Since nearly every sensible thing that can be said has been said this weekend regarding the upheaval in Egypt, I thought I would look in on what the right-wing is saying.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are so far playing it safe, essentially approving of the Obama administration’s cautious response to the crisis. But it’s only Monday.
Unfortunately, Egypt is not observable from Wasilla, so Sarah Palin hasn’t yet tweeted her foreign policy advice to the world. But it’s only Monday. I’m sure after she catches up on her weekend reading, she will offer up some profound analysis.
Bill Kristol, a Fox “News” neocon who agitated for war against Iraq as early as 1998 and who has urged the U.S. to launch a military strike against Iran, has not yet called for invading Egypt and ousting Mubarak. That’s always a good thing, but it’s only Monday.
Kristol, who always knows what we should do in every tricky situation, did say the Administration was “a little slow in reacting to events and said a couple foolish things.” Apparently, patience and deliberation is not a virtue in the Kristol family.
Speaking of a lack of patience and deliberation: The Glenn Beck News Service, The Blaze, featured this headline:
The story, written by Jonathon Seidl and complete with a Goldline ad, is one of those “connecting the dots” specials, which are the forte of the paranoid Right. It seems that the American Left, some of whom rallied this weekend in support of the Egyptian people, is encouraging the uprising because,
the power vacuum that would result from a government collapse would make the country a prime target for a socialist takeover.
Even though the protests in Egypt have been decidedly unrelated to Western politics, that’s not the way it is seen through the eyes of fearful right-wingers, at least when it comes to the motives of those Americans who support Egyptian freedom:
Is it really about democracy, then, as some of the signs suggest?
Not really. The reality seems to be closer to something like this: when a revolution opposes a leftist dictator, leftists and socialists ignore it. When a revolution opposes an American ally (particularly an ally as pivotal to U.S. security as the Egyptian alliance is) leftists and socialists support it. Succinctly put, the groups have a vested interest in the current American system being defeated (a goal shared by leftist dictators). That’s why they can support Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and even Hussein, but rally against someone such as Mubarak.
In the same vein, Red State, a popular right-wing site operated by Erick Erickson, now a CNN commentator, featured this headline:
The story takes the Beckian view one step further and involves the Obama administration in the plot to make Egypt and the Middle East a socialist paradise:
For all the lack of clarity on where the Obama administration stands, one thing is becoming more and more clear: Signs are beginning to point more toward the likelihood that President Obama’s State Department, unions, as well as Left-leaning media corporations are more directly involved in helping to ignite the Mid-East turmoil than they are publicly admitting.
Meanwhile, Dick Morris, another Foxinating right-winger who sees an Islamic terrorist hiding behind every crisis tree, is urging the U.S. to “send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.” He wrote:
The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran…
Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won’t. Iranian domination will.
It appears that some on the Right, who night and day lie and stoke fear about Obama’s imaginary disregard for the freedoms of Americans, don’t mind if he helps squash the yearnings of Egyptians who want liberty—and jobs—in their own land.
“We really run the risk of some Iranian style regime emerging in the end here,” foreign policy expert Sean Hannity said on Friday.
And even though the real experts discount that possibility (the Muslim Brotherhood reportedly represents around 20% of the population), it doesn’t matter. What matters is that however the situation in Egypt ends, Obama will have either done too much or too little. He will either have sided with the Egyptian dictator or sided with the Muslim Brotherhood or engineered a socialist revolution.
And to think it’s only Monday.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
Jim Wheeler
/ January 31, 2011A good summary, Duane. All this stuff is grist for contentious debate for sure. I have to say that the historical similarity of this situation with that of the Shah’s ouster from Iran is remarkable. I too am wondering if Egypt could be a new Iran. Agreeing with Hannity? OMG, but yes. I’m worried. The whole Middle East is a house of cards and Egypt is a keystone. (Mixed analogy! Yikes.)
And, as you say, it’s only Monday.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 31, 2011Jim,
There are three things that I heard over and over again this weekend that should help mitigate your fears:
1) Radical Islamic extremists don’t enjoy much support in Egypt among the people; even the Muslim Brotherhood, from everything I’ve heard a minority influence, is relatively tame, when compared to Al Qaeda, etc.
2) The military is the stabilizing force in the country and it definitely is not influenced by radicals. It’s hard to see a religious revolution of the kind seen in Iran in 1979 occurring.
3) It appears that the leading opposition candidate, Mohamed ElBaradei, is a secularist who believes in Western democratic principles, according to many sources, including the L.A. Times.
And I might add this: The movement in Egypt is a real grassroots movement. We can’t control it (even if it were determined to be in our short-term national interests to do so) except by encouraging Mubarak to order his military to take control of the country through unspeakable violence. And that’s not gonna happen.
Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ January 31, 2011Duane,
Once upon a time the United States enjoyed a good relationship with the Arab world. Unlike European powers, our country had no history of colonial misrule. That changed in 1953 when a CIA financed and orchestrated coup (aided by British Intelligence) toppled Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister.
Mosaddeq’s sins were an uncomfortably neutral relationship with the Kremlin and nationalizing Iran’s natural resources. Mediterranean playboy Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was plucked from Monte Carlo’s gaming tables and placed on the vacant Peacock throne as an unlikely Shah; and we know how well that undemocratic transfer of power eventually panned out. Bankrolling and training the Shah’s police state didn’t endear America to “real” Iranians. The Islamic Revolution of ‘79 that transformed Iran into a mullah controlled theocracy fueled Islamic militarism throughout the region. Iran is a big time example of Cold War policy blow-back.
