, to some extent, ie. a Hitler. Additionally, the impact of cultural inculcation is critical, as is vividly exemplified by the mental midget from Iran; a similar case in which complex psychological assessment probably misses the point; possibly the difference between mental illness and culpable evil? I enjoy your commentary, however, great food for thought…
This is reassuring…sort of.
Reality is grim, so a few people dare to grasp it as it is. This is the main reason of popularity of both leftist and Islam ideology. While delusional in their core, they provide a rosy picture that flatters self-esteem of their adherents. Such delusions are not products of brain dysfunction, like true medical cases of insanity, but psychological necessities, but, nevertheless, they produce behaviors hardly discernable from medical insanity, only on mass scale. This is akin to what Freud called “psychopatology of everyday life”, or “universal neurosis”. Now we witness what can be called “universal psychosis” at large areas of the glob. Arabic Muslim civilization found itself in historical blind alley, when they can not feed themselves as they are, and can not modernize without rejecting their identity. This is ideal setting for epidemic insanity of the scale Weimar Republic once suffered.
Analogue motivation for mass delusion fuels leftist ideology. Spiritual emptiness of secular humanism makes atheists incapable to cope with death, senility, disease and injustice. This coerces them to embrace delusion of progress as the only justification for existence. But the scourges listed above are irremovable, so they hopes are doomed. This produces anger, rage and unmotivated aggression against apparent “enemies of progress”. Delusional persons are impervious to rational argumentation, while they cling to their delusions.
The American people have just spent of $1 Trillion and thousands of lives installing Islamic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Are you under some kind of ODS, IT.
The only “American people” creating Islamic governments in the Middle East is you fellows over at the Leftist alliance.
Ymar.
If the governments in question turn out to be jihadi-sprouting Islamic wackos, everybody will be annoyed.
The problem then will be that the racists would be right. You can’t keep the Muslims from being their potty little selves without a brutal dictator. Giving them the vote is a mistake. Imagine. The rightwingers are trying to give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt, and the vote, and the leftists are saying they can’t be trusted with it.
Jeez. What if the leftists are right? Correct, I mean.
“”The problem then will be that the racists would be right.””
Richard Aubrey
It’s not racist to be an observer of culture and draw conclusions about it. I think ME muslims and American white liberals will both vote their own demise with their prevailing mindsets and their race has nothing to do with it.
The rightwingers are trying to give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt, and the vote, and the leftists are saying they can’t be trusted with it.
Well, the LEftist sknow that they can make people elect an Obama. That probably informs them that people, regardless of race, can be made to do stupid things in voting.
Maybe that’s the real reason why they don’t trust in democracy or some such in the Middle East. Because they know how easy it is to manipulate a “democracy” for the interests of the elite and powerful. They’ve done it here in the US, after all, and apparently with great ease. None of them had to die for their beliefs. Just get some poor other shmuck to die in their stead.
The Left certainly are racists. Just hear their On Video comments concerning stringing up Justice Thomas.
But I think their primary motivation, for their Leftist alliance leadership at least, is a bit different on the matter of democracy or self-determination.
The conservative position must properly be security, and then voting more liberty.
Liberty without security is a chimera.
We saw that in Iraq with the elections. Nice and good ,but how many troops did it take to secure those “elections”? A shat load, that’s how many. Far more than the Left would be willing to expend, even if they weren’t the ones dying and fighting.
And that’s US troops. You’d need like 10X the number of Arab troops to even make a dent in the equivalence. Arab troops aren’t very disciplined. They never were. None of the Western or Asian tradition to leech off of. Arab fighting is still in the “tribal raiding” mindset of the Commanches.
The thing is, security costs money .Just ask the State Department how much tax payer money they spend on Blackwater to protect their sorry arses in the “dangerous” parts of the world.
“Money”, remember, is something the Left thinks grows on trees. Tree hugger environmentalists that they be. They primarily use money to “create money” for their family and their cronies. The idea of using money to secure the lives and security of the tax payers…. that’s not something the Left can grasp. Lack of the proper education you see.
The rightwingers are trying to give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt, and the vote
That’s a relief.
I mistakenly believed the American Right was against giving the Egyptians a democracy if it would lead to the Muslim Brotherhood taking over.
SteveH
I was being snarky. Noting an inconveniently bad characteristic of another culture is, according to the left, “racist”.
But it’s the right getting all misty about purple fingers here, without having figured out that people vote for what they want and, somewhat leftlike, the right is thinking everybody wants something like a New England town meeting democracy.
What if they don’t?
We don’t want the Left’s democracy, IT. That tends to lead to Carters, Clintons, warmonger Wilson’s SS brigade, and Obama.
A republic is what we are and what serves the prosperity of the people, not a democracy.
What if they don’t?
Has that not already been addressed?
If it hasn’t, then I’ll give it a try. To be continued.
