[chailatte]

You know who else won't sleep well tonight? US leaders. Basically, the arab youth is overthrowing the US puppets and overturning US influence in middle east. Joe Biden has voiced open support for Egyptian president today, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been tactful so far.

As an American, I am glad that the arab youth is escaping the imperialistic shadow that US has casted over the middle east. As an American, I lament that this is the end of the US dominance. As an American, I fear that the revolution around the world will force US into a totalitarian government. As an American, I hope that true democracy will ultimately triumph.

[colinplamondon]

Of course they won't sleep well tonight- the last thing we want is a violent Islamic theocracy in Egypt. Egypt isn't Tunisia.

If this revolution goes through it's 50/50, liberal democracy (ElBaradei) vs Islamic theocracy (Muslim Brotherhood). It's that 50% chance that keeps us supporting Mubarak.

American foreign policy is deigned to secure American national security- we have our hands full in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Somalia. The last thing we need right now is to have to worry about Egypt as well.

[sasvari]

The last thing we need right now is to have to worry about Egypt as well.

the last thing you got now.

it was only a matter of time things started to blow off. if you look at the demographics in the arab countries (+ Egypt) and their lack of perspective, it is/was very careless to think it will continue just like the last decades.

[bilbo0s]

"...If this revolution goes through it's 50/50, liberal democracy (ElBaradei) vs Islamic theocracy (Muslim Brotherhood)..."

If that were the case, I think American leaders would sleep relatively well. The issue is that if those latest elections had not been rigged by Mubarak, then the Muslim Brotherhood would have won by a clear majority. I think the narrative that Western media is pushing about El Baradei being the future leader of Egypt is just the sort of somewhat fanciful thinking that has brought us to where we are today.

The power of technology only serves as a multiplier for the effectiveness of the people utilizing it. It does not change their hopes, or fears, or tastes, or biases.

It took me a long time to realize in my euphoria about the implications of widespread access to technology, that the Human Element is the weakness in the system...

Or its strength.

[knowtheory]

Destabilizing Egypt could destabilize the entire area.

Say what you want about how repressive Mubarak's regime is (and it certainly is hostile to the world view i hold dear), but this is a burning house that could easily torch the entire neighborhood.

Egypt's current regime is secular and not hostile to Israel, which are two things we can not take for granted for whatever regime replaces Mubarak.

In so far as the entire world has stakes in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the revolution in Egypt poses a variety of very real risks both in terms of foreign policy for nations like the US, and in terms of potential for lives lost.

[bioh42_2]

Destabilizing Egypt could destabilize the entire area.

This is quite the statement. To me personally shocking, but sadly not shocking in general.

Allow me to rephrase:

We must hold an entire nation hostage to a brutal and incompetent dictator, otherwise who knows what their foreign policy will be.

My reply to that is, what gives anyone the right to trade other people's rights, freedoms, and frequently even lives, for hypothetical political fallout?

Doe Egypt have enough nukes to end the world? Do they have any nukes?

Are we sure another regime will be worse? How much worse? What's the worst that could happen realistically? Is us completely betraying our own American ideals of truth, justice and freedom for all, worth it?

[knowtheory]

As i stated below, i do not buy into the false dichotomy you and many others keep asserting.

It is naïve to not ask what the potential outcomes will be to toppling Mubarak, especially if one cares about about human rights.

This is the exact same sort of reasoning that Neo-cons used for why Iraq should be invaded, damn the consequences! Is Iraq a better place? Has the lot of Iraqis improved? If you believe it has, at what cost in terms of lives and treasure?

[Qz]

The difference there of course is that the Iraqis were not in open revolt at the time. Whether or not that was due to how much more insane of a dictator Hussein was I leave as an open question.

[ugh]

That’s why the West’s support for suppressive regimes is so dangerous. It’s a temporary fix, you can’t count on it forever and it might just erupt and end badly for everyone involved. It seems like a pragmatic fix but has serious downsides.

If at all possible the West should avoid to let the enemy of its enemy become its friend.

[Maro]

Temporary fix = 3 decades

That's an adult lifetime.

[ugh]

Well, thirty years is still not a really substantial amount of time.

[JonnieCache]

It is if you're thirty years old.

[michaelchisari]

Egypt's current regime may not be hostile towards Israel, but more importantly, it is very hostile to Egyptians.

