Events in Egypt

[aadler]

 
I would like to believe, I really would, that the unrest in Egypt signals a definitive movement toward a tolerant democracy. (For that matter, I wouldn’t mind believing the same of Tunisia, precursor and harbinger of — and perhaps stimulus for — the Egyptian protests, but even there the results aren’t in yet.) I remind myself that the desire for personal freedom is indeed universal, that more of the world is free than ever before. I remind myself that the ‘revolution’ in Iran happened over thirty years ago, and that those looking to establish a new government in Egypt will have that history as a warning. I look to the fact that Iran itself is working frantically to maintain its internal authority just ahead of its own internal rebellions.

I’d like to believe all these things. But …

… but this is the Middle East we’re dealing with.

The history of revolutions isn’t encouraging. There’s a near-unanimous record of brutal fanatics overpowering the well-meaning moderates and taking over all the revolutionary councils, once the previous government can no longer keep them under control. Plus, there’s a whole slew of people in Egypt for whom “freedom” is the word before “to make war on Israel again”. Finally, there’s the uncomfortable fact that ‘Islamic’ and ‘totalitarian’ aren’t nearly as non-synonymous as those desiring peace might wish.

I believe that the long-term course of history is cause for optimism (IF we can keep the leftists and statists and believers in an ‘enlightened’ ruling elite firmly out of the halls of power). In the long run, though, Hitler was defeated; short-term, it took maybe seventy million dead to accomplish it.

I would like to believe we are moving toward peace. I will look for evidence that this is what is happening. I just happen to think that a prudent nation would leaven these hopes by preparing for war, however undesirable war might be.

Comments

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I'm with you.

[aadler]

Sometimes I think the best likely outcome would be if the entire Middle East was taken over by aggressive, hostile Islamists who united all those squabbling fiefdoms into a consolidated war to finally establish the worldwide Caliphate. Then a Western coalition would invade, conquer them, outlaw Islam — in its current form — and establish a rule of genuine law enforced by civilized nations. (And when they accused us of mounting a new Crusade, the answer would be, “Damn straight. And we won, so shut the f#@k up.”)

Better, of course, if we could follow the path Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union: stand up to them, isolate them, crowd them and outperform them until they fall apart internally under their inability to compete with those cultures that operate from an open, democratic free enterprise system. But, sadly, the West has declined horrendously since the days of Ronaldus Magnus.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

The first might indeed be the best way to go, because then maybe all those people who insist that the radical Muslims are no danger to the free world would finally figure out the truth and SFU. At the moment I'm scared to death that Egypt is going to turn into another Iran -- the similarities in the two revolutions are frightening, right down to us having a Democratic President who's weak on defense.