[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?

[borism]

besides Suez canal is really a non-issue for US military's current missions - it has firm positions at Diego Garcia, in Persian Gulf and Pacific which is really a stones throw.

Suez is real issue if you want to move that force into Mediterranean.

[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.