[knowtheory]

That's a dangerously short sighted POV.

The middle east holds a similar web of interconnected alliances and individual flash points that histories of WWI point out in Europe.

Reform and/or toppling of regimes in the middle east are certainly long over due, but uncontrolled destabilization is an incredibly risky and dangerous proposition, and nations like Iran are an example of what can result.

One can hardly claim that that would be an outcome resulting in improved conditions for Egyptians.

[michaelchisari]

Supporting brutal dictatorships due to a cynical realpolitik in favor of regional stability over human rights is the very definition of short-sightedness. That's been the case throughout modern history.

[knowtheory]

I don't advocate the false dichotomy you're trying to pin on me. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Both povs are short sighted. I do not favor either support for brutal dictatorships, or the rabid furor that Mubarak opponents have begun to spout (either out of a loathing for Mubarak, or a loathing of the US).

But people who support the collapse of the Mubarak regime without an acknowledgment and understanding that there are factors like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are like the Neo-cons supporting GWBs push into Iraq w/o a plan for setting up credible institutions, and defusing tensions after the immediate conflagration.

Mark my words, there will be even more suffering and political upheaval in the power vacuum after Mubarak.

[chailatte]

Good, let it destabilize. I can't wait until $5/gas forces US to mandate electric cars as a policy. I can't wait until US pulls out of the middle east, and the government cuts all sorts of debt so that we don't burden our children with a miserable future.

And converting a government to democracy always comes with a price. I am sure the arab youth is ready and willing for that result.

[jacquesm]

> Good, let it destabilize.

That's like wishing for an avalanche to start. The problem with avalanches is that you do not know when they'll stop, potentially you're talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of people to die. If the end result is worth it or not can not be known at this point in time. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[timmaah]

Is it a surprise that tens of thousands may die? They appear to be willing to take that risk and I applaud them. The American Revolution cost 50,000 lives on each side.

[StrawberryFrog]

And the people of Egypt have taken the decision that uncontrollable change is likely to be better than where the current poor state of affairs is leading.

That is a form of democracy. I'd prefer to wish it ending well than to wish it not happening at all.

[chailatte]

1.) The destabilization is due to youth overthrowing dictatorship in order to establish democracy. You're saying that's a bad thing?

2.) The avalanche has already started, despite our massive meddling.

3.) US should not have a say in middle east, period. What gives us the right?

[jacquesm]

> 1.) The destabilization is due to youth overthrowing dictatorship in order to establish democracy. You're saying that's a bad thing?

Don't put words in my mouth. If democracy is the outcome then that's good. There are many other possible outcomes.

> 2.) The avalanche has already started, despite our massive meddling.

I don't know who 'our' is but I had no part in that, not even by proxy. The avalanche may have started, it may not have, it may be that this will burn out or it may be that regime change in Egypt is now inevitable. If it is I hope for it to happen quickly and in a way that will be a model for other states to follow, if it turns out that it gets messy (or even very messy) with a bad or worse outcome than the current situation then I would hope for the avalanche to be restricted to Egypt. Beware of exchanging the devil that you know for one that you haven't met yet.

> 3.) US should not have a say in middle east, period. What gives us the right?

I agree with that, but again, I'm not a part of 'us'.

Chances are that there will be no democracy in Egypt but that a little sideshow called 'the Muslim brotherhood' will seize power.

I remember Persian students taking to the streets to overthrow the dictator and to improve things. That's called "The Islamic Republic of Iran" today and I every much doubt that people in general think that is an improvement over the arguably very bad regime of the Shah.

[knowtheory]

You also should understand that Egypt controls the Suez canal, which is not just a major international shipping channel carrying goods of all sorts, but is also vital to the US Navy in it's efforts not just to carry out it's missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also for how it polices waters off of Somalia and the Horn of Africa in it's efforts to fight real world piracy.

[bioh42_2]

Oh no, ships will have to go all the way around Africa! You know, like the biggest ships today, too big for the Panama canal, have to go around South America.

[knowtheory]

Sarcasm is both unnecessary and unbecoming. Nor does it have any bearing on what i've said. If policy changes regarding the canal we will see an impact on both international trade and governance.

[bioh42_2]

Well you are right about the sarcasm, but otherwise the only fallout I can see is it would take longer to ship things and cost a bit more because more fuel will be used.