I agree that drawing parallels between Iran and the current populist uprising in Egypt doesn’t fly. Sean Hannity — and Fox “News” in general — will pull out all the stops to try and make the administration’s response appear weak or misguided. Thanks to Al Jezeera’s on-site reporting (our domestic news coverage has been spotty, at best), militant Islamic extremists are not spearheading the demonstrations against Murbarak. Unlike Iran, where America was the “Great Satan” for instigating and funding the Shah’s repressive regime, Egyptians are directing their anger directly at Mubarak. It’s interesting that Syria and Jordan are experiencing the tremors of public unrest.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ January 31, 2011Your historical perspective is new stuff to me and given the integrity of your past material I have no reason to doubt it. It gives me strengthened hope that Egypt may not become another Iran. (You sound here like a poli-sci major. True?)
Thanks.
Jim W.
LikeLike
juan don
/ January 31, 2011Jim,
Dad wanted me to earn a degree in something practical, so I took the academic avenue promising big bucks: History. Medieval European History is my vice. I do like the Renaissance, especially when the Borgia family is involved.
Here’s a link that you might find interesting reading: http://cdiver.ning.com/profiles/blogs/history-of-bp-includes-role-in
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ February 1, 2011Juan,
A history major with a wry sense of humor! Love it. Now Juan, just think of all that psychic income you’re piling up! 😆
My favorite historian is William Manchester. If you have read, “A World Lit Only By Fire” and have a perspective on it, I would enjoy reading it.
Fascinating link, which I will bookmark. Powerful, really, and from such an odd site. As a moderate independent I can see the Iranians’ perspective on this. The Brit’s and Ike’s of course would read differently, perhaps something like: “We developed a huge oil industry in their country and gave a reasonable income to a bunch of nomadic camel jockeys who previously thought having a camel was real wealth, and they aren’t even grateful.” Or some such.
Instructive how such things play out. IMHO, we should NEVER elect a president who is not obviously literate in history. Hear that, Sarah? OMG.
I look forward to more blogging with you, Juan.
Jim
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ January 31, 2011I have heard those things too, Duane. Thanks for the reassurance, but the present situation is what an engineer would call “unstable”. Theoretically, one could balance a pencil on its point, but in real life . . .
I see that Brent crude hit over $100 a bbl today. So much for my inane rantings to raise the gasoline tax. That would be like a ripple on top of a wave pattern, the way things are looking.
Hope for the best and prepare for the worst?
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ January 31, 2011Jim,
All the more reason to “invest” in a better future for our kids, one that doesn’t find us (or the world) dependent on fossil fuels. In my view, if we are always going to be at the mercy of a perennially unstable Middle East, then we have a moral obligation to do something about it, if not for ourselves, for those we leave behind.
It seems the best time to reconfigure our energy sources is when oil is rising. When things subside, so does the “we’ve got to do something” talk. One of these days, maybe Republicans (and some Democrats) will see the light and stop demagoguing the energy issue.
Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 1, 2011Jim,
I’m replying here because the other comment box’s size would turn this reply into unintentional free verse poetry.
It’s very safe to say that Manchester’s work is a contemporary classic; even those who find history dull would enjoy reading “A World Lit Only by Fire.” At least I’d like to think so. My perspective on the book is it’s not only well written, but historically accurate: in other words, entertaining reference material.
Charles Homer Haskins‘, “The Renaissance of the 12th Century” (Harvard University Press) is a new favorite, as is Jean Gimple’s “The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages” (Barnes & Noble Books). With your expertise in science and engineering, I believe you’d like Gimple’s work. Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” is a fun meld off fact and fiction (and a good movie, too).
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ February 1, 2011Mucho gracias, Juan. I’ll check it out.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ January 31, 2011Duane,
Your comment caused me to think, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Then, who said that? Google provided the answer of course, and I discovered a gem, or if you prefer, a nugget of wisdom, IMHO:
What the &%#*!+ did people do before the internet and google?
🙂
Jim
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 1, 2011Jim,
Witty. I used to use that Dan Qyayle misquote all the time. It’s one of my favorites among his many screwups.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 1, 2011To all,
Well it is now Tuesday and while I have not checked the morning TV my guess is that some 1 million folks are protesting in Cairo right now.
Glen Beck (on O’Reilly) last night suggested that America’s reaction to events in Egypt should mirror the reaction of Switzerland, do NOTHING, don’t take sides, let Egyptian events play out as Egyptians decide they should.
Hannity followed with good interviews of two Egyptians now living in America. The best point made by those two men was that NO ONE had a crystal ball to determine the outcome in the streets of Egypt today. Wait and see was his advice, much like Beck’s. Hannity agreed with him and had no strong words in the entire hour’s program against the administrations actions thus far. O’Reilly went even farther is giving Obama a grade of B thus far. A liberal on O’Reilly gave Obama a D- for not intervening on the side of “the people”!!
Well Mr. Liberal, which people are you refering to is the basic question.
Folks that like humane and democratic governments are all HOPING that Egyptians will decide the post Murbarak era for themselves. Some neocons point out that Nassar, then Sadat then Murbarak all came to power from within the military structure and educational system. They urge continued support of the military as the protector and stabalizing influence in Egypt.
My guess is that there are very secret talks going on between Hillary and the State Department and the Egyptian military hirarchy right now to try to do exactly that, use the military to keep the country stable and then…….?
It is the……. that thus becomes the issue does it not. Any of you guys care to fill in the ……?
I love it when liberals tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood is “no big deal” and can never assume power in Egypt. Just because WE think the MB is “crazy” with their call for all things Islamic including Sharia law, a calipate, etc doesn’t mean that enough Egyptians in poverty don’t think that is a good idea.
One final point. Assume the military IS the instrument to maintain stability in Egypt as things get sorted out over time.
Now put such actions in an American context. Assume the haves and have nots began clashing in the streets of America and England supported the American military establishment to preserve order until things got sorted out.
That would put General Petraus and ME, people exactly like ME with MY background and education and political thoughts IN CHARGE of America for an interim period of time.
HOLY SHIT!!!!
Anson
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 1, 2011Anson,
Call me a cynic, but a foreign policy conversation between Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly is akin to Sponge Bob Square Pants and Space Ghost blaming Word Girl for instigating the “War on Christmas.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/this-is-important-stuff.html
Holy Shiite!
