Who says that? I read that the deposed Ben-Ali was backed by the US, France and others almost to the last hour.
There are many articles in the French press about the facts that:
-France did back Ben ali up till the end (on the other hand he played a good one on everybody when he made his reassuring speech, saying he would quit power when his term ends, and then leaving without notice 12 hours later)
-the reason the Tunisian Revolution succeeded (not in its outcome of course, that is yet to be determined, but on removing Ben ali from power) is because the army didnt follow
-from there there are recurring articles (and I’m talking about major newspapers with different leanings) about how the French government was totally clueless about what was happening in Tunisia
-and that the US (its State Department) were far more in touch, and had pressured or sufficiently influenced the Tunisian army to keep out of the conflict (in case you wonder, it is usually praised, it is not a “Imperial US rant” type trope)
Of course, maybe it could be bullshit but the strange thing is that the army did let things happen. Ben Ali was far more of a police strongman than an army one (his regime was far more police state than military dictature anyway). So maybe he didnt have that much backup in the army in the first place, and his police forces would not have been sufficient to hold the whole population.
I guess the weeks to come will tell us more, but I think a democratic revolution in small Tunisia, with no real Islamist force to hijack it would sound something far more desirable to the US than a revolution in one of the most important Arab countries, whith a strong Islamist party, totally capable of taking over (though I dont think the Muslim Brotherhood is really comparable to the F.I.S. or Saudi Wahhabism). The Iran syndrome has marked everybody, and to this day, is still a common frame through which are observed revolutions in the Middle East.
Egypt is next. Dare I say it? Domino effect? For democracy? I still sweat Islamist takeovers though.
And on edit, what about those vulture the Israelis ahve trained to spy? Why didnt they alert the Isrealis to it?
Yes, my impression was basically that the key moment was the Tunisian military commanders deciding to side with the people rather than with the dictator and the police. Somewhere there was an account–though perhaps it was imagined–of one of them telling Ben Ali directly that his troops would not fire on demonstrators in the street. Though, again, such a scene might result from a commander’s own uncertainty about whether his troops would obey him. Some of the Eastern European revolutions broke around that point, with small groups of soldiers independently refusing orders of that sort, and going over to the uprising piecemeal.
So, Jeffrey, Amro, how do those feet taste? 
Well, Clinton says the U.S. supports the Egyptian government.
If that sounds just too cynical for words, think about how it would look and what it would mean if the U.S. were suddenly to turn against a government it has been supporting, and subsidizing, ever since the Camp David Accord.
:eek: OH, SHIT! They just took over the Saudi embassy in Tunis! They’re holding the staff hostage for Ali’s return!
I would have been astonished if the US position was anything else. We’re not, as a rule, very interested in popular insurrections against authoritarian regimes, at least until the success of the insurrection is established.
That was at poor taste. And I was at work.
In 2005 an election took place in an Arab country that was one of the crowning glories of the Bush Doctrine – what George W Bush called the “calling of our time”, democracy promotion in Islamic countries – and was an awe-inspiring testament to the power of democracy. People risked their lives to vote, using ladders to break into polling stations which had been shut down by the government security forces. But despite the overwhelming endorsement of US policy that this would have given Bush if shown on American TV, there was almost no coverage of the event. The reason? In the 20% of districts that the Egyptian dictator Mubarak allowed free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood swept the board, with huge numbers risking being shot at/arrested etc. to vote for them :
So any elections would bring the kind of government neither America nor Israel would want, so we support the dictator. Having said that the current p[rotests in Egypt are all secular. The Brothers are staying at home.
How cynical is it to support the Egyptian government and others like it for decades, then to invade the world’s second-largest oil reserve because you’ve decided to promote democracy in the region, then decide you don’t really want to aupport democracy in Middle Eastern dictatorships a couple of years later?
That is REALLY a mischaracterization of your link. Here’s what the link actually says:
Not sure how that translates to “Clinton says the U.S. supports the Egyptian government.”
More.
FWIW, from their official site here,
This appears to be a reversal of an earlier statement that they would not participate. And while MB contingents may not be appearing on the street as such (I saw only one report that I can’t find now, of a peaceful group of perhaps 1,000 on the first day), I doubt that means they’re all staying home.
The Egyptian revolt is certainly not just an Islamist movement, as the regime might wish Westerners and secular Arabs to believe.
As for the US posture (is BrainGlutton just playing games?), how about this,
And this,
Even if Mubarak has his police openly shooting people in the streets, the United States government will not truly kick him to the curb unless and until it becomes clear that he is going down.
Nah; Dick Dastardly asked “How cynical is it”; BrainGlutton said “more”.
IIRC, when Iran’s revolution occurred, it was a popular revolution all about ousting the Shah of Iran, a puppet installed by the CIA, as was widely known. Not about Muslim fundamentalism at all, was the story in many media. We all know how THAT turned out.