What Should the U.S. Do About the Arab Revolts?

[Pangloss]

I don't know about that "no experience" business. They've been busily importing American culture for decades, so I doubt these concepts are unfamiliar. Religion is a powerful influence but it hasn't stopped every Hollywood star from Jimmy Stewart to George Clooney from pontificating in their living rooms.

 

But I'm not calling for naive hope, I'm pointing out that the world seems little interested in doing anything OTHER than simply hoping for the best.

[lemur]

We can hope that with the aid of modern insight they'll skip right through the pitfalls of majority rule and go right to the recognition of inalienable human rights.

"Majority rule" is typically misinterpreted, imo, as implying that a dictator elected by a majority may legitimately exercise authoritarian control over the individuals of a "free republic." If this were the case, it would defeat the idea of "free republic" in the first place. Majority-elected representative government is part of a democratic package of checks and balances. Specifically, one of the things theorists of democracy wished to prevent was rule by a minority/elite. Since a government is always necessarily a minority/elite, majoritarian elections are supposed to hold that elite/minority accountable to the majority. The alternative, having only a decentralized government of self-governing people would allow organic authoritarianism to build up without any central government to check it. Likewise, if central government would not have any popular accountability, that elite/minority could abuse its power to oppress the people at large (e.g. apartheid South Africa is the most recognizable 20th century example). But "majority rule" is consistently strawmanned both by opponents of democracy as well as those who want to abuse democracy to levy "the tyranny of the majority" over minorities and individuals. The most notable historical examples are Hitler being elected by majority referendum and the invocation of popular sovereignty to expand slaving by the Kansas-Nebraska act prior to the US civil war. Both examples clearly show how majority-rule can undermine democracy and freedom when it is abused to create policies of oppression instead of being used to check authoritarian power of a minority/elite.

[rigney]

Will our own government ever learn that dictatorships are never truly stable? Think I took this out of a link Pangloss had put up for debate. The (ever) was mine. But then, what government of any nation has ever been truely stable? Change will come from time to time, "Hell or High Water". But as long as no mandates are given to run around cutting peoples heads off, hanging them from goal posts or stoning them to death; "religious or secular", these governments are alright with me.

Edited February 2, 2011 by rigney

[rigney]

When the dominos start falling, it's only a matter of time until "Nut Cases" here too; start determining America's future. That is, unless we are extremely diligent. A tidbit from Michigans Upper Peninsula this morning. Likely this nut wasn't even serious, but it works right into the middle eastern scenario. Threatened, they will listen, reprisals, and they will "fold".

 

Online threat leads officials to close Northern Michigan University, Marquette public schools 02-02-2011 11:12 AM EST

MARQUETTE, Mich. (Associated Press) --

 

Authorities have closed Northern Michigan University and the city of Marquette's public schools because of a threat to the university.

 

University spokeswoman Kristi Evans said Wednesday an online threat was made to harm students, faculty, staff and administrators at the school in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Evans had no further details about the nature of the threat, which was discovered shortly before 8 a.m.

 

Evans said an emergency notice was transmitted on the laptop computers provided to all 9,400 students. Text messages were also sent on cell phones. It is uncertain if the closure will last beyond Wednesday.

Edited February 2, 2011 by rigney

[LightHeavyW8]

OK, since nobody else seems to have any real solutions, let me take care of it with a few epithets -

 

To the Arabs: Enough children, already!

To the Israelis: Enough mikvahs, already!

To the Americans: Enough socialism for the elite, smiley-faced fascism for the masses, and right-wing demagoguery for everyone - already!

 

 

LHW

[rigney]

OK, since nobody else seems to have any real solutions, let me take care of it with a few epithets -

 

To the Arabs: Enough children, already!

To the Israelis: Enough mikvahs, already!

To the Americans: Enough socialism for the elite, smiley-faced fascism for the masses, and right-wing demagoguery for everyone - already!

LHW

 

Tough sledding Chief! So, just how do you plan on backing any of this up? By the way, even as a young Hill Billy; I loved "mikvos". We got one every week whether we needed it or not, and weren't even Jewish. And heck, we called it masturbation, not ejaculation. It was a good ceremony if the water was still warm and Dad hadn't scrubbed too much coal dust off his ass. But I'm In the big city now and simply can't afford water prices. Edited February 2, 2011 by rigney

[LightHeavyW8]

Tough sledding Chief! So, just how do you plan on backing any of this up?

What seems to have disappeared in public discourse this millenium is any capacity for self-criticism. If my repartee somehow manages to delay Armageddon by a single moment, it will have been a worthwhile effort, no?

