And in Libya, and everywhere else in the Muslim world.

rickyp wrote:Archduke: Egypt will hold parliamentary elections in September and elect a new president by November, according to the Supreme Council of Armed Forces who has been in power since Feb. 11.

So it's democratic institutions have been installed but rather democratic institutions will be installed. Further, I'll believe it when I see it. You seem to accept that the winner will not be a member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces or that the the military will accept whomever the winner is. What if the Muslim Brotherhood wins the elections. Do you really think the military will step aside? Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

rickyp wrote:Sure there's demonstrations on a daily basis but then in what stable democracy can't one find expressions of political will, like demonstrations? You know like in Wisconsin.

yes but what we seeing in Eygpt is not just demonstrations. It is raiding of government offices by demonstartors with the military or security forces firing weapons with lethal ammunition at them.

rickyp wrote:You don't see the military looking to get involved in foreign adventues (say Libya) as a way of distracting the populace. They reiterated their support for the ISrealis peace accord

Of course not because they are still consolidating their hold. Autocratic governments don't start the foriegn adventures until after they have consolidated their hold so as to distract the populace from the failure to live of to the promises of reform. Let's see what the new government does in September.

Again, I have not read anything that alludes to what you are saying. What I am seeing implies a worsening situation.

You need a source Steve?

Egyptians have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a package of constitutional amendments, according to official results released on Sunday evening.
Slightly more than 77 per cent of voters endorsed the amendments, the country's supreme judicial committee has announced.
Roughly 18 million Egyptians went to the polls on Saturday, a 41 per cent turnout. It's a better result than many past elections: The country's fraud-plagued parliamentary ballot last year had less than 25 per cent turnout, and possibly as low as 10 per cent, according to some sources.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 73176.html

Is it too fast?
Voters approved a package of nine amendments, about half of which deal with elections. One loosens the requirements for independent candidates seeking the presidency; another restores full judicial oversight for elections.

Other provisions limit the presidency to two four-year terms (currently, there is no limit), and require a public referendum for any state of emergency that lasts longer than six months (the country has been under one for the last 30 years).

Quick elections

The "yes" vote also paves the way for a quick parliamentary election, which the ruling military junta has said will be held in June.
Egypt's two main political forces, the former ruling National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood, both urged a "yes" vote on the referendum. Critics say that's because they benefit from the quick timetable for elections.
As established political parties, they will have an edge in mobilising resources and fielding candidates.

Still there are lots of democratic countries where only two parties dominate political life...

Ray Jay wrote:You are so modest not even mentioning that you are quoting the New York Times.

Hard for me to tell if you're being sarcastic (sometimes hard to communicate in writing, as I well know, being so frequently sarcastic myself and so frequently misunderstood!), but Steve posted the link and even made a humorous reference.

archduke

You seem to accept that the winner will not be a member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces or that the the military will accept whomever the winner is. What if the Muslim Brotherhood wins the elections. Do you really think the military will step aside? Again, I'll believe it when I see it

.

Don't know...Based on what I've read in Al Jazeera I'm guessing the National Democratic party will dominate but we'll see,
Thats the problem with self determination and democracy. It isn't always predictable. And for governments seeking to influence events from outside the coutnry, also difficult.
It is interesting that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to gain power through the ballot box now.. There are democratic countries where fundamental religious groups have also sought power and influence that way. Whats always worrisome is that sometimes goups like this believe in democracy only once...
But I'm also fairly confident that in the long run once a people have tasted democratic freedoms they generally achieve them. Yes, it can take many years...

Of course not because they are still consolidating their hold.

I think you fail to recognize that it was the Egyptian military that really facilitated the end of Mubarek's reign. They suspended the old constitution and set in place the transition, and have guaranteed them. Now, the military in egypt is uniquely involved in the economy, for a military. They own and run hundreds of businesses and account for perhaps a quarter of Egypts GDP. ...and it might be that their financial performane as a "corporation" suffers in turmoil as well, providing aditional impetus to bring about normalcy. But for now, they've been a force for change and a force for stability.

archduke

yes but what we seeing in Eygpt is not just demonstrations. It is raiding of government offices by demonstartors with the military or security forces firing weapons with lethal ammunition at them

.
Live ammunition aside and you've described Wisconsin.
Every demonstration, every event, doesn't portend doom. There's bound to be some turmoil but the direction Egypt is heading in seems like democracy...
Do you really think the US should be involved in how Egypt develops its governance? And how can you imagine that happening?

Ricky, no one is disputing votes took place. Votes don't always lead to democracy. In this case, if Islamists win, it might be just as "democratic" as Iran. Is that what you're cheerleading about?

You're so excited about a vote or two, you've lost any capacity you may have possessed to reason. Or, maybe it's just too much time dining in Cairo.

