Hah. One of the questions I keep asking my friends is, "What is the one thing that all of the Egyptians on the street that are interviewed by CNN/Reuters/whoever have in common?"

The correct answer ("They all speak English!") is pretty rare. So important, so obvious once it's pointed out (I doubt I would have figured it out if it hadn't been pointed out to me) that it's hard to even consider from over here.

And what do I think? I think I would like to see the Egyptians form a real, serious, democratic government. If it includes a Muslim strand without the Muslim strand going effing crazy, so much the better.

I also think I have no idea how likely that is. The Egyptians interviewed on the streets have little respect for the Muslim Brotherhood, but again, those are the people that speak English and are westward leaning by default. It wasn't until the Muslim Brotherhood called for participation that the crowds went from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

I think the problem with (1), is that's not believed in the ME. Fair or not, those in places like Egypt, which have been brutally suppressed (with our aid), are going to take umbrage to that aid. We can try changing our tune now, it may help, or it may not. If the new government doesn't like us, there's not much we can do to change that.

(2) is what it is. It's not going to make us any true friends, but I think most leaders understand that this is how business works. And I think as long as the government is moderate, they're still going to sell that oil, and there will still be plenty of buyers.

I think (3) is our biggest legitimate fear. That a power in the region will shape out as Iran. But at this point, I don't see any options to stop this. Many of these governments are coming down, barring a significant change. I guess we could try these things:
A) Use CIA to maniuplate process in our favor
B) Give funds to manipulate process
C) use military to manipulate process
but even if they were successful, I think they only delay the inevitable. I'm sure there's other plans I'm missing, but I'm not sure what would help

I think (D)-extending an olive branch to the people and hope for the best is the only option we have. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Try to give incentives for the right track, but I don't see how we can stop them from taking the wrong one.

Mark Lynch doesn't even mention the Muslim Brotherhood, or even the word Muslim. (Foreign Policy sure has changed since I read it; now the best thinking goes into the color advertisements.)

Egypt used to be the model of a secular Arab state: socialist, authoritarian, and descended more than a little from Hitlerism and Italian Fascism ... but definitely secular. It seems to be a rule that this socialism must evolve (or devolve) into Islamic fundamentalism. It happened to the PLO, and it happened in Iraq and Syria.

Ensuring the smooth transition of "whatever replaces Mubarek" (Lynch puts it) is not much hope, especially if the murderers of Anwar Sadat are part of that whatever.

I think the administration is doing about as well as it can on this, for all the reasons given above. I also think people criticizing Obama for being too deliberate are making a mistake. Sometimes there are no ways to guarantee a good outcome and LOTS of ways to guarantee a bad. We have an extremely fine line to walk here and hopefully we can do so in such a way that we can look ourselves in the mirror whatever ends up happening. If that were our guiding premise more often in international affairs we'd have avoided an awful lot of disasters in the past century.

AL,

Well, since you asked: I think you left out the 4th core concern of ours, without which the first 3 would be a lot easier to address.

4. Promote or ensure democracy and self-determination in places like Egypt (& Tunisia, Yemen, Syria & Jordan).

If we only wanted to protect Israel & the world economy and keep Jihadists out of power then Mubarak is our ideal ruler. For Egyptians, I mean. Not, certainly, for us.

Anything we can reasonably do at this juncture is no more than posturing and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the course of events. If we try to do something more than posturing, the impact is likely to be detrimental to our interests. We are in the unwelcome & uncomfortable position of being a bystander to history on this one.

A.L., #6:

I've already seen some of the right-wing pundits advance the claim that Egypt now is the result of Bush in 2004. (Most of them are advancing it by musing, "Is it possible that...?" but the cross section of people asking the question makes it clear that they're pushing it, not asking honestly.)

Now, I was a hawk for both Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think ascribing causality here is stupid. There may some tenuous strand of influence. It may be a straw on the camel's back. But beyond that, no.

All that aside, though, I think there was always at least two notions of how the Bush-Iraq "Big Splash" theory could have gone: One slowly as the peoples around it saw what was possible and decided that they wanted it and got it gradually, and another quickly as people saw what was possible and decided they wanted it right effing now.

I don't think anyone really thought that either scenario would start playing out as early as the 2010-2011 time frame. For my part, I always saw this as a twenty to thirty year project.

On a different topic, though, one thing interesting that I'm reading is that the situation in Egypt, if it goes on long enough and is disruptive enough (especially to the key port at Alexandria) has the potential to result in a major food crisis. It might be wise for the administration to stay the hell out in front of that and be ready to ride to the rescue with an major gift of grain.

I guess this is the Obama plan to keep the crazy Jihadists out of power - Gibbs at the press conference yesterday:

And I think it is clear that increase in democratic representation has to include a whole host of important non-secular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be the stable and reliable partner that the world sees in the Middle East.

So it's not up to us to tell Egypt how to run their government, so long as they realize that it HAS to include clerics. In fact, a whole host of clerics.

Oh, also, it occurs to me that you have left out a major interest we have in Egypt: The Suez Canal.

America's strength is founded on its navy. Anything-- anything-- that affects sea lanes is of critical importance to the United States.

I think the canal is pretty safe from disruption; it earns Egypt $4 billion a year, including loads of foreign currency. That's why Nasser nationalized it.

