Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[Ken White]

What I find interesting on this forum is that when someone suggests "Black is not working and we need to change." the typical counter is "But White would not work either." Agreed. The answer lies between the two, and is likely closer to black than white in most cases, as simple changes of nuance and perception can have a tremendous impact.

I've noticed that when people on this Board present gray arguments as opposed to "Black is not working" the discussion tends to seek what shade of gray is best instead of descending into a a black methodology versus white methodology argument...

For example, this "The answer lies between the two, and is likely closer to black than white in most cases." colors your comment -- pun intended.

Some would've said "The answer lies between the two and the issue is to determine just where..."

[omarali50]

The US should vigorously and publicly support the notion of democracy and human rights. That is not to say that the US should somehow intervene to bring democracy to X or Y. Every case is different and in MOST cases the US would do well to do nothing rather than doing something stupid (those seem to be the only choices allowed by the state dept and pentagon in many cases).
Every case being different, the case in Egypt right now is that the US should publicly press for democratic reform and should work behind the scenes to have the army kick out Mubarak and install a functional interim regime and open up the media and phones and so on. That would be best for the US in every way. To work to "stabilize" Mubarak would be the height of folly...
US policy makers have spent so many decades propping up dictators and being afraid of democracy, they do not seem to be able to let things go a little...if they do, they may be pleasantly surprised at the outcome in many cases...and they will not do worse than they are doing right now in almost every case.

[Ken White]

The US should vigorously and publicly support the notion of democracy and human rights...

Agreed.

US policy makers have spent so many decades propping up dictators and being afraid of democracy, they do not seem to be able to let things go a little...if they do, they may be pleasantly surprised at the outcome in many cases...and they will not do worse than they are doing right now in almost every case.

Agree with that as well. However, after 45 years of US government service if there's one thing I know it's that very, very few who work for that entity want to take a chance on being even a little bit wrong, much less way wrong...

That said, hopefully most will realize the truth of what you write: "...and they will not do worse than they are doing right now in almost every case."

[Bob's World]

The US is getting in Egypt a bit of a dose of our own medicine in terms of "US created conflicts of interest."

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents. The US flipping on that issue from our position during to Soviet occupation to our position for our own occupation is creating that conflict.

Now we find ourselves caught in our own web in Egypt where we have overlooked (beyond calling the government out in the odd speech) the poor governance of the Mubarak regime because we valued having an important Arab ally and stability for Israel more highly. Now we face a populace that questions how the U.S could support such a regime. This is what happens when one acts in a manner that is out of synch with their professed values. It will be very positive for US influence once we have finished sorting through these inconsistencies, and will have a tremendous disempowering effect on AQ as well. But we have a long ways to go on that little mission, as the list of such governments is fairly long...

[jmm99]

... notion of democracy and human rights ....

in Pakistan vs Egypt vs USA ?

Are they the same ? Or, different ? If different, what are the differences ?

Cheers

Mike

[omarali50]

Democracy in Pakistan vs Egypt vs USA ?

Are they the same ? Or, different ? If different, what are the differences ?

Cheers

Mike

They are obviously all different. But I think we can step back a little bit from textbook notions of democracy to another line: In every country where modern education and economics has made forays, the population wants some say in what goes on and economics demands some rationality in governance. The elite always have more influence than the poor, but even within the elite, there are notions of rule of law, political space, personal space, opportunity to move forward and so on. And the poor must have the means for bare survival and at least a vague notion that they can move forward on merit if they are really really good. Historical contingencies and other local factors make every case different and culture DOES matter, but its still possible to make some generalizations. One is that bull#### like the Mubarak dynasty is not going to last. Another is that extreme forms of Islamism are not going to make most people happy even if war with outsiders is not an issue. Another is that if you hook the elite on selling their role as "bulwark against Islamism", you will face accelerating demands for more money, you will foster terrible corruption and you will strengthen support for those very Islamists. In fact, it is an indication of the Islamists profoundly outdated and unproductive philosophical framework that they cannot take more advantage of this wonderful opportunity presented to them courtesy of the US taxpayer.
US policymakers who act as if the US has to determine what happens everywhere and simultaneously believe that there is very little the US can do to change things for the better, are wrong on both counts. In the Middle East, they are laboring under the very real burden that they really do want something (Israeli occupation) that almost everyone in that part of the world does not support, so their "democratic" options are limited. But even where the US does not necessarily have such a burden to carry (Pakistan, for example), hamhanded interference, reliance on outdated or irrelevant models (like the "modernizing army", "the whisky-drinking-moderate-Muslim", the Latin American model of using the army against undesirables at the cost of democracy, and so on) are not exactly working.
but, no matter, change is coming. With, without or in spite of US participation. And Israel should really make a fair peace from a position of strength while they have that chance. Its going to become so costly to support that occupation, even Uncle Sam may one day be unable to afford to carry that millstone around his neck...

