The Obama administration is condemning violence in Egypt, but only if it is done by the government.  Apparently violence by the protestors is ok.  Robert Gibbs:

“If any of the violence is instigated by the government it should stop immediately,”

Robert Gibbs is demanding that the government fold “yesterday” and Obama is openly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now we have vicious pro-Mubarak protestors fighting back against the “freedom and democracy crowd.”  What could possibly go wrong?

The rest of the world is stunned to learn that yes; Obama really is that naïve and incompetent.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142101

The Egyptian government, meaning the military, is underwhelmed by the anointed one.  They view his irresponsible comments as inciting violence.

http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/02/egyptian-foreign-ministry-says-obama-inciting-violence

They also view his recommendations as hopelessly contradictory.  He is demanding a quick, immediate, orderly transition to representative democracy, by embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_us_egypt_cairo_view

Gibbs is literally throwing gas on the fires of rebellion.  The U.S. is now cheerleading for the protestors:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/la-egypt-obama-violence-20110202,0,3875781.story

In summary, the Obama administration has bet it all on the protestors overturning the Mubarak regime with the Muslim Brotherhood leading the way to freedom and democracy.  I am not even sure which is worse.  Obama being right, or wrong?.  At least from this angle, it would seem that if he is wrong, the Egyptian government maintains control and perhaps some stability is retained in the Middle East.  However, I wouldn’t count of them being willing to cooperate with Obama on anything.  It is really hard to believe that any government including the Muslim Brotherhood is going to turn out to be our BFF in the Middle East.

This is really dumb.  Does the Obama administration really think the Mubarak regime is just going to roll over and play dead because Obama doesn’t like them anymore?  For one thing, if the mob takes over at this point members of the current government will be lucky to escape with their lives.  For another, it would be wise to remember that the military has controlled Egypt for a long time.  While the military may be unhappy with Mubarak, they are unlikely to just willingly hand over the keys to their sworn enemies.  They are far more likely to do what they did before, replace Nassar with Sadat and replace Sadat with Mubarak.

Frequently the protestors are seen begging Obama for help.  What do they expect?  Do they really think Obama is going to send in troops to fight a battle with the Egyptian military?  Or do they think Mubarak will be so inspired by the annointed one that he will just gleefuly dance away into a peaceful and happy retirement?  The truth is that Obama can’t do squat.  In the end, I suspect it will be a very close contest to see who hates America most when this is done:  The Egyptian government that was abandoned by Obama, or the protestors who discovered Obama’s support meant less than nothing.

If the military fights back, which seems more and more likely, they have a lot of advantages.  They have planes, tanks, guns, fuel, food, water, money and ammunition.  Latest reports even have the pro-Mubarak crowd riding in on horseback and camels.  The “freedom and democracy” group has primarily taunts and tonsils.  Unless a significant segment of the military switches sides, bet on the guys with the most guns.

The least likely result seems to be a wonderful new Egyptian democratically elected government that offers peace and prosperity for all.   If the Obama administration had allowed Mubarak to leave gracefully and to allow for a smooth transition over several months to a fair election, that might actually have been possible.  Now we seem to be headed toward one of two options, both of which are worse that before.  If the Egyptian miltitary maintains control they are likely to crackdown even more on dissidents.  On the other hand, if the mob wins, Egypt is likely to make Iran look good in comparison.  Nice!

TDM

Carter lost Iran.  Obama is very close to losing Egypt.  Losing Iran was a major mistake, but it was isolated to one country.  Losing Egypt will be far more damaging.  It will not stop in Egypt.

The difference between a strong leader and a weak leader is the ability to make the tough decision under pressure.  The strong leader will make a decision and act boldly.  The most recent example of that was when George Bush ordered the surge in Iraq.  He had widespread opposition from the Democrats and lack luster support from the Republicans.  Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not enthused.  But Bush decided he had to act, because failure to act would result in certain disaster.  He was right.  His bold leadership snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

The public demonstrations in Tunisia have now spread around the globe.  They quickly ignited a fire storm in Egypt.  Our only hope now is that the military takes control.  Any provisional government acceptable to this mob will be a disaster.  The provisional government in Iran lasted for about 30 days before the hard liners took over.

Our leaders would be wise to re-read Niccolo Machiavelle’s “The Prince.”  Machiavelli lived in Florence during the renaissance.  The following words are as true today as they were in 1505:

for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse.

The following words are stunning with regard to current events in Egypt:

there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

The Obama administration and other liberals fail to understand this.  Being liberal is only possible if first you have control.  We would all like to see Egypt and every place else enjoy the same democracy and freedom we enjoy.  But the first step toward democracy is the establishment of a government with enough power to enable it to allow personal freedom.  Where there is no rule of law, the lawless rule.  That is why Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and shut down newspapers during the Civil War.  The following quote from a letter written by Lincoln says it all:

I did understand…that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.

True leadership requires understanding the difference between a threat to the nation’s very survival and political correctness.  No one, in Egypt or anywhere else, will benefit by swapping the brutal regime of Mubarak for an even more brutal fundamental Islamic state.  President Bush was a strong advocate for reforms in Egypt, but he was very careful to not undermine a government that was an important pillar of security in a volatile world.  When this crisis broke, first Obama tried to remain totally neutral, which satisfied no one.  Then he began making statements that clearly undermined Mubarak.  His warning to Mubarak to not use brutal tactics to suppress a rebellion only increased the level of violence itself.  Now he is sitting in the Oval office wringing his hands and calling around the world asking for someone to tell him what to do.  The leaders in every Arab world are asking themselves the same question.  Who do we fear more, the United States under Barack Obama, or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Sadly, I think we already know the answer.

I fear we are going to pay a terrible price for electing a naïve radical when we needed an experienced and strong leader.

The following article by Andrew McCarthy does an excellent job of explaining what is at risk.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258419/fear-muslim-brotherhood-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1

The only thing certain is that if the government in Egypt falls, it will not end there.  The world is on fire and the one country on earth that has any chance to put out the fire is paralyzed by lack of leadership.

TDM