Have been watching and reading about Eygpt, but not thinking much about it - or rather standing back and letting the ground settle a bit before trying to make sense of things - if things can even be made sense of - in fact Byron York wrote article today about how recent Pew Research polling suggests Egyptians themselves are quite confused about what a 'good' outcome would be, with answers to some questions suggesting that an embrace of Islamic fundamentalism would be acceptable [large pluralities in support of stoning to death for adulterers and death also for apostates etc] and other answers suggesting they possibly like the ideas of democracy and free speech - antithetical viewpoints which lead one to think that probably what they mean by democracy and free speech is different from what we mean [especially since the Koran forbids putting any law above Allah's]. Seems reasonably clearish to me though that there will be more losers than winners here - in fact the only winners may end up being the Muslim Brotherhood and related Islamist sects, and then everybody loses big time - but with the military increasingly calling shots I think that decreases likelihood of things playing out in MB's explicit favor - and possibly the net losses only end up being marginal ie Mubarak is replaced, which may amount to a relative 'good' if you actually live in Egypt but then maybe not so much if he's simply replaced by some inside operative, or even a military coup, that only offers the illusion of change - but of course if that happens the danger then becomes if the uprising really is an expression of deep seated discontent [and it's not at all clear that that's the case, or, even if it is, whether there's a central and unifying theme or motivation to it] then merely getting rid of Mubarak won't do - and it's at that point that uprisings turn into revolutions which are easily hijacked by radicals and extremists - and then you'd have lots of shit hitting a very big fan.
Since the Israelis probably have the most to lose here, I'm listening a lot to what they have to say - and they ain't an optimistic crew right now. Of course, they tend to not believe Islamic states are compatible with democracy and therefore dismiss out of hand the only universal positive that could come out of this disruption - and in general I agree with them on that point. Because of this cynicism they adhere to a 'better the devil you know' attitude - yes, Mubarak was an autocratic sleaze ball, but we trusted him to honor the peace and we don't trust at all in that regard what may follow after him. They're not at all happy with Obama admin response to crisis, which at first seemed clueless and now wants to embrace the idea of throwing Mubarak aside, something they see as suicidal viz US interests - Israelis really don't have any faith in Muslim capacity to regulate themselves according to modern norms of governance, law and individual liberty. No doubt they also fear that the removal of Mubarak sets a bad precedence for other unstable states in their neighborhood - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Syria - who may also indeed be under the rule of autocratic sleaze balls but who nevertheless can to a certain degree be relied on to keep the peace - a faux democratic wave may be cheered at first by naive types in US et al but the reality that would emerge from the turmoil of these toppling autocracies would be one of chaos, extremism and eventually war.
Still, the Egyptian military seems to have abandoned Mubarak [indeed I've read reports that this whole thing was manufactured by the military for the express purpose of getting rid of Mubarak and his son] and therefore his days are most likely numbered - and so I'm not sure you can fault Obama for abandoning him too and calling for democratic reforms. I dunno - as one wag said, there may be no good options for the US in Egypt but how did Obama manage to pick the worst of the bunch? I can see that turning out to be true.
But are you really saying that you're against supporting a democracy movement [who says it's a democracy movement? and what the fuck do they mean by 'democracy'?] in a Muslim country suffering under afflictions of a repressive or simply just dysfunctional oligarchy? Well, Obama didn't support same in Iran and there was much more cause for it there - although, I was not necessarily an advocate of it in that instance either. Look, you enter a donkey into a horse race and you don't suddenly become competitive by calling your ass Secretariat - if Egypt wakes up tomorrow and a military coup has taken control and announces that the Kingdom of the Nile will from now on be a real democracy that will be a meaningless statement - and I have no doubt carnage and chaos will swill in the wake. The problem with Arab Muslim polities is not a democracy deficit per se, but rather a dependence on Islam that retards the public weal when it comes to the demands of the modern world - China is hardly a democracy, yet it has advanced greatly in the last 20 years by adopting certain economic practices of the democratic West - if China was a Muslim country, does anyone believe that would have happened? Impossible to prove of course, but I would imagine most would say definitely not - and so there ya go.
So I side with the Israelis and remain quite sceptical viz Egypt - as for what the Obama admin should do, my guess is no matter what happens America will be scorned and repudiated and therefore their concern should be for whatever promotes stability in the region as a whole, keeping in mind that any false stability that however serves the interests of Iran would prove counterproductive - although, having said that, I'm not sure you can avoid that scenario - Iran's calculus here is in some ways even more treacherous than America's.
Still, the Egyptian military seems to have abandoned Mubarak [indeed I've read reports that this whole thing was manufactured by the military for the express purpose of getting rid of Mubarak and his son] and therefore his days are most likely numbered - and so I'm not sure you can fault Obama for abandoning him too and calling for democratic reforms. I dunno - as one wag said, there may be no good options for the US in Egypt but how did Obama manage to pick the worst of the bunch? I can see that turning out to be true.
But are you really saying that you're against supporting a democracy movement [who says it's a democracy movement? and what the fuck do they mean by 'democracy'?] in a Muslim country suffering under afflictions of a repressive or simply just dysfunctional oligarchy? Well, Obama didn't support same in Iran and there was much more cause for it there - although, I was not necessarily an advocate of it in that instance either. Look, you enter a donkey into a horse race and you don't suddenly become competitive by calling your ass Secretariat - if Egypt wakes up tomorrow and a military coup has taken control and announces that the Kingdom of the Nile will from now on be a real democracy that will be a meaningless statement - and I have no doubt carnage and chaos will swill in the wake. The problem with Arab Muslim polities is not a democracy deficit per se, but rather a dependence on Islam that retards the public weal when it comes to the demands of the modern world - China is hardly a democracy, yet it has advanced greatly in the last 20 years by adopting certain economic practices of the democratic West - if China was a Muslim country, does anyone believe that would have happened? Impossible to prove of course, but I would imagine most would say definitely not - and so there ya go.
So I side with the Israelis and remain quite sceptical viz Egypt - as for what the Obama admin should do, my guess is no matter what happens America will be scorned and repudiated and therefore their concern should be for whatever promotes stability in the region as a whole, keeping in mind that any false stability that however serves the interests of Iran would prove counterproductive - although, having said that, I'm not sure you can avoid that scenario - Iran's calculus here is in some ways even more treacherous than America's.