It's like having four US sugar daddies.

Marcus,

I had assumed that AL's #2, i.e., keep mideast oil shippable, was a direct reference to the canal.

AL,
Realpolitik is fine. But at the moment, it's nothing more than a mindset. We can't actually do anything. We are pretty much reduced to hand-wringing, mea culpas, and hoping things don't turn too ugly.

Mark #11.

Ah. I'm slow, sometimes. Still, I think the importance of the Suez Canal goes beyond just oil shipments.

I do agree that there's damn little we can do in the short term. And frankly, whatever we do, we're going to get kicked around for it. In watching the CNN coverage, I could get whiplash between, "Why isn't America supporting us?!" and "We don't want the Americans to rescue us!!"

Probably the best we can hope to do is be there in the aftermath to help things not be as bad as they could be.

I could get whiplash between, "Why isn't America supporting us?!" and "We don't want the Americans to rescue us!!"

And then there's the tear gas canisters, that clearly say "Made in USA" at the bottom. That can't be good.

(Of course, we could go the 30rock route and say they're from Madee in oosa)

And then there's the tear gas canisters, that clearly say "Made in USA" at the bottom. That can't be good.

Do they really? I know there were people saying that about bullets, but that proposition seemed absurd, at least. Tear gas canisters are a little more plausible though.

Semi-serious suggestion: We should stamp all the tear gas canisters we give to other governments "Made in Iran."

M
I've seen the pictures. They do say Made in the USA.

I don't know how old they are but I don't think that will matter.

I dunno, I've seen enough "video evidence" out of the ME that turned out to be bogus, that I'm going to remain skeptical about the tear gas. I won't be surprised if it turns out to be accurate, but I won't be surprised if it turns out to be fabricated, either.

The gas canisters seem to be legit

Well, that does seem legit. The only thing that surprises me is that the manufacturer was that transparent. I would not put my brand on CS canisters that I intended to ship overseas.

Phil, Apparently, you are not in marketing.

toc3 -

Yes, Nasserist Egypt was a secular country. Not just in comparison to Saudi Arabia - everything is secular compared to Saudi Arabia - but secular in constitution and ideology. So was Ba'athist Iraq once, and so was Syria once.

This is no longer true. This has changed. That was my point, if my point interests you at all.

So this is my assertion. Far from being embarrassed by it, and crawling to Orwell for absolution, the fact that you disagree fills me with a peculiar sense of pride. Now I know how McAuliffe felt at Bastogne.

And anytime you want to start a Shakespeare War: Lay on, Macduff.

"They essentially have no resources."

They have the most important toll booth in the world dont they?

"but secular in constitution and ideology. So was Ba'athist Iraq once, and so was Syria once."

This statement is hilarious. The Soviet Union was a "democratic state in terms of its constitution and ideology" as well or don't you remember. And if you did't believe it all you had to do is ask them and they would tell you.

What ever the propaganda was, all of these Arab states were totalitarian military dictatorship. As far as the claims of being secular states, I guess you base this on the absolute nonsense these tyrannical regimes spouted in their constitutions and ideologies, rather than the reality on the ground.

Go ahead, but don't to be taken you seriously. Why not start calling a spade a spade and stop using your arguments on pieces of paper not worth the that which they are printed on.

toc3 -

What ever the propaganda was, all of these Arab states were totalitarian military dictatorship.

Let this be my last attempt to reason with you. Egypt is an autocratic state, but it is not a military dictatorship, any more than was Czarist Russia. Neither is it "totalitarian". North Korea is a totalitarian state. Egypt falls short of the definition. Words have meanings.

Like the word "secular", which is giving you a lot of trouble. In this case it means a state that is not ruled by clerics ("non-secular actors" for you Obamists) or religious law (Sharia) or by rulers who are in thrall to the same (Iran and Saudi Arabia). For the last time, Egypt has a cultural and political tradition of secularism that is under assault. These pictures from Tarek Heggy give a small but interesting illustration.

hey toc- kindly quit trying to 'educate' me. Its annoying, and you obviously have no idea what kinds of things I know about.

First you tell me not to educate you, then:

How bout this- explain to me what natural resources Israel has that Egypt doesn't, and why Israel is an economic success story and Egypt a basketcase?

You ask me to educate you?

I now that you know about being sacastic. You do not show much else.

Techincally, toc, I think he was quizzing you, not asking you to educate him. It's about as insulting as pointing someone to the CIA World Factbook.

Maybe you two can consider each other "even" and move on.

"He had me fooled."

Damned with faint praise.

"How else would one respond to the toll booth comment?"

Perhaps by considering it a legitimate question instead of immediately going into 5th grade civics teacher mode as is your want. Egypt has some things going for it that far more successful nations never had, yet remains an economic failure. There is ample evidence out there that resources are not destiny, but a socio-economic system premised on free markets and enforced contracts essentially is. And like I said, we have an excellent control experiment sharing a border that started with even less resources barely 60 years ago.

Too little too late, Mark. Take a less flippant tack and you might get different results. Save your point scoring for someone else.

Snort. You know the difference between you and I toc? Self-awareness. I know exactly how I come off.

OK, OK, let's break it up...back to issues. Let me try and post something that will bring us back to talking about stuff, instead of each other.

Marc