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 1, 2011Juan,
Thanks for that. I needed a dose of reality. I’m snowblind.
Duane
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 1, 2011Anson,
You really do discredit yourself by referencing Glenn Beck in any way that doesn’t involve ridiculing him. To take him seriously as a pundit on this or any matter is why you should really get out more and watch real news.
And therein lies my problem with Bill O’Reilly (besides the obvious disgusting personality traits he has and his often misinformed opinions). To feature Glenn Beck as a guest on his show, while all serious people know Glenn Beck is a fool, says a lot about O’Reilly. And if O’Reilly is whom you frequently turn to for news, I’m afraid it says a lot about the quality of your analysis.
You really should follow the link Juan provided and read the short commentary that goes along with it. And you should know that the sentiments expressed therein are what all, and I mean all, serious and sober people think about Glenn Beck.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 2, 2011Well folks,
Where in the link is an analysis of the current situation in Egypt, which I thought was the topic here?
Where in your comments above is an analysis of the current situation in Egypt?
All I have read thus far after commenting on the situation in Egypt is eveyone calling Glenn Beck a fool? Maybe he is but I have never watched his show.
But his suggestion to simply stay out of the fray in Egypt, which the President and his administration are trying to do it seems, makes sense to me for the time being.
Do you have any other constructive ideas gleened from MSNBC (or is it still in business) or other liberal sources of enlightenment? Or perhaps your various experiences in matters of International Relations lend themselves to original comments on the matter.
Get off the Beck kick and tell me and others how to solve the problems in Egypt and the larger MidEast if you can or tell us all what President Obama is doing correctly for now (which O’Reilly thinks is pretty good for now at least).
Also tell us why your liberal collegue on O’Reilly gave the President a D- for his current efforts.
In fact tell us all why Glenn Beck is now and specifically an idiot NOW for merely suggesting let Egyptians sort out their own situation for now?
I am sure you can find a way to compare such sentiment to isolationism before WWI and WWII, can you not?
You are not snowblind Duane. You are simply blind to ideas of any sort coming from the right.
Anson
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 2, 2011Anson,
You’ve made several references to the fact that you don’t watch Glenn Beck’s TV show. Neither do I.
An Act of God removed basic cable service from the manse five years ago. The highlight of my television viewing ever since the rather violent disconnection is Masterpiece Theater. The very windy removal of cable — especially cable “news” — hasn’t adversely affected my ability to keep up on current evens. In fact, relying on the internet has broadened my ability to gather a wider array of information.
I don’t believe you depend entirely on Fox’s prime time talking heads when developing informed opinions. Even though Glenn Beck isn’t exactly a noted foreign policy expert, he does chalk out some novel conspiracy theories from time to time:
http://www.visa2tour.com/2011/02/02/glenn-beck-about caliphate/
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 2, 2011Anson,
1) If you watch Bill O’Reilly, who has Beck on frequently, you should at least watch an episode of Beck’s program. I recommend starting with this week’s shows on Egypt and how what is happening is a left-wing plot to make the world safe for a Muslim caliphate. I’m not kidding. He has a thousand blackboards explaining why this is so. The man is disturbed and yet his show is seen by two million or so of your fellow conservatives.
2) My opinion on what is happening in Egypt is no better than yours or anyone else who doesn’t have the expertise in that part of the world. I only know what I see on television or read on the ‘net. My past readings on the Middle East weren’t focused specifically on Mubarak or on Egypt, but on the general history of the region. I think I understand the general dynamics of Middle East politics pretty well, but I don’t feel informed enough to comment on the dynamics of Egyptian society or whether Obama’s actions are appropriate, although they seem to be at first glance. It’s a difficult situation. But I do feel qualified to judge the actions of the far right, who are scrambling to find a way to blame what is happening on liberals. Imagine that.
3) You say I am “blind to ideas of any sort coming from the right.” Huh? Have you ever read the title of this blog? The Erstwhile Conservative. Erstwhile. You know very well that I am quite familiar with the ideas that come from the right, since I used to hold those ideas in spades and vigorously defended them. I think that’s what irritates you and so many of your online comrades.
Duane
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 2, 2011Anson,
I see Juan has provided a link to the caliphate nonsense. I still recommend spending an hour watching his show, though. It has to be seen to be believed.
Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 2, 2011Duane,
Could be that Glenn’s act is losing animal balloon air. He needs to upgrade his cutting edge of entertainment and enlightenment with more reality-based programming. I suggest he invite two of his crack researchers — Shemp and Larry — on the set. Together they could physically demonstrate how a Marxist Caliphate and Francis Fox Piven are plotting to unleash “social justice” on unsuspecting Goldline buyers. While progressives would see only slapstick comedy, right-wing paranoids would see our Founding Fathers stemming the scourge of voter registration with cream-filled pies.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/is-glenn-becks-popularity-fading/
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 3, 2011Juan,
I think it’s good news that Beck’s ratings are declining, although I tend to think that will make him crazier. I heard him mention the Tides Foundation again the other night, which I found strange, even for him. You may remember that a gunman was apprehended (via a shootout) on his way to Tides in order to kill its employees and start a “revolution.” He was a fan of Glenn Beck. The Christian Science Monitor wrote last year:
In any case, I’m sure it’s good news that most reputable advertisers have abandoned him, but, again, might that make him nuttier since only Goldline and food-hoarders advertise on his show?
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 3, 2011Duane and Juan,
I no more try to defend Beck than I do OB. Every now and then they may get something correct but not often that I have seen. So I leave that sort of debate behind.
As for Egypt and the overall evolving situation in the MidEast, I think (with some background in the subject based on formal education) Obama is doing things about right at the moment in Egypt. I have yet to criticize him today in that regard. Thus far I have no expressed outrage or even disagreement with his administration specifically as events unfold in Egypt hour by hour.
