None of any kind. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 31/01/2011 01:27:48 AM
Sure, Mid-Easterners are intelligent human beings; most of Iran is, much good as it does them under the mullahs. Unfortunately, the commentaries and analysis I've seen on the riots in Egypt (and, really, when you start burning buildings, terrorizing foreigners and throwing bombs you've crossed the line from "protester" to "rioter" ) all agree on two points:
Did you by any chance notice which buildings they torched, and which ones they formed human chains around to protect? Let me tell you, there's a rather obvious pattern to it.
So initiating violence is legitimate protest provided you choose the right target? I strongly disagree. You compared this to the American Revolution earlier; when John Adams was called upon to defend the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, his sympathies were strongly with his fellow colonists, yet he passionately argued for the soldiers acquittal in part because nearly every witness agreed THOSE protesters had been hurling missiles at the soldiers long before anyone was shot. Thus he argued they had the right to defend themselves with force and that even given a documented history of animosity between specific soldiers and specific slain protesters it was manslaughter at the most, not murder. You can't initiate violence and then cry foul when it's resisted with superior violence.
2) If his government does topple it's almost a given the new government will be controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
In the short term, yes, probably. That's inconvenient to the world and rather more than just inconvenient for those which benefit hugely from cooperating with Mubarak's dictatorship, but it's an inconvenience that's more than worth it.
It's rather more than inconvenient to those likely to be brutally repressed, imprisoned, tortured and/or executed for being:
1) Women who won't wear a burka,
2) Egyptians more interested than Egypt than a pan-Islamic theocracy,
3) Non-Muslims,
4) Heterodox Muslims and
5) Westerners in Egypt
For them a Muslim Brotherhood government even you concede is probable would simply mean far more of the same things that supposedly justify violently overthrowing Mubarak.
The Egyptians know what happened in Iran, too. And you'll note the Muslim Brotherhood is supporting the protests, but most definitely not leading them. They may well be influential in any more or less democratic government following Mubarak's fall, but the Egyptian people won't stand for one dictatorship being replaced by another.
Time will likely tell. Yes, the Egyptians know what happened in Iran, and that's part of why they so long submitted to Mubaraks brutality--because the alternative is likely to be at least as bad and probably worse. Until yesterday I'd seen no reason to see otherwise; now I've seen a single piece, but there's still a lot more on the other side.
The Arabic world, or the (extended) Middle East in general really, has for the most part been under secular dictatorships ever since the colonial age ended, and under colonial rule before that. You can't expect their transitions to democracy to happen perfectly smoothly, but if you use that as an argument to prevent those transitions to democracy from ever occurring, well, that will only end up making them more desperate and more hellbent on either fleeing to the West, or attacking it out of frustration. Those transitions have to happen at some point; there will always be short-term interests that make it preferable for some to postpone them, but the long-term interests of having a democratic Middle East at some point in the future should not be underestimated. And hell, if the US was willing to start an expensive and bloody war to impose democracy in Iraq, you'd think it would be willing to allow it to happen on its own accord in Egypt (though then again, from what I've seen so far, Obama mostly IS willing, it's just you who aren't).
From what I'VE seen so far there's little reason to believe a transition to democracy, incremental or otherwise, is what's happening in Egypt. Before you condemn my opposition to something why don't we verify that it actually exists, eh? Because, once again, I'm not saying I hope Mubaraks regime survives this, I'm saying that IF a successor regime would be far more authoritarian, brutal and insensitive to free expression and democracy, if it would simply make sectarian violence in the streets with government sanction the norm, then Mubaraks regime is preferable, not because he has no blood on his hands but because he has less than anyone else would. I'd love to see a truly free and democratic Egpyt, consider it infinitely preferable to Mubaraks regime, but I'm not sure that's on the table here; there's more evidence it's a choice between the extent and leaders of continued brutal violence and repression. IF that assessment is wrong I'll have no hesitation in cheering for true democracy along with everyone else, but democracy is more than simply removing one tyrant in a country boiling with violent xenophobia. Even if I had a vote I wouldn't cast it for any of the contestants here because I'm not convinced any of them are worthy of it.
Sure, not all Egyptians follow his corpse, but enough of them do to cause his imprisonment, just as the danger of him causing violent revolution was enough to get him executed. If you want to argue Egypt should've given Qutb and his student Iman Al Zawahiri fair trials before imprisoning them, I'll agree, but if you want to argue they'd make better Egyptian leaders than Mubarak simply because they can muster an electoral plurality I can't. Give me a reason to believe Mubarak isn't just the Shah all over again--in EVERY sense--and I might endorse what's happening in Egypt. The scale and extent of violence argue against that, as does the seemingly unanimous analyst view that removing Mubarak would simply install a government consisting of people who think violence against seemingly everyone not an orthodox (in their eyes) male Muslim is not only right but necessary.
If Mubarak is the Shah all over again - and the similarities are indeed large, even if there are significant differences as well - you would think you'd realize how dangerous it is to keep supporting him forever, while the oppressed people's resentment against both Mubarak and his foreign puppet masters keeps growing.
Sure I do, and Obama does as well, hence his waffling and saying little except that he supports the peoples right to protest, won't intervene and condemns the violence from both sides. Yet Obamas caution is no accident, and others would do well to emulate it. If this were as simple as democracy vs. despotism you can bet he'd long ago have been more explicit and emphatic on the protesters behalf, and made clear to Mubarak that he should leave immediately because he would no longer receive the US military hardware on which his hardliner regime depends. Instead, Obama and his State Dept. seem well aware that removing Mubarak doesn't automatically improve Egypt any more than removing the Shah automatically improved Iran or removing Saddam automatically improved Iraq. And in case you missed it, I never supported attempts to impose democracy on Iraq, so it should hardly surprise you I find it just as unappealing in Egypt. It's their country to run as they please, just one of the points on which I disagree with the leaders of the government likely to be running Egypt soon.
Yet, once again, and I can't stress this enough, I am NOT endorsing Mubarak, and wouldn't even if that endorsement carried weight. I endorse democracy over despotism where that's attainable, but where it's not I support reduced oppression, violence and state sanctioned murder over expanded oppression, violence and state sanctioned murder. I suspect the latter choice is what Egypt is being offered, but I can't be certain so even my largely meaningless vote goes to no one.