IT
“I mistakenly…” prefaces a good many things you have said.
Surprise, at least to me. Clapper’s howler was not a gaffe when he was awakened, disoriented, from a sound sleep. It was in a prepared statement.
IOW, he had prepared to lie, with malice aforethought.
Taking orders right well, he is.
Democracy must began at the lowest possible level of government, such as a town or village council, and quite gradually proceed to national level – first, to legislature, and only later to executive branch. All this transition period must be overseen by non-elected body, civil or military, or by some strongman, since incipient democracy would be inefficient and weak. This is the lesson of successful modernization in 19-century Russia and 20-century Turkey.
I like free and fair elections in the ME and elsewhere.
If it turns out that, given a chance, the indiges vote themselves repressive theocracies devoted to the extermination of Israel, the expansion of the ummah through violence if necessary, and the repression of women, infidels and others, it will become increasingly difficult for the left–many considerably more agile than our IT guy here–to insist that this concern with Muslim aggression is ginned up by the racist reichwingers.
First, you get your nose rammed into the mangle, then you learn. Whatever it takes.
Once you learn, maybe you can take the appropriate action. Then, of course, that depends on the desired end state. Which, given folks like our buddy IT, does not fill me with confidence.
Somebody is going to be in charge in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, etc. Our attempts to spread democracy in Iraq is excellent. If they can manage it, terrific. These days, Americans can barely handle democracy, and I don’t see any other countries doing much better. (Costa Rica, maybe? Tiny countries don’t count.)
Anyway, Americans should reward the good, and undermine or destroy the bad. If Afghanistan continues to be a “failed state” that threatens us by harboring jihadists, then they should be destroyed.
What “destroy” means is another subject for discussion.
Sergey . . .
I’ve been reading mysteries about the Soviet Union/Russia by Martin Cruz Smith. Have you read any of these? If so, what do you think of the portrait he paints of Russians, Ukrainians, etc.?
Also, I always enjoy your perceptive analyses of democracy and America from faraway Moscow. You must be one of those readers who remember everything.
oops . . . “remembers”
Ymarsakar,
Much as I hate to admit it, InChworm is right about the U.S. propping up Islamic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under Bush Jr., the American military force acquiesced to the writing of constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq that assume the primacy of Islamic law.
Of course, if Inthingy puts this fact forth as an argument as to why the West should welcome the right of the people in the Muslim world to democratically turn their states into bases for Islamic imperialism (which is what every shariah-ruled state is, in point of fact), then he has it bass-ackward: Bush was wrong, wrong from the moment he cooked up the plan to defuse the Islamic threat by setting up “model democracies” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal following the aftermath of 9/11 shouldn’t have been “more democracy” but “less Islam.” After all, that is the enemy here.
Bush with his “Islam is a religion of peace” shtick was totally off-base, and the Leftists exceptional agreement with him (him whom they maligned for nearly all his two terms) on that bit is solid evidence he was in error. In defense of Bush, it can at least be said his heart was in the right place, unfortunately hampered by having the wrong facts; the same cannot be same of Obama, whose incorrect view of the world fits his malicious intent (for what is Marxism but a malicious ideology?) like a glove.
It is simply impossible to grasp a huge diversity of human types present in any nation in a single personage. This will be a cartoonish simplification. And Russia described in “Gorky Park” does not exist anymore. Martin Smith never lived here, he wrote his personages from some Russian emigrants he met in USA. From my experience, these emigrants from different waves of immigration very quickly loose any contact with Russian realities, like insects embalmed in amber, while things move really fast here.
ziontruth
You may be right about Bush being wrong. But, suppose he’s playing a long game.
How else to prove that, left to itself, left to themselves, Islam and Muslims are threats to the west?
Once you have elections, there are no more excuses.
Maybe Bush was wrong but the results will be as I describe anyway. That would be good, since it would clarify the debate, except among those committed to something else and pretending to be concerned about islamophobia.
Or perhaps things will not turn out as I fear. That would be better.
Thus, elections have no downside.
Back to Obama’s incompetent appointees: Clapper is now my favorite incompetent. It used to be Brennan, the Terrorism Czar who maintained the poverty causes terrorism, ignoring Bin Laden is filthy rich and the rest are middle class, whereas the poor are too busy simple trying to survive.
Of course, General Jones deserves honorable mention for stating the importance of a Palestinian state. Apparently he believes such a state would create favorable conditions for peace and anti-terrorism rather than the direct opposite.
The should be a essay writing contest somewhere with the theme. Who do you think is the worst Obama appointee and why?
Richard Aubrey,
You think Bush was planning that far? It’s possible, but somehow it doesn’t have the ring of truth to it. Bush embraced, or sometimes was made to cave in to, so many politically correct ideas, on the home front as well as in foreign policy.