But I have taken on the bigger picture in that region with some pertinent observations and questions that will probably drive you both crazy. Jim has already counter blogged in that regard though he only disagrees with my belicose (as he reads it) manner of observing and asking questions about future possibilities in the MidEast.
That exchange is just getting started however and I will not debate it here, yet.
Anson
PS: Before you “launch” into that exchange I suggest you all watch a clip of Hannity’s live interview with a Mullah in England from last night. Hannity made a fool of himself in the interview but the Mullah was an even bigger fool in my view. But if you just listen to the Mullah, it is exactly that mindset about which I write in what will be a controversial blog for sure. THAT Mullah and more important his ideas are indeed MY sworn enemy today and I hope yours as well.
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 3, 2011Anson,
If you do decide to criticize President Obama’s handling of “Egypt”, this link might provide figs for thought:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/right_wing_reacts_to_egypt_protests_obama_is_in_le.php
Geoff Caldwell may already be rumbling in that direction.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 3, 2011Juan,
Frank Gaffney is what Glenn Beck would be if Beck had an advanced college degree. He’s just as foolish, despite having a certificate indicating to a skeptical audience that he graduated from a top university.
As I suggested the other day, the Right’s response to this crisis is effectively putting Obama in a box in which no matter what he does, it will be blameworthy. Some on the Right support the democratic movement and claim Obama is siding with the dictator; some support efforts to keep Mubarak around a while for our own use and say Obama wants jihad. Either way, Obama will do the wrong thing.
Such is the state of brainpower on the Right these days.
Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 3, 2011Duane,
This is an effective way to make a point:
http://gocl.me/gDf8dX
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 3, 2011Anson,
Since the last commenter on your blog ended with this,
I will have a discussion with you here. That kind of talk is ridiculous.
First of all, I saw the Hannity interview, which was pathetic. And by the way, while we can all agree that Anjem Choudary is an enemy of the United States (he made himself one), someone has to answer his point that from the perspective of some Muslims, we are an occupying force in two Muslim countries. As he said, no American would tolerate that condition. We would be pissed if the Chinese were occupying Missouri. Especially, if in going after the bad guys, they were killing a lot of innocent Missourians. Isn’t that right?
I generally agree with the criticisms offered by Jim Wheeler on your blog, with some exceptions. My biggest one has to do with the use of the term “Islamic fundamentalism” and defining all its adherents as enemies of the United States in the sense you seem to mean it. There are plenty of Islamic fundamentalists who don’t want to fly airplanes into our buildings or otherwise want to do us harm. What you refer to, I think, are Radical Islamicists, or let’s simply call them Islamic terrorists. How about that? Even though I despise the ideas of all fundamentalists, including Christian fundamentalists (where the term originated), it is going too far to label them all our enemies, unless they so declare.
Saudi Arabia, for instance, is considered by some of us to be an Islamic fundamentalist state, yet we don’t consider them our enemies, do we?
In that vein, you said the following:
Well, I don’t think you are quite right about this one either. Not only do you overestimate the regional problem, but the situation with Iraq and Israel is not so easy.
Iraq has an Islamic constitution. The official religion in Iraq is Islam and it is the basis for all law. And the fact that the anti-American, radical Islamicist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s fundamentalist movement has seven ministries in the current Iraqi government has to disturb all of us. So, I would put a check by Iraq in terms of at least leaning toward a version of Islamic fundamentalism, albeit, for now, a democratic society that includes women in the process.
As for Israel, of course there aren’t any Islamic fundamentalists in the government. But there are fundamentalists there. And in terms of U.S. interests, they cause a lot of trouble.
Just as one example: Shas, an ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist Jewish party, holds 11 seats in the Knesset and four cabinet posts. (By comparison, Likud, the dominant right-wing party, holds 27 seats.) Shas’ leader holds the position of Minister of Internal Affairs. Now, you should know that Shas believes that Halakha—the Jewish version of Sharia—should control Jewish life.
Additionally, the Jewish Home party, which desires a Jewish state governed by Jewish law, has three seats in the Knesset. Similar in its lust for exclusive nationalism, the National Union party holds four seats. The United Torah Judaism party holds five seats. They are obviously a right-wing religious party. When you add all these religious groups up, they wield considerable power in Israeli politics. (See the Jewish settlement problem.)
I said all of the above to say this: While it sounds nice and patriotic to talk like John Wayne (or George Bush at times) in regards to our place in the world, it is much more complicated than all that. Israel’s government contains a strong Jewish fundamentalist component that works against the stability of the region, which works against our national interests. Does that make them our enemies?
We have made plenty of friends with regimes that we abhor, often to our long-term detriment (see Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, for one). But foreign policy often involves a mine field of bad choices and it is just too simplistic to declare war on “Islamic fundamentalism” or any other idea that doesn’t in itself make its proponents immediate enemies of America.
Finally, I will ignore your comments about Obama, in terms of what you consider to be his inadequate defense of American values. But I will say that throughout your blog piece, you, like a lot of right-wingers lately, assume that Egypt will necessarily fall into the hands of extremists. There is exactly ZERO evidence for that assumption. And there isn’t much if any evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is like al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorist groups around the world.
Some on the Right have seized upon this crisis to continue their War on Islam, which is a war we not only should not declare, but we couldn’t win if we did declare it. Our real enemies are anti-American terrorists, not people who believe in the fundamentals of their faith, however foolish those beliefs are.
Now, if you want to make a philosophical war against such fundamentalism, of all stripes, you can join my platoon.
Lieutenant Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 3, 2011Duane,
Gregory Djerejian’s take on the Egyptian crisis is worth a read:
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2011/02/egypts_incipient_revolution.html
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 4, 2011Juan,
An informative article, especially his view of Omar Suleiman, which I haven’t heard expressed in that way before. His suggestions on what to do sound sensible to me, if, of course, Mubarak cooperates.