X
The questions are these: are we Americans committed enough to these ideals to suffer for them? We pay homage to "The Greatest Generation" because they were willing. We would have to pay dearly to make oil a non-essential strategic commodity, but not as dearly as that earlier generation paid, or many of the generations before them. So, in short, if I were Ricky I'd say: "Put up or shut up. Either you're idealistic or you aren't; either you're leaders or you aren't. It's okay to just be another nation, but if that's all you aspire to then stop talking big about spreading freedom and democracy. And for God's sake why in hell would you need a military that's stronger than the rest of the world's put together unless you were committed to using it for good, and not just to maintain a high standard of living for Americans and your allies?" That's what I'd say if I were he. In fact, it's what I'd say... period. It's just that I don't for sure know the right answer to the implied questions. Should we be so idealistic? Are we still capable of making great sacrifices? I just don't know

Should you be so idealistic?
Yes. Trying to live up to ideals is what makes people, or nations better.
Are you still capable of making great sacrifices?Should you maintain a huge military and be so interventionist?
Your military is a volunteer military. That small minority of families are making most of your sacrifice. When George Bush funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with deficits rather than appropriate taxes, I think it was a pretty clear indication that sacrifice is not a shared experience. Bring in a taxation level that actually pays for your military, rather than forcing future generations to pay for it, and a draft that spreads the sacrifice, and you'd probably make fewer decisions to intervene anywhere. It was, in large part, a draft army that was the reason Viet Nam became unsupportable.

There is folly in the idea that you can spread democracy and freedom with military intervention and the projection of power . Military might is needed. But to assume that an American ideal of "freedom and democracy" can be imposed on people doesn't really work. At the same time, if a nation espouses the ideals and then works hand in glove with forces that oppose freedom and democracy ... There are enough unfortunate instances where US governments have subverted its ideals that there is a lot of suspicion about motives whenever a new situation arises.
The Libyan intervention, so far has been a balancing act by Obama. A pretty good one. I hope the US is able to sit the rest of this one out.
And I think that if democracy is achieved across the MidEast it will take some time, and it will largely be self won. And that's a good thing.
There was almost no foreign involvement when the countries of Eastern Europe fell to democratic rebellions....and most of them are developing as democracies just fine...

steve

Ricky, no one is disputing votes took place. Votes don't always lead to democracy

Yes, we must do whatever we can to protect democracy when actual voting breaks out...
I have acknowledged that there are extreme groups that hope to co-opt democracy and when it has served its purposes end it...
Steve, I don't like the govenrment of Iran. But, here's the thing, Iranians don't much either. And they are actually fighting to change it. From within. And, note well, they aren't asking for help from outside interests.
You guys rant and fuss and worry about how events in all those foreign countries will turn out. They'll turn out the way their people want them to turn out. Eventually.
And, at this point in history, it appears less and less likely that foreign governments can have much influence when a nation decides to move towards democracy.
Too costly (Not willing to sacrifice).
Too little reward. (Free countries tend to act in their own self interest which doesn't always recognize the reasons the intervening country helped. Note well how friendly Iraq is with Iran, Steve.)

rickyp wrote:I think you fail to recognize that it was the Egyptian military that really facilitated the end of Mubarek's reign.

I am very aware of it Ricky. However, I think you are being too idealistic. Look at it this way. The military is very involved in the economy as a business owner. That means people in the upper echelons are making money. So they have a choice. Support a an old man and repress the people what could turn into a bloddy civil war, thereby effecting the economy and the flow in money coming into those senior officer's pockets; or,
they could force a doddering old fool out of office, take control themselves pass a few unimportant laws to assuage the masses and then go back to business as usual with another one of their members as President

Which do you think is more likely. Given history, I'll go with the latter.

rickyp wrote:ILive ammunition aside and you've described Wisconsin.

Well, that live ammunition is a major difference. If you can't see that then you are even more idealistically niave then I thought you were.

rickyp wrote:IDo you really think the US should be involved in how Egypt develops its governance? And how can you imagine that happening?

@#$! no!. I think we should focus on converting as much of our energy usage to Natural Gas and nuclear and focus on developing Hydrogen fuel cell technology and return the middle east to the unimportant backwater, jerkwater area that it was for the majority of the modern era. But that is just me.

archduke

Given history, I'll go with the latter.

History is on the side of self determination and democracy Archduke. Its just getting to the Mid-East a little later than elsewhere.

Minister X wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:You are so modest not even mentioning that you are quoting the New York Times.

Hard for me to tell if you're being sarcastic (sometimes hard to communicate in writing, as I well know, being so frequently sarcastic myself and so frequently misunderstood!), but Steve posted the link and even made a humorous reference.

I was truly impressed. Steve is probably the most consistent conservative on these pages, so I appreciated his quoting the NYT. It shows that he is reading different perspectives.

Just on the Egyptians voting, Democracy is more about institutions, the rule of law, and respect for minorities, and less about majority rule.

ray

Just on the Egyptians voting, Democracy is more about institutions, the rule of law, and respect for minorities, and less about majority rule.

True. And what the Egyptians just voted on was a constitution that set out the ways that government will work. A process that has been, so far, guaranteed by an interim government of the Armed forces....
Did you expect that they could continue to use the Constitution that Mubarek co-opted?
Things don't happen over night.