As I mentioned, the biggest ships today already can't use the Panama canal, and yet we keep building bigger ships because despite the extra time and cost of going 'round South America, it is still profitable.

Now would going around Africa be that much different? For huge container ships? For the US navy?

[jacoblyles]

> can't wait until $5/gas forces US to mandate electric cars as a policy.

Sorry to be pedantic, but if gas prices were high enough to make electric cars economical, then electric cars wouldn't have to be mandated by the government. That's how markets and prices work.

[tomjen3]

Great. Hopefully this will force the US to stop meddling with other countries and return to its founding principles.

That would end the war on terror, on drugs, save the US economy and make them super popular around the world again.

[lionhearted]

> As an American, I am glad that the arab youth is escaping the imperialistic shadow that US has casted over the middle east.

Have you done any studying of the history of revolutions? The track record on what usually happens after them ain't so good...

Sometimes Americans underestimate how poorly and bloody and vicious revolutions usually are. Something like 80%+ of them wind up worse than the original regime they overthrew. If you've never looked into, I could try to compile some sort of list of revolutions. It really wouldn't be a pretty list. And revolutions led by angry youth have an even worse track record than the general one...

[lmkg]

I came to this thread specifically to ask this question. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate a listing.

[lionhearted]

Not a bad starting for the modern era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebelli...

...it errs on the side of too much information though, and doesn't distinguish between successful/failed, and major/minor. Also, stuff like "the Mexican drug war" is on there from 2006-present - it clearly has elements of violence against the current government, but I think it's fair to say their objective isn't regime change.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a good source, because "revolution" is used for a lot of stuff in Google and having hard time narrowing it down. I study a lot of history, though, and the vast majority of revolutions go really poorly... you almost always wind up with a revolutionary military government in charge, which don't historically govern well. The U.S. is kind of a weird outlier in revolutionary history, in that the first President was a military leader who honestly didn't want the job, and abdicated after eight years to civilian government... that just doesn't ever happen. Like, ever.

[dataminer]

Beside having very thoughtful founders, I think US revolution succeeded because the power was not concentrated in federal government, states were more or less as powerful. Most other revolutions failed because a dictator was removed to install another dictator without any devolution of power.

[JulianMorrison]

Israel's leaders won't get much sleep either. They are presently favored by the USA for two reasons: the large pro-Israel voting bloc, and the fact they are the only secular democracy in the region.

If they weren't the only democracy, people might start making comparisons.

[stevenbedrick]

Without commenting on your theory as to why Israel's favored by the USA, I'd like to point out a bigger reason that Israeli leaders won't be sleeping well: whoever ends up in charge of Egypt is quite likely to be a lot more hostile toward Israel than Mubarak's government has been.

Israel has been able to count on relatively peaceful relations with Egypt for the last few decades, meaning that since the treaty with Jordan they've only had to worry about one hostile immediate neighbor. Suddenly having to worry about Egypt as well as Lebanon would represent a big change.

[mahmud]

How is a "Jewish state" a secular democracy?

Turkey is the ONLY secular democracy in the region.

[InclinedPlane]

Israel is a secular state in practice, Turkey is a secular state by declaration. Christians, Muslims, and adherents to other religions can be and are full members of Israeli society. They can vote, they can do business, and they can, and do, serve in the government.

[mahmud]

It would take an inordinate amount of KoolAid for one to take that statement over reality.

Going by your own statement, if Israel is declared a Jewish state but a secular democracy in "practice", then all rights granted to others are only nominal and on case by case basis. There is absolutely no separation between Church and state.

[InclinedPlane]

The UK, Greece, Finland, Denmark, and Norway are officially Christian nations with state religions. Sweden disestablished its state religion in 2000. These are all nevertheless very much secular states in practice and by law. Note that Israel's religious establishment is far weaker than that of, for example, the UK.

[tomjen3]

As a Dane I have to disagree with that statement - Denmark doesn't hang non-christians, and they can speak and write and debate, but not only is a particular version of Christianity favoured by the government, the members of the Royal house must be believers in this faith, but we also teach the bible in the public schools (and we used to teach pupils to remember hymns the way they are thought mathematics, etc this practice didn't stop until about 20-30 years ago).

So no, even Denmark is far from a secular state, either by law or by practice.