 

LHW

[rigney]

Is this how we forestall armageddon, to involve our government an any and all world disputes? Who the hell are we to chide anyone? Let's not throw our muscle around, but allow the world to react to their own problems. What would happen if such a chrisis came to bear here in the states? Who, in your wildest dreams would come charging in to the rescue? Yea!, sure. Everyone!

 

Our US government chides Egypt over arrests, and press restrictions. "WOW, BIG CHARLIE BAD ASS IS IN THE ROOM AGAIN" Where the hell were we when these people actually needed us most? Let's hurry up and kick Mubarak's ass out of office so the Egyptian people can really work with subversive's.

 

02-02-2011 11:29 AM EST |By BRADLEY KLAPPER and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

In total safety, President Barack Obama speaks of the situation in Egypt in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2011. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) WASHINGTON (Associated Press) --

The United States criticized the government of President Hosni Mubarak and condemned violence in Egypt's capital as clashes between protesters and pro-government supporters demonstrated there would be no easy resolution to the unrest destabilizing America's closest ally in the Arab world.

 

A day after President Barack Obama pressed Mubarak to loosen his grip on power immediately, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the U.S. "deplores and condemns the violence that is taking place in Egypt."

 

"We are deeply concerned about attacks on the media and peaceful demonstrators," he added in a statement. "We repeat our strong call for restraint."

 

His comments came after the protests in Egypt's capital took a dangerous turn when several thousand Mubarak supporters, including some riding horses and camels and wielding whips, attacked anti-government protesters. In scenes of uncontrolled violence, some of the assailants were dragged to the ground by demonstrators and beaten bloody while the two sides rained stones and bottles down on each other.

 

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley also urged calm.

 

"Egypt's path to democratic change must be peaceful," he said in a post to Twitter. He criticized the government over detentions and press restrictions. "The civil society that Egypt wants to build includes a free press."

 

The strife in Egypt was occurring a day after Obama prodded Mubarak to quickly loosen his grip on power, sternly telling the world that the longtime leader's transition from the presidency "must begin now."

 

Mubarak said Tuesday he would not seek re-election in balloting set for September. Yet he seemed determined to shepherd the political changeover from his authoritarian 30-year reign to an uncertain future.

 

The half-concession was angrily rejected by throngs of protesters in Cairo who say they are fed up with poverty and corruption and want him to step down immediately.

 

It also did not appear to satisfy Obama. After days of scrambling in the White House over how to react to the enormous and unanticipated protest movement, the president unmistakably sided with the demonstrators, even if he stopped short of demanding Mubarak's immediate resignation.

 

After speaking to the Egyptian on the phone for half an hour, the president offered high praise for the protesters and the Egyptian army. But Obama did not welcome or even directly mention Mubarak's announcement that he would not stand for re-election.

 

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now," he said.

 

And he had no kind words for Mubarak, though his Egypt has been critical to securing America's interests in the Middle East, including access to oil transport through the Suez Canal and a peace treaty with Israel under Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat.

 

Behind the scenes, the White House had attempted to nudge Mubarak to the exits over the past 48 hours, dispatching former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner as a special envoy to deliver a message to him: The U.S. saw Mubarak's tenure at an end, didn't want him to seek re-election and wanted him to prepare an orderly transition to real democracy.

 

Speaking Wednesday to American ambassadors gathered in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the unrest in the Middle East showed the importance of strong U.S. diplomacy.

 

"What's going on today _ recent events in Egypt and certainly in that broader region _ remind us all how crucial it is to have top-notch leadership on the ground and how quickly the ground can shift under our feet," she said.

 

"This is a critical time for America's global leadership," Clinton added. She said the United States needs to "be more nimble" in dealing with fast-paced international developments. Holy Mary Mother of God, help us! PPS, And I'm an uncivilized agnostic!

Edited February 2, 2011 by rigney

[Pangloss]

When the dominos start falling, it's only a matter of time until "Nut Cases" here too; start determining America's future.

 

IMO it's economics, not ideology. According to an ABC News story I saw the other night, over 50% of the populations of many of the Arab states, including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are under the age of 25. Unemployment also ranks very high in that age group in those countries. (I didn't spot a ready source for this but I saw a number of blogs quoting the >50% stat.)

 

Only 34% of the US population is under that age, and while their unemployment rate is high at 22% (source), that's still a fairly small portion of the overall population, which faces an unemployment rate of under 10%.

[john5746]

link

 

Wow, this guy is an idiot. Every time he makes a statement, the people hope he is going to resign, instead he just fans the flames. If he is going to do more of this, he should release his statement prior to the speech.