In the post above you say that the spectacle of Muslims choosing repressive Islamic regimes of their own free accord will make it “increasingly difficult for the left … to insist that this concern with Muslim aggression is ginned up by the racist reichwingers.” This reminds me of the idea floated among conservatives after November 2008 that the election of Obama would see the end of the race card. As we can see, the use of the race card has only intensified. The Left will, similarly, continue to blame the fanatical hatred of the Muslims toward the West on “Western colonialism.”
The Marxists never learn. Changers, as our hostess can attest, are few and far between. And the elections will have raised jihadists to power. I’m sorry, but in my opinion there are only downsides here.
If you’re wondering what should have been done, I’ve given my answer before, and in condensed form again: The offensive should never have been taken abroad right away after 9/11; it should have started at home, “in here,” with mass deportation of all those who adhere to the Mecca-centric imperialism. All the worrying about Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran or any other country “out there” should have been postponed until after the homeland has been secured of the threat.
Must watch, in case you all didn’t see it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#41577220
Niall Ferguson rolls through MSNBC like a category five and leaves the entire crew shaken to their cores. An amazing performance.
(Note in particular around 7:15 where everyone seems almost visibly perturbed, shuffling around and diverting their eyes. Priceless.)
Thus, elections have no downside.
I feel the same way when I bet against my local football team. If they win I’m happy and if the lose I’m happy.
It should have started at home, “in here,” with mass deportation of all those who adhere to the Mecca-centric imperialism.
ZionT,
Out of morbid curiosity, where would you have “deported” the Muslims who are American citizens to?
Much as I hate to admit it, InChworm is right about the U.S. propping up Islamic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under Bush Jr., the American military force acquiesced to the writing of constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq that assume the primacy of Islamic law.
And what is that supposed to mean.
There are a few possibilities here. If the Left is saying that Islam, by itself, constitutes a threat wherever it exists, then they are basically saying they actually believe what they accuse Republicans of believing. Basically that “islam” is the issue and we’re in a religious war over beliefs and gods, not just “variations” on a peaceful religion.
It means, logically, if the Left wanted to wipe out the threat to the US, they would authorize mass murder and kill every Muslim in existence, if they could get away with it.
Is that what they are trying to claim for themselves?
One other possibility is that the Left believes success in the Middle East depends upon how close it resembles the US, good and bad Muslims included. Supposedly we can’t ally with them either, because they’ll be “corrupt South Vietnamese people who need to die horribly to satisfy the Left”. Petraeus has shoved that little fantasy of the Left down their throats and up their backsides, at once. However, if that were really the case, the Left would be making the claim based off the view that we are being hypocrites. That we, to truly secure our goals, must conform the local culture to our specifications of United States politics. For one thing, I’m not sure US politics is the right model to look at the Middle East with, and it’s not just Obama’s Chicago way of corruption and trash talking white police officers. Well, in that case, we’re screwed if we make them do it our way and we’re screwed if we let them make their own rules.
Fortunately for us, we’re not screwed because in reality there are real solutions and they don’t involve “simplistic” frameworks such as “All Islam and Muslims are evil” or “Success is only determined if Iraq becomes a copy of Chicago”.
Simplistic, and wrong, models aren’t very useful on this venue. Solutions do not come from erroneous models. Take a look at Global Warming. Making up data for political reasons is going to create… solutions? How does is that supposed to work again. An erroneous model of Iraq and Afghanistan is the Number 1 priority to get rid of. Until people get the right framework, they can’t progress any further. All they’ll be doing is creating trash that American soldiers and diplomats have to clean up sometime later.
To rephrase what I would have said to Richard. It doesn’t matter what people want. It only matters what they can be made or convinced to do.
If people want to vote for theocracies, it’s because somebody made them want to. And if they want a Western democracy, that’s because somebody told them that was a good idea too.
It matters not what people “want”. It only matters what they “need” to survive. Governments shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who wants what, because they’ll be deciding who gets what. And guess which class of people are going to get the resources redistributed to them.
Do people need food to survive? Shelter? Water? A functioning electrical grid? Maybe not. What about jobs? Well, no jobs, no food sooner or later. So yeah, jobs. A functional economy, at least.
That is what people need. And based upon what, which model of government can provide those needs is the right government. Regardless of what it is called or “who thinks that they want something”.
This reminds me of the idea floated among conservatives after November 2008 that the election of Obama would see the end of the race card.
The argument was that with the “Man” being black now, the effectiveness of institutional racism as a charge will go down.
Which it has. The only people who argued that the race wars would end, were the ones behind the race wars: Democrats.
You need to correct your mistaken memories on this matter.
The goal following the aftermath of 9/11 shouldn’t have been “more democracy” but “less Islam.” After all, that is the enemy here.
That’s like someone coming into America and telling us we need to be taxed for 90% of our income, including the food and water we use.
