It’s more a mindset of taking care of our best interests. Sometimes that means we have to deal with unpleasant people.
Lots. But are we really going to use military force? It seems like any use of force would sour our relations with the people of Egypt*, who will eventually just revolt again and put in a more anti-US regime than they would have this time. And I think that the regime that takes over after Mubarak will reject US monetary aid if it comes with the same pro-Israel strings attached, and maybe even if it doesn’t. Obama is playing his cards very close to the chest, which is smart. We can’t really improve anything by intervening, so he’s refusing to make a choice until it’s clear who’s going to win.
*Worse than they are now, I mean.
Ok great, I guess that is one way to collapse a variety of individuals and contexts into one convenient group. Does this mean that Ataturk was maintaining the policy of killing Armenians? Cause that is what I was commenting on.
I’m at a loss at figuring out how Mubarak oppression of his own people is in the best interest of US? Was propping up Shah in Iran in US best interest? People may suffer but they don’t forget so why, even now when the regime is crumbling, why would US insist on supporting the guy, who for 30 years kept that society at still for some dubious US interest that may not hold today and who is in his freaking 80-ies is called to fix the mess? It’s incredible but will not, in my opinion, change anything.
These people need jobs, future, something to look forward to and it appears as they will make it happen. With or without US. It’s just a shame that US is working on suppression of popular uprising. I think there goes a last shred of credibility, if the was ever any to begin with.
And sacrificing the freedoms of a few countries here and there.
I mean, if you think that Mubarak is “unpleasant,” imagine how the people who actually live under him feel. And it’s not like we are just tolerating the guy at a dinner party. Egypt is one of the top three largest recipients of US foreign aid. We were an instrumental part of his reign.
If you all will recall it was freedom-loving young people who toppled the Shah of Iran. Shortly thereafter the Ayatollah took over and suddenly freedom was much scarcer than it was before. It is well known that the Muslim Brotherhood is well organized and influential in Egypt. Can’t you guys get it that those of us who are expressing doubts about the uprising are just looking beyond our noses at the future? What matters is not so much Mubarak’s ouster but who will wield power in Egypt after he is gone.
You’re not looking at the future, you’re just rehashing the same old “Muslim countries’ revolutions = bad (especially for us Westerners)”.
It’s not 1979 anymore.
Sure, let’s not learn from history. We certainly won’t be doomed to repeat it.
On the other hand, Evil Captor actually expressed an idea with facts that could be checked, rather than simply posting a dismissal.
I have no idea how all this will play out in the end, but since the Brotherhood is, indeed, the largest and most organized opposition group in Egypt and since they are both armed and willing to use violence to achieve their goals, my guess is that the toppling of Mubarak will not result in a happier, more peaceful nation.
It will be nice to discover that the opposition includes a large enough number of people from sufficiently varied backgrounds, but with a unified goal of introducing genuine democratic reforms in the country. Actual evidence that such a phenomemon, (or any alternative with a reasonable hope for success), would be nice to see.
(I’m not even particularly worried about keeping Egypt “friendly” to the U.S. Simply having a rational administration that wants to improve the conditions of Egypt and is not hell-bent on joining Iran into trying to destroy Israel, while probably trying to sucker Syria to join them, would be a good start.)
It means little to America’s people. It means a lot to a few corporations though. Iran was thrown over with British and American help when the leadership threatened to take over the oil from BP.
The Shah cost the taxpayers a pile of money but it made a hell of a lot of money for oil companies. We propped that despot up for decades.
The Brotherhood’s armed wing was crushed in the 1990s and has never recovered.
If you can go a little higher I can get you you some high-octane shit, man, good stuff, lead-free!
It ain’t over yet. Don’t jinx it.
I’m pretty confident that Mubarak will be gone, one way or another. But President Suleiman wouldn’t be an improvement.
As a serious threat to a fully armed and coherent Mubarak government, I would agree with you. As a band of armed people, currently dormant, but with a enough cohesion to rise up in the midst of a chaotic situation, I can hope you are right, but I would not put money on either outcome.
The Brotherhood got about 20% of the vote in the last election. An election that the Brotherhood encouraged full participation in. Only 20% of the available electorate voted. Why, that’s a ringing endorsement. So about 4%. Here’s a general cite from that hive of scum and villainy the Christian Science Monitor:
There are many, many others, and Google is such a great resource.
You’ll need your own cites, Tom, for the Brotherhood being “armed and willing to use violence”. They have gone out of the way in Egypt, during the current unpleasantness, and for a good while before, not to do so.
He served an interest by keeping the region stable and taking a serious player, Egypt, out of the Israeli conflict. In essence, Egypt was a calming influence at best and that suited Western, indeed even world interests. Not sure how fermenting dissent would have helped.
I’m hopeful for Egypt but pessimistic at what the future will really bring.
And what will?
Waiting until Mubarak kicks it and then facing this exact same thing ten? Keeping the status quo and hoping that somehow people get less angry at America? Hoping something magically changes? Continuing to play the “backing dictators” game with a new batch (this time to keep out the Muslims rather than the Commies) even though every single time we’ve done it, it has backfired on us?
It likely will not be an easy transition. Things will probably get worse before they get better. If this wave of revolution continues, it is probable that some extremist governments will get into power- certainly there ins’t much hope for Yemen. There are a lot of angry people, and they are angry at us, and to some degree they probably have a good reason to be. Can you honestly say you’d be cool with American if you were one of the people oppressed by Mubarak? These forces will come to the surface.
But, with any luck, these forces will run their course. If people who want their freedom can kick us out, they can kick out their next batch of baddies, too. Eventually they will figure it out for themselves…and at least we can say the baddies are not our own.
We got our hands in an ugly, ugly pot with the Cold War. It has to resolve itself somehow. These dictators are anachronisms. They are dinosaurs. They need to go extinct. There is no way to make this process pretty. But one way or another, now or later, it’ll have to happen.
I hope you are right Even Sven but I dint think you are. A theocracy is the last thing we need in Egypt.
I have no really good idea.
I am not opposing the efforts to remove Mubarak. With you, I believe that this was inevitable.
Nor am I making any claims that Egypt is doomed.
At this point, I simply do not believe that any of us know how this will turn out and I suspect that most predictions, here, are based more on either wishful thinking or utter pessimism than on a serious understanding of the situation on the ground.