Duane
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ February 3, 2011I do believe that Duane has clarified an important point above, i.e., the difference between Islamic fundamentalism and radical Islam. While “fundamental” is a useful word adaptable to many contexts, “fundamentalism”, at least in my computer dictionary, is a word restricted to the religious context. I had not really appreciated that distinction before.
This contextual distinction makes the foregoing discussion more meaningful to me. Several aphorisms come to mind. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” “Politics make strange bedfellows.” “Divide and conquer.”
And, Duane also has a very good point about targeting (in a military sense) fundamentalists. Makes me think of the game, “Whack A Mole”.
As for the Saudi’s, we might need to coin some new words for those guys, perhaps something that means “pragmatic fundamentalist” or “capitalistic fundamentalist” or ???
Jim
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 3, 2011Jim,
The House of Saud is a house of cards. When it falls, the international repercussions will become a U.S. foreign policy tsunami. The clock is ticking.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/05/the-fall-of-the-house-of-saud/4215
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ February 4, 2011Juan,
Yipes. Rotten to the core. The man in the street has no idea – his main concern is that gasoline might go up another 20 cents. What a world.
Thanks for the link. I think.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 4, 2011To all,
Juan hit the nail on the head in his last comment about Saudi Arabia, in my view. Someday….., along with governments in the Emirates as well.
I have yet to say that Egypt will “fall” to the sway of the MB. I HAVE said it COULD do so. And IF that happens, what next I ask?
Exploring the possible is an important part of International Affairs. Ignoring the possible, well that leads to things like WWII as only a simple example in modern history.
And now we seem to be arguing over definitions while we all know exactly whom we are talking about. Call the Mullah a fundamentalist, a radical, a terrorist or just a crazy man all you like. But HE and the IDEAS behind his idiocy is the ENEMY. HE is bent on the destruction of the very foundations of us and our country, in my simple view.
Look at the streets of Cairo right now, Friday morning our time. It all began about a week or so ago with students, good men and very few women in the streets crying for more freedom AND sustenance.
Today it seems that those streets are now simply armed camps with thugs from both sides. One defends the status quo and the other calls for …… Read the slogan of the MB to see what that group calls for.
Is there any doubt in your minds that what the MB wants is not in the best interests of America OR the “people” of Egypt?
Mainstream America today seems to now be saying the an MB takeover of the reins of power is Egypt “won’t happen”? I sure hope they do not.
BUT I ask, what if they do?
Or even better what can the U.S. do today to prevent an MB takeover?
All I have heard in regard to that last question is to support the Egyptian army, right, in hopes that men long trained and supported by America will rise to the defense of……? That is right the defense of what?
We would like to say defense of freedom of choice, democracy, human rights, and all the “good” things we support. When did you ever see an army prevail in support of such goals?
An army is a military force trained to kill and protect. An army is NOT a police force, it is an instrument of military power, raw physical power.
Would you like to see “our” army leading a transistion government?
Last night I watched a segment on CNN where the host asked two guests if Beck’s recent map showing a broad Caliphate across the Muslim world was accurate and constructive in the current debate. All three said it was repugnant, fear mongering, etc and should not be part of the current American debate.
Why not is my question. Is such a new map possible? No way all three said. Well, I must then ask CNN and their guests, why not? And as a follow on question, what can America do to prevent such a map in the future?
Other than let the people decide and putting our hopes for stablity on an army, I have heard nothing more, publicly.
I offer no certainty about what might result over the next two or three years in the MidEast. But for sure times and govenments are changing fast therein.
Do we simply ride with the events as they unfold or do we attempt to influence events before bad consequences based on our unique interests occur? We are for sure, publicly, riding with events right now.
OK, but what next I must ask?
Any answers if Mullahs begin to prevail in Egypt or elsewhere?
We have been fighting for ten years in Afghanistan to prevent such from happening just in that remote and impoverished country.
But we are not talking about Afghanistan herein. This is Egypt, a whole different country.
I will also submit that responding to tough questions constructively is a good thing to do to prove one’s point. But saying,” Na that will never happen” seems to me to be ostrich like in International Affairs.
Anson
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 4, 2011Anson,
Former CIA analyst Robert Baer’s article (which is seven years old) was a snapshot of the intricate relationship between America’s political elite and Saudi Arabia’s ruling clique. The United States receives access to their oil; pays for it in dollars (petrol dollars) and in return Saudi Arabia receives military protection. As the article suggests, the large, dysfunctional royal family has had to fund Wahhabi jihadists and placate the population by establishing an extensive welfare state in order to remain in power. No other country has provided more money to Islamic terrorists than the Saudis. But because we are dependent on their oil reserves (and need the petroleum market to be traded in dollars), the House of Saud is considered an ally in the War on Terror. In other words, Middle Eastern foreign policy is too Byzantine for broad brushed analysis.
I’ve read your recent blogs concerning the ensuing chaos in Egypt, and another suggesting President Obama and Russia’s Putin join forces to…well, here is one idea you tossed out: “I wonder what the multiple Mullahs and Ayatollas (sic) of the world would ‘thing’ if nuclear weapons to the north AND west were aimed right down their throats. And we can use our carrier battle groups along with Soviet land arms to close the loop around their miserable throats.” I would call this an example of bloody broad brushed…fantasy. If nothing else, the unrealistic scenario excited serial commenter “wingwiper”: “…imprison or exterminate them all [Taliban], along with their offspring; if they cross the line, shoot them; hopefully, they will commit mass suicide.” I was tempted to see if “wingwiper” was lifting passages directly from Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” “Apocalypse Now”, indeed.
Regarding your fear of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0128_egypt_riedel.aspx
By the way, “wingwiper’s” Front Page links are from David Horowitz’s operation. For what’s it’s worth:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/feature/david-horowitz-consumer-reporter
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 5, 2011Juan,
In essentially any international crisis that I have studied throughout history indicates that power prevails. Now over time such power might well be the “rightness” of ideas, like democracy over communism.