Do you actually think that’s going to work with the number of Americans who will use violence to protest such plans?
Reality requires real solutions. Not fantasy constructions.
And what is that supposed to mean.
It simply means this, Ymar:
Iraq’s new Constitution:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
Afghanistan’s new Constitution:
Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
Why should American’s be concerned if the Egyptians set up an Islamic State when we set up Islamic states in Iraq and Afghanistan?
InTheory: because, as I assume you already know, all Islamic states are not the same.
Many Muslim countries call themselves Islamic, but their governments are far more secular than others who also call themselves Islamic. For example, Iraq is a relatively secular state compared to many others in the region, notably Iran, which is not only Islamic but, far more importantly, is a theocracy with a civilian veneer that’s just for show.
It is especially the latter possibility, or something close to it, that people are concerned about for Egypt, as well as shifting alliances and a more aggressive policy towards Israel.
And, by the way, until the current revolution, Egypt has had an amendment to its constitution (passed in 1980) saying that “Islamic law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules.” And yet Egypt was still a relatively secular state.
ME countries are in no way defined by their constitutions. Probably, only in USA constitution is a serious factor in politics and civil life. Non-formal tribal customs and traditions are far more influential than all governmental institutions, laws and formal rules, in all Third World countries. In Iraq, Egypt and so on laws are a lipstick on a pig.
ziontruths. If people are made to want something, then they want it. Culture, religion, education, all combine.
Marxists don’t have to learn. It’s the useful fools who are fooled by Marxists. As things become more and more obvious, it becomes harder for useful fools to insist on their foolishness. Eventually, moral preening seems less important than, say, survival. Moral preening is not more important than somebody else’s survival, it should go without saying, but it’s less important to the preening useful idiot than his very own, actual, obvious, right-in-his-face survival. Usually.
It’s all fun and games until the Sphinx gets blown up like those statues of Buddha in Afghanistan….
Gray.
Somebody will make excuses. A non-Muslim, I mean.
Upside to the Egyptian Revolution: They feel good about themselves while they starve, unable to purchase grain until they get money and food from Islamic nations hostile to te US
Downside to the Egyptian Revolution: They close the Suez Canal and stone homosexuals and adulterers with pieces broken from artifacts while getting money and food from Islamic nations hostile to the US.
Kolnai, thanks for the link, I hope Ferguson opened a few eyes among the believers.
It seems increasing easy to sum up Obama’s world:
Foreign Policy: Love me I’m not George Bush.
Health: I decide, you appreciate or you’re a bigot.
Debt: Look at me I’m for thrift now that I cannot spend anymore. BTW, what’s thrift?
Commerce: Money is evil, George Bush made money for oil.
Energy: Oil is evil, George made money for oil. Let’s not drill for oil. If you will green jobs they will come because I’m Barack Obama man g-d.
Law enforcement: Applicable only if victim is non-white. White bad, non-white good.
Illegal immigration: see above
Response to contempt court from Louisiana for not resuming drilling: I do not have to obey because I’m Barack Obama, man g-d, above the laws of mere mortals.
appointees: People who agree with me because I’m Barack Obama, man g-d.
all other aspects of government: love me, I’m Barack Obama, man g-d, and not George Bush.
and His supporters: He is Barack Obama, man g-d, and not George Bush, the big oil lackey and killer of whales and puppies.
I wonder why Obama doesn’t refer to himself in the 3rd person?
Why should American’s be concerned if the Egyptians set up an Islamic State when we set up Islamic states in Iraq and Afghanistan?
That’s an easy question to answer.
Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, working with them. Where are the Americans working in Egypt to make sure that when things go downhill, we’d know about it?
Do you somehow think you sitting here in the US, will be able to tell what goes right or wrong in Egypt.
It amazes me that the Egyptians are cheering, “Yay, we got rid of a military dictator and replaced him with a military dictatorshiip!
Richard Saunders.
According to the various news reports, the Egyptian Army is a highly-respected institution. Like in our country, far more respected than politicians and similar parasites.
So they’ll have a honeymoon until it becomes clear they can’t grow jobs, either, among other things.
Do you somehow think you sitting here in the US, will be able to tell what goes right or wrong in Egypt.
That was my original point, Ymar.
Ymarsakar,
“Do you actually think that’s going to work with the number of Americans who will use violence to protest such plans?”
Oh yeah, I forgot: We’re better than them; that’s why the fact that they refuse houses of worship of other religions in their states means we should show how morally elevated we are by not responding in kind, by letting them build their salt-in-wound mosque on Ground Zero.
As the tombstone might say:
HERE LIES
WESTERN CIVILIZATION
600 BC – 1988
THEY WERE BETTER THAN THEIR ENEMIES
I have nothing but contempt for your line of thinking.
“Reality requires real solutions. Not fantasy constructions.”
My irony meter just went permanently out of order.