I'm not one of these fools like Joel who somehow thinks that democracy is a purely Western notion that the rest of the world will never or can never share. However, I'm not one of these silly idealists who thinks that Egypt can be a democracy within the next 15 years or so.

The reasons are simple. Democracy requires several prerequisites: (1) a middle class with capital and time to invest in maintaining a democracy, as well as something to lose if it fails, (2) a functioning economy that supports such middle class, and (3) a society that values personal freedoms. I think that it is also highly desirable, but perhaps not essential, to have a network of social and civic institutions outside the government that help create loose bonds outside traditional clan/tribe/religious/racial networks.

Egypt has none of these. It is an overpopulated cesspool with almost no middle class, an economy that survives on foreign aid, and a society where over 80% of the populace believes that it is a good thing to kill someone for ceasing to be a Muslim. Aside from that, a significant portion of the population doesn't believe in a whole host of other personal freedoms.

Institutionally, the Egyptians can end up doing what the Iraqis, the Libyans and even the Palestinians have done. They can go to the polls and vote and spend the next three days fantasizing about how things are going to change. What they can't do is change the hard reality of Egypt, which is controlled by demographics, religious intolerance and a lack of natural resources and industry.

You see the "end goal" as a working democracy. I see that as implausible as a revival of the ancient Egyptian religion and the construction of a huge new Temple of Aman-Ri' in downtown Cairo.

The best that we can hope for at this point is a benevolent dictatorship that helps lay the groundwork for democracy by fixing Egypt's problems. The first problem - intolerance - is something that the army is fixing. Martyrs can only inspire when people aren't terrified. The policy should be to make as many martyrs as possible, so that people stop wanting to join a list that reads more like a casualty report than a call to arms.

The second thing the new government needs to do is find ways for Egypt to make money. Free trade zones, industrial areas near the Suez Canal, and other similar operations are natural choices. The third thing should be an attempt to implement some sort of family planning to control the population growth, which is Egypt's major problem right now. This could also help against the Islamists, because the government could refuse to license subversives to have children.

Then, slowly, after a decade or so, the society will become stronger. It's the model that worked well in East Asia. It might have already worked in Iran if the Khatami reforms had continued and Iran had moderated itself more. Of course, the reason that it didn't was precisely because the dictator there isn't benevolent and doesn't want to share any power.

So maybe, in some nebulous future, the goal is democracy, but it certainly isn't now. The Arab Spring was always destined to be the miserable failure it became. The main good things that came of it were: (1) helping the educated elites realize how many reactionaries there are in their countries, (2) sweeping away the old guard of dictators, and (3) deflecting anger usually directed against the West back where it belongs.

Oh, and if they're smart, they've already put a bullet in Morsi's head and dissolved the body in acid à la Breaking Bad.

On Lebanon, the country won't have a full-scale civil war unless the Sunnis somehow convince the Christians to side with them (highly unlikely given the jihadi nature of the Sunni opposition). However, lots of jihadis from Lebanon (both sides) will get involved in Syria.

As for Iraq, I think the Sunnis in Syria and Iraq would try to make some contiguous state from Anbar Province through Aleppo, because Assad is already realizing he probably can't keep all of Syria.