But to allow “good” ideas to have the time to prevail, power is needed to provide for the space for the ideas to take root. Part of that power is the strength to defend people, territory, infrastructure, whatever that constitutes the “better” society. Military power is a necessity but for sure not that only necessity. Economic power will trump military power in just about any instance over history.
The existence of nuclear military power prevented another major war in Europe as communism and democracy battled for supremacy. The use of that power was never required.
Based on that precendent, is the maintenace of the existence of raw nuclear military power an option to consider in our current standoff with radical Islam or instead should we foreswear EVER using such power AND trying to rid the world entirely of such raw nuclear power?
Was the world from 1945 until around 1990 a safer and “better” world as a result of the possesion of such power, as evidenced by history, not the “what ifs” proposed at the time?
Anson
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ February 5, 2011Anson,
Look. All fundamentalists, including Muslim and Christian, are enemies of civilization, Western or otherwise. So, we are in agreement about that.
But you talk about “power prevailing” while simultaneously talking as though these extremists have the power to destroy us. Come on. They don’t. If they do get their hands on a, say, Pakistani nuclear weapon, there is a remote possibility that they would use it, but not against us. They don’t have intercontinental ballistic weapons, last time I checked, in Pakistan or Iran or Egypt or Syria or, well, you get the point.
They might use a nuke against Israel, but with devastating consequences. Somehow, I think they know that. It’s one thing to send an angry, brainwashed fanatic into a crowded public square and blow up a few dozen people, it’s quite another to launch a nuclear strike against a nation that has the backing of the United States, not to mention their own nukes. I just don’t see that as a likely outcome of this mess.
What I do see and concede, besides the periodic and serious problem of the occasional terrorist strike (maybe someday with a small, “dirty bomb”), is the possibility of a severe economic destabilization, in the form of a disruption in regional oil production and distribution, which will trigger a world-wide increase in oil prices and have an obviously negative effect on the economies of the West. Now, that is a serious matter, don’t get me wrong. But you and others on the Right are trying to turn this into the End of Western Civilization. It’s not. You and your right-wing friends give these “Mullahs” to goddamn much credit.
As far as the Muslim Brotherhood, even if your worst case scenario comes true and they “takeover” Egypt, what do you want us to do about it? We don’t know what their stance toward us will be. I understand that your news network of choice is fixated on their alleged extremism (the Egyptian version of the Muslim Brotherhood, anyway), but that is not a widely held view. In any case, suppose you are right. Should we blow up the bleeping country? Invade and occupy? Huh?
And I am amazed at your criticism of using an army to defend the “goals” of democracy and human rights and so on. You said,
Yeah, it is. Except it was used by the last administration as an attempt to not “defend” democracy, but establish it. They tried to democratize the region, starting with Iraq. That is indisputable. They did more to destabilize things than any “Mullah” I know of. Yet, you still support the original invasion of Iraq. I don’t get it.
Juan is correct about the wingnut commenter on your blog (who is one strange cat, as far as I’m concerned), who referenced David Horowitz. Horowitz isn’t just a hack for sale, he is a fear mongering purveyor of nearly every kind of Obama-hate and liberal-hate out there. He has imprisoned himself in the paranoid world of right-wing punditry, and he makes a living selling fear and hate to the inmates.
And as far as your suggestion that the world is safer with nuclear weapons than without them, then if that’s so doesn’t that contradict your inordinate fear (in terms of a Western takeover) of the Islamic fundamentalist extremists? And hell no! we should not rule out the use nukes if, say, an Iranian government launched one toward any of our allies. But in terms of using them in a “standoff” against “radical Islam,” how do you suppose that might work? Let me see…Gee, I can’t think of anything. I don’t even know what that might mean. Perhaps we could just bomb Allah. Anyone know where he might be hiding? Please explain.
I guess I understand the dynamic on the Right of trying to put the fear of Allah in the hearts and minds of Americans, so they will turn to the Right for governance, but it just doesn’t comport with the facts. There are certainly difficulties ahead and we must do all we can to navigate through this mess without making it worse, but I’m afraid the rhetoric from the far Right is going to make it worse, especially if any of their candidates ever get their hands on real power.
The bottom line is this: Islamic extremists are dangerous people and we have to do what we reasonably can to combat them and keep them on the run, without turning ourselves into a nation that is perpetually at war, perpetually occupying various Islamic countries around the world. I’m all in favor of trying to destabilize the destabilizing influence of anti-American religious fanatics everywhere.
But in the present case, even if Egypt were to move away from its peace with Israel, that doesn’t mean the End of the World, unless, of course, we make it so.
Duane
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 6, 2011Anson,
I find Laurence Lewis’ take on the Egyptian uprising spot on. I hope you read the link provided with an open mind, and not reflexively reject Lewis’ commentary as leftist appeasement against “radical Islam.”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/2/6/941295/-Egypt-is-the-future
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 6, 2011Duane,
Once again you try to make me into a right wing fanatic calling for the destruction of Islam in general or radical Islam in particular, probably with “one fell swope” of military power. NO WAY!!!
You said and I agree ” I’m all in favor of trying to destabilize the destabilizing influence of anti-American religious fanatics everywhere.”
The question becomes simply HOW do we do that. The one exception to your statement quoted is that I do not just consider them religious fanatics. They are POLITICAL fanatics as well with their call for LAWS, whatever those laws are based upon, religion or otherwise.
Communism was a call for laws, abhorrent laws in my view. Shari falls into the same camp in my view. I call for a principled and absolute rejection of Shari just as we did with communism long ago.
We the United States not only rejected communism in principle, we rejected their presence at the TABLE for negoitations in countries where communism did not exist, such as France, Italy, etc.
A line was drawn, an IRON line or curtain. You, communists may not cross that line economically or militarily NOR may you join in our free and open elections on our side of the line. THAT was constainment in Europe in the aftermath of WWII.
THAT to me is the sort of containment we should impose in the Middle East today. The question becomes where to draw the line however.