[carl]

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents.

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

[Ken White]

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

When I was wandering about the Region years ago, the Afghans liked the US and Americans. A good part of that was, they said, due to the fact that only they and we had beaten the British, not once but twice (actually in all four cases, the British decided the hassle wasn't worth the effort but no sense being pedantic...).

They were nearly neutral on Indians, mentioning only their status as kuffar. They did not like Russians or the British at all -- and they hated the Pakistanis due to their excessive desire for control of Afghanistan and the Pakistani attempts to divide the Pathan (as they were then). There were also some flatlander comments...

Of course, that was forty years ago and it's probably changed a bit -- but I bet not much...

[Bob's World]

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

Personally I am a consistent (and fairly lonely) voice that the U.S. needs to take into greater account the impact on Pak-Indian deterrence of the actions (both policy and physical) that we take in the name of the War on Terrorism.

"Loose Nukes" are not all that likely based upon what I understand, but certainly the likelihood of deliberately exchanged nukes is higher now than it was 10 years ago.

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan ( be that worked through their Army or intel service with Pashtun agents, or however else). I only state that Pakistan believes that they have a vital national interest in it being so.

If the U.S. is any example, a nation will go to any lengths, and get into situations that make outside observers scratch their heads in wonder, in the pursuit on vital national interests. And I doubt any will argue that Pakistan faces far more of an "existential threat" against India than the U.S. does from AQ taking sanctuary in the FATA.

My only point was the observation that our demands on Pakistan to support our efforts against AQ and the Taliban creates a very dangerous conflict of interest for the government, that erodes the stability of the nation. On one hand they need a solid relationship with the US, so they agree to do what we ask (sort of, and thus our frustration at the seeming lack of competence from what is a very competent security force); while at the same time seeking to continue their covert operation to secure instability in Afghanistan.

Now the US finds ourselves in a similar conflict of interest of our own making. On one hand we stand for "universal rights" and democracy; but on the other hand we support the Mubarak government as a critical Arab ally that sits on the key terrain of both Israel's flank and the Suez canal. Such relationships are rationalized based upon vital national interests, yet when they create conflicts of interest they are damaging as well.

We have an opportunity to begin cleaning the effects of a post WWII policy/strategy/engagement program in the Middle East that has about reached the breaking point. We do not want to wake up on the wrong side of history there, and if we continue to cling to an unsustainable past that is the most likely result. We have a tremendous opportunity here, but it is a delicate game of showing greater support to the people, greater alignment of our actions and policies with our stated principles as a nation; but condemning of the actions of "allied" governments who have been enabled in their slides toward despotism by their relationships with the US. If we just yank the rug on these clowns we could create a massive violent chaos in the Middle East that is good for no one.

We must empower a controlled change. We focus on the empower aspect, and allowing the current governments to establish processes with their people to hear their grievances and give them their due consideration as they seek reasonable evolutions of government. This is tricky stuff. Far easier to just send in TLAMs, but the potential return is far greater and holds the key to reducing acts of terrorism emanating from the Middle East.

So far what I have heard from our President and our Sec State; coupled with what I have seen in terms of physical responses are in synch with how I see this. I don't know what the back room actions are, but I can only hope they are in synch as well. In synch or not, agree or not, I think we can all share in the hope that they work. Inshah Allah.

[carl]

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan ( be that worked through their Army or intel service with Pashtun agents, or however else). I only state that Pakistan believes that they have a vital national interest in it being so.

If the U.S. is any example, a nation will go to any lengths, and get into situations that make outside observers scratch their heads in wonder, in the pursuit on vital national interests. And I doubt any will argue that Pakistan faces far more of an "existential threat" against India than the U.S. does from AQ taking sanctuary in the FATA.

My only point was the observation that our demands on Pakistan to support our efforts against AQ and the Taliban creates a very dangerous conflict of interest for the government, that erodes the stability of the nation. On one hand they need a solid relationship with the US, so they agree to do what we ask (sort of, and thus our frustration at the seeming lack of competence from what is a very competent security force); while at the same time seeking to continue their covert operation to secure instability in Afghanistan.

If Pak Army/ISI does not have a valid right to exert control over Afghanistan, but only has a belief that it must because of a belief that it is in Pakistan's national interest, isn't it foolish of us to act in deference to that belief? Wouldn't it be wiser to do our best to disabuse them of that belief and not act in any way to further it? They are on a road to destruction because of it so we might be doing them an unappreciated good by frustrating their accomplishment of that goal.