The revolt in Tunisia appears to have set off a spark that is rapidly spreading around the world. Lebanon was overtaken by Hezbollah. There are reports of problems in Jordan, Albania, Yemen and Iran. Now it appears that it will take a miracle for the Egyptian government to survive. Unfortunately, unless we are very lucky, this is unlikely to end well.
When there was wide spread resistance in Iran, Obama did absolutely nothing. That was a situation where people were rebelling against a dangerous Islamic regime, but Obama never said a word in support. Contrast that with the situation in Egypt where Obama is publicly warning Egypt to not use force to quell the protests. Egypt has a repressive government, but there is a lot more freedom in Cairo than there is in Tehran. While Obama did nothing to help the people in Iran, he is more than willing to push Mubarak into the night.
This is reminiscent of the way Jimmy Carter handled Iran. Jimmy Carter was determined to spread “human rights” around the world. Naturally places like China and the Soviet Union weren’t listening, so he only put pressure on “our friends.” He warned the Shah of Iran to avoid using violence to suppress the resistance. The Shah tried to warn Carter that he was dealing with Islamic fundamentalist and that the Shah would likely be replaced with something far worse. Carter did not listen. Instead Carter pushed the Shah to show restraint toward those who only understand brute force. Ultimately, the Shah was over-thrown and he was replaced with the most radical and dangerous Islamic regime in the world. That regime quickly thanked Carter by attacking our embassy and humiliating the U.S. in front of the world.
Obama is following the exact same strategy in Egypt. Egypt is the closest thing we have to a friend in the Arab world. It is, after all, the Arab country that signed a peace treaty with Israel. Now Obama not only seems reconciled to letting Mubarak fail, he is giving him advice that makes this a near certainty. Mubarak has warned Obama that if he loses control Egypt could be dominated by Muslim extremists, just like in Iran, but Obama is not listening.
The following article explains the problem:
http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/01/bbc-egyptian-tanks-surround-us-uk.html
Perhaps Obama does not get it, but clearly the Government of Egypt does. Those tanks are surrounding our embassy and the UK embassy because they know what will happen if they are not there. Ironically, Mubarak appears to be more interested in protecting our interests than our own President. Obama has only been encouraging Mubarak to show restraint:
But the question is restraint with regard to whom? The major opposition party in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. The roots of al Qaeda can be traced directly to the Muslim Brotherhood. The stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is as follows:
The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state”.
There are some people who believe that the Muslim Brotherhood has moved past its history of violence and that we should learn to get along with them. But, where in this statement is there the slightest hint that these people are willing to tolerate anything other than radical Islam? Whether they achieve this goal through violence or the ballot box, the outcome is the same, a society that has zero tolerance for other ideas. This is why no Muslim country embraces freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is incomparable with Islam itself.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt for years, but it obviously still exists. Recently its leaders have run for office as “independents.” The opposition leader in Egypt who was recently imprisoned may fall into that category. Mohamed ElBaradei gave an interview with Der Spiegel a few days ago saying:
We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. … [They] have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them,”
He is represented in the main stream media as a Nobel Peace Prize winning reformist. But he is also an activist who strongly opposed the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. He tried to convince the world that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions were not a serious threat. We now know that Saddam Hussein had a lust for nuclear weapons that was only restrained by his inability to obtain sufficient enriched uranium. One thing is certain, Mohammed ElBaradei was no friend of the U.S. in the past and it would be foolish to assume he would be a friend now.
Iran clearly sees this situation as perfect for turning Egypt into another Islamic fundamentalist state:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=2&hp
Obama told Mubarak that: “suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” That sounds good, but it is incredibly naïve. It assumes that all ideas are equal. But the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood is to force everyone to become Muslims. They believe only in tolerance of them, not tolerance by them. If someone says that their mission is to take away your freedom, you either fight or you lose your freedom. Compromise leads only to slavery. Suppressing ideas may never make them go away, but it can sure prevent them from enslaving you.
Some people believe in the rule of law and fair play. But others reject the rule of law and are unconcerned about the interests of anyone but themselves. Every civilized society got that way by first squelching the ideas of criminals. It is really quite simple. If good people do not intervene, evil people always rule. Evil is never silenced by good intentions, it is silenced by good people willing to fight for what is right. Contrary to what Obama said in one of his speeches, German, Italy and Japan were not defeated by good intentions and ideals. They were defeated by overwhelming military force. Only after the military victory was it possible to allow our former enemies to enjoy the chance at true democracy.
Egypt is on the verge of meltdown. Regardless of who remains in power, if the mob rules the result is unlikely to be good. I hope and pray that the end result will be a more democratic and free Egypt. I fear that the opposite is more likely.
At a time like this it is important to remind ourselves of the contrast between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The American Revolution was let by men who knew the importance of having a government powerful enough to maintain control, but balanced enough to facilitate freedom. The French revolution was an angry mob that descended into anarchy and ultimately led to Napoleon. Angry mobs may destroy governments, but they rarely create democracies. Right now Obama seems to be primarily focused on seeing Mubarak out of power. He is cautioning Mubarak to not use violence to suppress protest. But, EVERY government has a right to maintain civil order. Tonight the police in Cairo have withdrawn and citizens are being told they need to defend themselves. That should be a stark reminder that there is a huge difference between peaceful protest and mob rule. Obama has no right to ask Mubarak to stand by and watch his country disintegrate into anarchy.
So far it looks like the Egyptian government, particularly the military remains in control. It appears that the Egyptian people are willing to accept the presence of the military and there is a chance that there will be a peaceful transition of power. I suspect that most Egyptians are not interested in living in a state dominated by Islamic fundamentalists. If given a choice, they are likely to choose freedom and democracy. But if the decision is made by an angry mob, such an opportunity for choice is extremely unlikely. Instead of Obama warning Mubarak to not resort to force to control angry mobs, he should be encouraging the citizens to keep the protests peaceful so that no force is necessary.
Shortly after 9-11 there was an eye opening experience for me. Vladimir Putin called George Bush and gave support. He said: “now you understand what we are dealing with in Chechnya.” I did some research I found out that I had been incredibly naïve about Chechnya. If you want to check this out for yourself, read the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/2565049.stm
I had assumed this was people just wanting to be free from the dominance of Russia. That was certainly true to a large degree. But, there was also a problem with Chechnya rebels who wanted to turn Chechnya into an Islamic fundamentalist state. Putin used the 9-11 attack as an excuse to subdue the Chechnya separatists. The Chechnya Separatists were not interested in a peaceful resolution. The point is that there is a big difference between those who believe in freedom and those who only believe in freedom to force everyone to follow their bidding.
The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, it is anarchy. Democracy is only possible by suppression of evil so that good can live in peace. Tolerating intolerance is a recipe for disaster.
TDM
Pingback: EGYPTIAN PYROMID (2) | scotshonor.com