I leave that for you and the Egyptians to decide for now. BUT it should be made abundantly clear that if the Egyptians choose to ally themselves with radical Islam, break the peace with Israel, close the Suez, support terrorism in ANY way, financially, politically, etc then they will join others on THEIR side of new curtain of ideas.
And in so joining that side, we will do with them the same as we did with communism 60 years ago.
I would encourage you and others on the left, to read a book by Dennis Lehane, A Drink Before the War. It is a fictional book about the reality of Bolsheviks rioting in Boston during and after WWI. It happened right here in River City long ago, I suggest it could happen again.
What worked “back then” should at least be considered now as a new and equally virulent set of new ideas clashes with our fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty.
THAT is not right wing in my view. It is decidedly AMERICAN.
Anson
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 6, 2011Juan,
I read your link. Actually, I considered the ideas contained in the link before reading it. I wrote a blog Economics Or Something Else? refuting some of the ideas expressed in your link.
The left characterizes western motives as pure greedy capitalism at the expense of the downtrodden. The inevitablility of the rise of the masses in response to such capitalism is made clear, by the left. The first one to turn such ideas into a political philosophy was Marx.
That resulted in perhaps the most dangerouw clash of ideas, captialism vs communism, ever before seen in human history. The advent of nuclear weapons and the pure size in terms of geography and modern communications made that clash ever more dangerous. It was indeed a clash between two different “world” or at less two different “half worlds”.
I get sick of the left trying to blame greedy capitalists for all the ills of societies around the world. Yes it is a problem but not the whole problem by far.
For a while long ago in Europe the choice of the “people” became stark. Communism or some form of democracy. Power allowed democracy to prevail for a while until the ideas of democracy ultimately prevailed.
But I suppose I am repeating myself.
Anson
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 6, 2011Anson,
Assuming you read Lewis’ commentary, I’m disappointed — but not surprised — by your reply. Maybe you’re permanently stuck in a Cold War mentality. Simplifying the uprising in Egypt as an example of proletariat v capitalist class warfare is so far off the mark it could easily be another scrawl on Beck’s bizarre blackboard. Perhaps Lewis’ references to western Colonialism and Imperialism triggered an automatic response: Hmm, sounds like another lefty Marxist piling on “greedy capitalists.”
Lewis: “It has been as absurd as it is cruel to expect that the current system of economics and military imbalances can last forever. It has long been as absurd as it is cruel to expect so many people to suffer so much for the financial benefit of so relatively few.”
I doubt if that analysis of why the Egyptian people are risking life and limb to oust a repressive regime will ever air on Fox “News.”
Good luck with war gaming WWIII against Arab/Muslim communists, Marxists, socialists and something called “Shari Law.” I immediately think of Shari Lewis when you misspell Sharia. Come to think of it, Lamb Chop did have a funny accent.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 7, 2011Juan,
Holy Cow, we are back to spelling not substance in ideas. My spell checker tells me that Shari Law is correct. I suppose Sharia (without the law behind it) might be correct. So what.
All you did to refute my point that Sharia (or Shari Law) is offered as an alternative to Mubarak’s restrictive right wing government is to quote your source’s views on greedy capitatlism. If you were Egyptian would you accept that alternative to advance you call for social reform?
Methings there are many Egyptians (how many none of us know for sure) that are ready to choose Sharia over Mubarak at the expense of democracy. Do you really believe that is a wise choice?
Anson
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 7, 2011Anson,
I suspect that your spell-check assumes “Shari” is a proper name or a river in Chad. However, there are two variations of Sharia: Shari’ah or Shari’A. Likewise, Shiite has two variations: Shia and Shi’a. I prefer to use Shia. An unfortunate typo when writing Shiite can give the wrong impression that I’m partial to the Sunni version of Islam. But I doubt that many who insist on referring to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” Party can claim an accidental keyboard miscue.
Your initial response to Duane’s post “Egypt: A View from the Paranoid Right” was to recap a conversation between Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, with an added reference to the “good interviews” conducted by Sean Hannity. Given that you frequently cite Fox “News” as a resource, your comment did compliment the post’s title. The far left (me, I suppose) provided a link to Glenn Beck’s idiocy; otherwise known as his standard stock-in-trade. After bringing Beck into the thread, you then question why he was being called a “fool.” Claiming to never watch his inanity, you then suggest everybody “get off the Beck kick.” I understand why you wanted to create some space if you watched the video: Beck is one wild and crazy guy.
Your third comment began: “I no more try to defend Beck than I do OB. Every now and then they may get something correct but not often that I have seen. So I leave that sort of debate behind.” What debate?
Who, besides you, is comparing President Obama to Glenn Beck? You end with a PS: “Hannity made a fool of himself in the interview but the Mullah was an even bigger fool in my view. But if you listen to the Mullah, it is exactly that mindset about which I write in what will be a controversial blog for sure. THAT Mullah and more important his ideas are indeed MY sworn enemy today and I hope yours as well.”
So, you watched two fools engage in foolish conversation. Question: Is one Mullah’s cable television appearance representative of Islam? I wouldn’t consider Pat Robertson a spokesman for Christianity in-general. But maybe you believe Mullahs are like Indians; the only good Mullah is… below ground.
Your fourth comment’s opening nearly caused me to swallow a lighted Marlboro: “Juan hit the nail on the head in his last comment about Saudi Arabia…” I didn’t provide the link to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood is hatching a Caliphate. And then, once again, you drag Glenn Beck back into the thread. Evidently, two talking heads on CNN disparaged Beck’s “Caliphate Map” as “repugnant fear mongering, etc.” You’re unconvinced: “Why not is my question. Is such a new map possible?
No way all three said. Well, I must ask CNN and their guests, why not? And as a follow on question, what can America do to prevent such a map in the future?” I take it that you do believe Glenn Beck’s lunacy to be a sensible topic for discussion.