Edited February 10, 2011 by john5746

[ParanoiA]

Taking sides in this is going to hurt us, bad. It's a terrible idea. Democracy ≠ Freedom. I don't think we've earned the credibility to really interfere with the complexity of Egypt's politics without being a largely ignorant ass.

[lemur]

Taking sides in this is going to hurt us, bad. It's a terrible idea. Democracy ≠ Freedom. I don't think we've earned the credibility to really interfere with the complexity of Egypt's politics without being a largely ignorant ass.

Whatever the level of ignorance, the fact is that there exists connectivity and responsibility has to be taken for the connection(s). Why is global interaction always framed as "interference" when multiple national identities are involved? Despite attempts at maintaining national-separation, isn't the fundamental reality at least since colonialism that the world is a global village (not to say a peaceful one by any means). Is Egypt an exceptional case that should be especially shielded from global interaction? If so, why?

[ParanoiA]

Whatever the level of ignorance, the fact is that there exists connectivity and responsibility has to be taken for the connection(s). Why is global interaction always framed as "interference" when multiple national identities are involved? Despite attempts at maintaining national-separation, isn't the fundamental reality at least since colonialism that the world is a global village (not to say a peaceful one by any means). Is Egypt an exceptional case that should be especially shielded from global interaction? If so, why?

 

I think global interaction in the form of governments interacting becomes "interference" when they carry a reputation of force and domination. If we were Canada, I wouldn't call it interference. American citizens making statements to the media, even amplified by celebrity status, still doesn't qualify as interference to me. But when America the government makes statements, while occupying two countries in that same region and our reputation of meddling in their governments, it becomes interference.

 

There's a reason people want Obama to speak out in support of the Egyptian protesters, and it isn't because they're just really curious. It's because they know it will empower them with vocal support from the military giant, even if we're not sending war machinery following the speech.

 

But, in this case, it's also a matter of strategy. I'm fairly convinced the Egyptian people will get their democracy. But what if they don't? We will then have to go forward with even more tension and mistrust aimed at us than before. I'm not sure that's a consequence we're going to steer clear of even if they get their democracy, actually.

 

Taking sides here was a bad idea.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ParanoiA

[lemur]

I think global interaction in the form of governments interacting becomes "interference" when they carry a reputation of force and domination. If we were Canada, I wouldn't call it interference.

I think there is generally a certain propaganda approach to authoritarian power that involves asserting non-interference between "autonomous sovereign nations." Hegemonic control involves first and foremost discouraging the will to resistance. So anyone who would resist the assertion of sovereign autonomy through collective boundary-setting is automatically labelled an aggressor. Then, of course, it makes sense to define one nation as the greatest superpower and simultaneously the most aggressive imperialist, because doing so motivates the strongest resistance to national-penetration, which is of course the main hegemonic goal for national sovereignty. The best offense is a strong defense, at least within the ideology of motivating national resistance to power that doesn't submit to the will to autonomous national sovereignty.

 

If you're comparing nations in terms of reputation, I would say you're completely caught up in this ideology of national unity. In reality, national identities are mainly used to promote psychological associations between relatively independent agents. Yes, a good deal of energy gets spent on coordinating such agents to pursue global and local goals in terms of common collective interest, but in reality interests conflict whether they are labelled as national commonality or not. It's far easier, imo, to focus on specific political/economic interests and how these interact on the global stage. If you're really interested in the role of nationalism, you can analyze how national-identity gets used to mobilize support for various global interests.

 

 

American citizens making statements to the media, even amplified by celebrity status, still doesn't qualify as interference to me. But when America the government makes statements, while occupying two countries in that same region and our reputation of meddling in their governments, it becomes interference.

What is occupation in the context of nuclear capability? The US has occupied every individual globally since 1945 insofar as none are immune from nuclear or other bombardment. No controller of nuclear weapons can ever de-occupy anyone in range of their weapons except insofar as people release the terror from their hearts, which many people have. Beyond that, national sovereignty is an anachronism of the pre-nuclear era.

 

There's a reason people want Obama to speak out in support of the Egyptian protesters, and it isn't because they're just really curious. It's because they know it will empower them with vocal support from the military giant, even if we're not sending war machinery following the speech.

In other words, they want the nukes on their side?

 

But, in this case, it's also a matter of strategy. I'm fairly convinced the Egyptian people will get their democracy. But what if they don't? We will then have to go forward with even more tension and mistrust aimed at us than before. I'm not sure that's a consequence we're going to steer clear of even if they get their democracy, actually.

By "not getting their democracy," do you mean that their mean level of wealth doesn't increase? That seems to be the main interest, as I understand it.

 

Taking sides here was a bad idea.

What do you mean?