Several months after we’d invaded Iraq, we settled on our third official reason for occupying it in the first place. First had been the claim that Iraq had either begun to stockpile or had begun to develop nuclear weaponry. When this was proven to be false, the Bush administration, desperately seeking a credible excuse for invasion settled upon Saddam Hussein having strong links to the terrorist Organizations which were responsible for 9/11.
When this was also proven false, the administration came up with a reason that finally stuck. We had invaded Iraq not because they had nuclear weapons, (because they didn’t,) and not because they were linked to alkida, (because they weren’t,) but because Saddam Hussein was an evil man, an authoritarian leader who abused his own people directly by gassing them and jailing them for any reason whatsoever, and indirectly by denying them freedom. At least this reason was true.
nevertheless, I found this reason absurd. There are many authoritarian regimes around the world, Iran, North Korea, China, most of Africa, but we didn’t attack any of those governments because wars with those nations would have either been too hard or would not have dovetailed with our own, less noble interests.
What upset me more than this selective outrage on the behalf of people ruled by despots was that revolution should be internal, not external.
People who truly yearn for liberty free themselves. People who are satisfied with there current form of government,whether that satisfaction is informed or is based on ignorance, do not rebel.
China, for example, has a billion people within its boarders. Rebellion would not only be possible, but it would be easy if people wanted a change in government badly enough.
I sense that most people are starting to disagree with me here. For argument I offer just this. The American revolution, the french revolution, the Haition revolution, Cuba’s revolution under Castro, The White Revolution in Iran, the gaining of Indian independents led by Gandhi, the list goes on.
Not all of those revolutions worked out for the best. Some made the living conditions of the people in the countries affected worse instead of better.
I am not claiming here that revolution always leads to a better state of things than had existed before revolution, I am simply claiming that revolution should be motivated by the people of a country who are dissatisfied. It should not be something orchestrated by international forces with agenda’s of there own.
Watching the upheavals in Egypt, I’m cautiously optimistic. The movement against Mubarak is a grassroots movement with a high proportion of young people involved which suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a primary factor as of yet.
Whenever reporters ask Egyptians they interview about the underlying cause of these riots, the answer always comes back similar. Its something to the affect of, “We want Mubarak to leave and we want to pick our own government… We want a democracy.”
More power to them if they really do want a democracy, speaking as an American I think democratic government is the best form of government available.
But before I start praising the Egyptians too much, it must be remembered that as of yet all they’ve done is riot, nothing substantive has come of it, unless punching Anderson cooper in the head counts.
And here is what I find interesting about the conflict. Mubarak has said he’ll step down in September. That didn’t slacken the anti-Mubarak protesters yesterday, but now that suspiciously well organized pro Mubarak forces have begun to retaliate with violence, I’m left with one burning question.
Do the Egyptians want it badly enough? It being whatever form of government they’d prefer to the one which they currently have.
Its one thing to peacefully protest for eight days, its another to throw back crudely armed opposition after having already gotten what could be rationalized as a large enough concession by Mubarak to claim the protests achieved what they were meant to. Life in the affected cities is now far from normal, with food shortages predicted to become crippling soon.
And so what I wonder as I type this is whether or not the Egyptians want self-determination enough to stick with what they’ve started. My knowledge about Egypt as a place stops in 1973, but I’m just assuming a guy whose held power for thirty years shouldn’t be trusted when he says he’ll relinquish it voluntarily. I can’t guess if the Egyptians care enough about self-governance to make the sacrifices necessary to get it. something like that’s impossible to know.
But as someone whose country was founded on the same metaphorical tearing up of the social contract, I have to applaud the now slightly more realistic possibility that the Egyptians may soon be able to pick their own leaders and make their own laws.
A second interesting question is what form of government will take shape if Mubarak is indeed deposed. My hopes for a flourishing democracy are low. People used to being ruled with an iron fist are prone to backslides into authoritarianism once a democrassy has been founded because a dictatorship is familiar, and also because democracy hasn’t really sunk into the bones of the people yet.
I strongly appose direct involvement by the United States in this matter. Of course I’d love nothing more than for the Obama administration to pull a couple strings and manipulate things so that no anti-American factions take power. The problem is that If the U.S. rigged the elections of Egypt, something which is not at all unprecedented, then we would be far closer to the principals espoused by Mubarak than those principals outlined in our own constitution.
I admit that my hope for a positive outcome, while small, is also invigerating.
On the one hand, there was Iraq, a country that we’ve wasted lives, time, and money on “civilizing” for eight years, and our results are in no way assured. And on the other hand there’s Egypt, which decided that it wanted a new government, and has taken the first and the only steps which citizens of authoritarian states that can’t muster an army can take when they want change. Make a lot of noise, break things, and repeat loudly what they want.
Best of luck to you Egypt, I hope you want it badly enough to keep at it.
Pages & Rages 
Do the Egyptians Want it badly enough?