Your fifth comment jumped from Glenn’s madness (which you have expressed mercurial opinion(s) to comparisons between Cold War history and “radical Islam.” Or maybe the comment was suggesting that America should threaten to launch nuclear weapons against “radical Islam” as a deterrent against the forced imposition of “Shari” Law on American citizens. At any rate, you left the possibility of nuclear war open for debate. I’ll pass, and let “wingwiper” wax genocidal on that one.
Your sixth comment to Duane morphed communism into “radical Islam” (as expressed through “Shari” Law). Beginning with Duane’s post concerning the Egyptian uprising (specifically right-wing reaction) you’ve created another “Iron Curtain”, separating the West from the Arab World. Keep in mind that Beck’s hallucination includes France and Great Britain falling under radical Muslim domination. Once a united front of communists, Marxists, socialists, Frances Fox Piven (?) and medieval Mullahs overrun our European allies, they’ll have access to NATO’s ballistic missiles; as you’ve written: ‘HOLY SHIT!!!” Perhaps Beck’s bad acid trip will encourage our maligned public schools to finally teach kids something useful — like how to duck and cover.
As to the last comment, I don’t know what will eventually shake loose in Egypt. I hope the Egyptian people are able to determine their own destiny.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 8, 2011Juan,
First, I have fired my spell checker regarding Sharia Law. But I have yet to purchase an Arabic to English dictionary as you seem to have access to.
Second, thanks for reading all my comments about Egypt. Of course if I read only your excerpts from such I would think I was a nut as well. I do believe, or hope, you are smarter than that to rely only on excerpts rather than the general theme of what I have tried to say.
Finally your last sentence above (yes, cherry picking on my part) “I hope the Egyptian people are able to determine their own destiny.” encapsuates my concern over Egypt.
I HOPE they do the right thing as well which would include both social reform and international stability. But any government must do far more than HOPE of the next right thing in it’s national interests. That is what foreign policy is all about, creating a policy towards “foreigners” that causes them to act in both their and our best interests.
To wrap it all up for you and yours on the left, please read my proposed speech for President Obama. Presumptuous of me to suggest it for sure, but it certainly expresses how I feel we should be acting and speaking regarding the upheaval in the Middle East today.
You might also go back and read what I had to say a month or so ago about multiculturalism. That should light your fire.
Anson
LikeLike
juan don
/ February 8, 2011Anson,
I use basic Word Perfect spell-check software. Since a variety of sources were consistent in their spelling, I adopted what appeared to be the accepted norm. Just to be safe, I did pry open the hefty Funk & Wagnalls; no Sharia. But I did discover that Shari is a 700 mile river in Chad. If only hearing the word spoken on television, it’s understandable why you believed Shari to be conventional spelling — especially when your handy spell-check didn’t raise a red flag.
It was not my intention to selectively quote snippets from your comments to portray you as a “nut.” But I do believe that your opinions about complex, long-standing Middle East foreign policy issues displays a lack of sentience. What I read in your comments is someone who feeds their confirmation bias by watching a daily dose of hyper-partisan disinformation. You throw Beck’s fear-mongering babble under the bus one day, only to drag it back a day later. If you truly believe that Beck’s “caliphate map” is a rational topic for discussion, then say so; tossing out ‘what if’ questions is garden-variety concern trolling. The old courtroom maxim of never asking a question unless you know the answer is applicable. In short, interjecting Glenn Beck into any serious conversation is like citing me as an expert on small engine repair.
Regarding your “general theme”:
Radical Islam represents the same threat as Cold War Communism. Radical Islam is committed to waging permanent jihad against the West. The Muslim Brotherhood plays an integral role in advancing radical Islam. Sharia Law and the secular West can never co-exist in peace. A new Iron Curtain separating the West from the Middle East (or those nations controlled by radical Islam) is an appropriate defensive posture. America’s nuclear arsenal becomes both deterrent (diplomacy through the threat of force) and preemptive weapon should an enemy nation (or nations) not succumb to intimidation.
The worse case scenario is a 21st century caliphate replacing corrupt dictatorships and monarchies. However, an aggressive, pro-active policy of launching nuclear warheads before a caliphate united roughly 25,000 square miles would nip that abomination in the bud. Hopefully not too many non-radical Muslims would suffer from such decisive, devastating action. Best case scenario is friendlier Muslims would eventually emerge after radiation levels subsided.
Of course, care would be taken not to vaporize oil extraction and refining facilities.
Is that a fair assessment? If so, you’d fit in with Chow Acre’s annual June showing of “Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” It’s informal and BYOB (the last B stands for bottle, not bomb). With the collection of characters that show up, I have to be specific.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ February 9, 2011Juan,
Well thank you. You ALMOST got my “general theme” correct.
One exception is what you believe is my call for LAUNCHING nuclear weapons. That is NOT what I suggest.
As you may recall I have written extensively in my firm belief that deterrence works in matters nuclear. At least it works better than anything else we have tried given that new technology emerging some 70 years ago.
President Obama, by calling for world-wide elimination of nuclear weapons, seems to deny deterrence as a significant force in international affairs. Rather he seeks accomodation, diplomacy, talking “bad” folks out of persuing “bad” ideas (which I believe radical Islam to be, a very bad idea).
Long ago, Vietnam, the threat of and actual use of conventional forces failed miserably. We lost that war. Up until the surge in Iraq we almost lost that one hands down. We have yet to see whether the fat is really out of the Iraq fire now. Same with Afghanistan.
But history has unequivocally proven that containment and deterrence with a strong nuclear arsenal held the conventional monolith of the Soviet Union at bay for enough time for those “bad” ideas to collapse of their own weight.
I suggest that if it worked then, and we have yet to come up with a better way to do it today in the face of another set of really bad ideas, why not give it a try?
Today we for sure have a monopoly on nuclear deterrence against radical Islam. Should we give it up, negoiate it away, or use it for all it is worth in our current fight against terrible ideas?
Or do you even believe the ideas of radical Islam are not all that terrible and for sure not a threat to America today????
Anson
LikeLike