Several months after we’d invaded Iraq, we settled on our third official reason for occupying it in the first place. First had been the claim that Iraq had either begun to stockpile or had begun to develop nuclear weaponry. When this was proven to be false, the Bush administration, desperately seeking a credible excuse for invasion settled upon Saddam Hussein having strong links to the terrorist Organizations which were responsible for 9/11.
When this was also proven false, the administration came up with a reason that finally stuck. We had invaded Iraq not because they had nuclear weapons, (because they didn’t,) and not because they were linked to alkida, (because they weren’t,) but because Saddam Hussein was an evil man, an authoritarian leader who abused his own people directly by gassing them and jailing them for any reason whatsoever, and indirectly by denying them freedom. At least this reason was true.
nevertheless, I found this reason absurd. There are many authoritarian regimes around the world, Iran, North Korea, China, most of Africa, but we didn’t attack any of those governments because wars with those nations would have either been too hard or would not have dovetailed with our own, less noble interests.
What upset me more than this selective outrage on the behalf of people ruled by despots was that revolution should be internal, not external.
People who truly yearn for liberty free themselves. People who are satisfied with there current form of government,whether that satisfaction is informed or is based on ignorance, do not rebel.
China, for example, has a billion people within its boarders. Rebellion would not only be possible, but it would be easy if people wanted a change in government badly enough.
I sense that most people are starting to disagree with me here. For argument I offer just this. The American revolution, the french revolution, the Haition revolution, Cuba’s revolution under Castro, The White Revolution in Iran, the gaining of Indian independents led by Gandhi, the list goes on.
Not all of those revolutions worked out for the best. Some made the living conditions of the people in the countries affected worse instead of better.
I am not claiming here that revolution always leads to a better state of things than had existed before revolution, I am simply claiming that revolution should be motivated by the people of a country who are dissatisfied. It should not be something orchestrated by international forces with agenda’s of there own.
Watching the upheavals in Egypt, I’m cautiously optimistic. The movement against Mubarak is a grassroots movement with a high proportion of young people involved which suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a primary factor as of yet.
Whenever reporters ask Egyptians they interview about the underlying cause of these riots, the answer always comes back similar. Its something to the affect of, “We want Mubarak to leave and we want to pick our own government… We want a democracy.”
More power to them if they really do want a democracy, speaking as an American I think democratic government is the best form of government available.
But before I start praising the Egyptians too much, it must be remembered that as of yet all they’ve done is riot, nothing substantive has come of it, unless punching Anderson cooper in the head counts.
And here is what I find interesting about the conflict. Mubarak has said he’ll step down in September. That didn’t slacken the anti-Mubarak protesters yesterday, but now that suspiciously well organized pro Mubarak forces have begun to retaliate with violence, I’m left with one burning question.
Do the Egyptians want it badly enough? It being whatever form of government they’d prefer to the one which they currently have.
Its one thing to peacefully protest for eight days, its another to throw back crudely armed opposition after having already gotten what could be rationalized as a large enough concession by Mubarak to claim the protests achieved what they were meant to. Life in the affected cities is now far from normal, with food shortages predicted to become crippling soon.
And so what I wonder as I type this is whether or not the Egyptians want self-determination enough to stick with what they’ve started. My knowledge about Egypt as a place stops in 1973, but I’m just assuming a guy whose held power for thirty years shouldn’t be trusted when he says he’ll relinquish it voluntarily. I can’t guess if the Egyptians care enough about self-governance to make the sacrifices necessary to get it. something like that’s impossible to know.
But as someone whose country was founded on the same metaphorical tearing up of the social contract, I have to applaud the now slightly more realistic possibility that the Egyptians may soon be able to pick their own leaders and make their own laws.
A second interesting question is what form of government will take shape if Mubarak is indeed deposed. My hopes for a flourishing democracy are low. People used to being ruled with an iron fist are prone to backslides into authoritarianism once a democrassy has been founded because a dictatorship is familiar, and also because democracy hasn’t really sunk into the bones of the people yet.
I strongly appose direct involvement by the United States in this matter. Of course I’d love nothing more than for the Obama administration to pull a couple strings and manipulate things so that no anti-American factions take power. The problem is that If the U.S. rigged the elections of Egypt, something which is not at all unprecedented, then we would be far closer to the principals espoused by Mubarak than those principals outlined in our own constitution.
I admit that my hope for a positive outcome, while small, is also invigerating.
On the one hand, there was Iraq, a country that we’ve wasted lives, time, and money on “civilizing” for eight years, and our results are in no way assured. And on the other hand there’s Egypt, which decided that it wanted a new government, and has taken the first and the only steps which citizens of authoritarian states that can’t muster an army can take when they want change. Make a lot of noise, break things, and repeat loudly what they want.
Best of luck to you Egypt, I hope you want it badly enough to keep at it.
political commentary
Egypt
Foreign Policy
Kyro
Mubarak
politics
Protests
random thoughts