I've been trying to express something about the point of view in what I've reading from conservatives here. Why is it that the important popular uprisings and developments in democracy weren't seen by political actors in the West. Particularly the US. The original Iranian revolution, The fall of the Soviet government, the recent uprising in Tunisia and particularly Egypt all seem to have come out of no where. And somehow Americans of all stripes think that the US should be involved in some way, promoting, influencing or even controlling events to the benefit of the US. To me, this represents naiveté, best expressed in X's salute to the Truman doctrine he learned to revere in high school. I think that the biggest developments in freedom happened without any significant involvement from the US... And that in the development of democracy around the world, espousing and working towards democracy and freedom can't be effectively done by foreign countries. Its an expression from within the society. And needs and in fact heeds no outside assistance or involvement when fully formed.
There's seems to be a palpable chagrin that this happens without US involvement by many Americans. How dare they take matters into their own hands!

Here's an interesting take on it from the mid-east.

]While conservatives such as Bush spoke enthusiastically about the universality of democracy they remained convinced that beneficial change would come about in only one of two ways: Regime change or gradual internal reform. In either case, American power and support were considered the essential element. American inaction meant either the maintenance of the status quo or the spread of Islamic radicalism.

In many ways, this myopic, American-centric view of power and change continues to govern both conservative and liberal American views of the Arab world. What conservatives never saw coming, along with the majority of American foreign policy analysts, was the manner in which the Arab world has changed in recent months. It turns out America was not the essential catalyst for change that everyone assumed.

Twice in a decade now, hitherto neglected non-state actors have seemingly come from nowhere to fundamentally alter both America's perception of the Middle East and the history of the region itself. Unfortunately, Americans were too mesmerised by the spectre of their own power to see such things coming.

At this juncture, as Americans ponder their future relationship with the Arab world, they might do well to consider the ideas of an important, but neglected theorist of political power, John Howard Yoder. He offered the sound insight that state power (whether 'soft', 'smart' or 'hard') is not equivalent to real power and that he who wields the sword is not the source of agency or creativity in history.

Todd M. Thompson is an assistant professor of International Affairs at Qatar University(associated with georgetown university. Thompson is American.
Yoder was a Christian pacifist, of mennonite faith. Author of "The politics of jesus" and a very imperfect man. (Guilty of sexual misconduct apparently)
source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 17507.html

Ricky, the other posters (Steve, Min X, Archduke, and I) all understand what you are saying. Frankly, I think we are just taking less extreme and more pragmatic views than you are. Everyone agrees that time will tell and that many different things can happen. My personal take is that you are spending way too much energy trying to convince and way too little energy reading and thinking about what we actually write.

Frankly, I think we are just taking less extreme and more pragmatic views than you are.

Well my view on Libya is a limited intervention that doesn't involve boots on the ground or any kind of occupation seems appropriate
The difference is that from most of you the #1 concern is how the Libyan situation will resolve itself postiively for the US. And whether or not further US invovlement is either helping or hurting this situation.
I'm only concerned with the development of democracy . And whether western involvement can (should?) both aid this and/or limit the damage a tyrant can do to his people.
Thats actually more pragmatic because frankly I don't think that a tumultous event like this is "manageable" or even realy influenced by foreign involvement very often. There are exceptions. The British intervention in Sierra Leone for instance.
I think X's pondering of the Truman doctrine and the history of US involvement in various situations indicates that he has figured out that all of the uncertainty over Libya that seems to be so difficult to grasp by American pundits and politicians is an indication that the Truman doctrine has long passed away. If the lessons of Viet Nam, and Latin America, and recently Iraq and Afghanistan haven't clearly indicated that there are limits to not only the use of power but even the projection of pwer in influencing the major events of the world - then surely the uncertainty in Libya has to be clear.
The most important events of the late 20th century and this decade have been the rise of democracy in the former communist nations, the Iranian revolution and the Arab Awakening. None of them were predicted by anyone in the West. And the west (US) had no influence on the events. Very important Things will happen with or without the US involvement or influence. Thats not an extreme position Ray. Its a fact.
Accepting that might lead to some obvious beenfits. For instance a decline in commitment to spending on the military.... Right now thats sancrosanct. Imagine the benefits in allocating a fifth of the military budget to something else?

rickyp wrote:I've been trying to express something about the point of view in what I've reading from conservatives here. Why is it that the important popular uprisings and developments in democracy weren't seen by political actors in the West. Particularly the US. The original Iranian revolution, The fall of the Soviet government, the recent uprising in Tunisia and particularly Egypt all seem to have come out of no where. And somehow Americans of all stripes think that the US should be involved in some way, promoting, influencing or even controlling events to the benefit of the US. ... I think that the biggest developments in freedom happened without any significant involvement from the US... And that in the development of democracy around the world, espousing and working towards democracy and freedom can't be effectively done by foreign countries. Its an expression from within the society. And needs and in fact heeds no outside assistance or involvement when fully formed.

The following appeared on the opinion pages of The Washington Post; when did it appear and by whom was it written?

This administration prides itself on its progressive approach to this post-Cold War world, but it is repeating the mistake that Cold War-era administrations made when they supported right-wing dictatorships -- right up until the point when they were toppled by radical forces.

Obama's Cairo speech had the admirable goal of improving relations with the Muslim world, but the manner in which the administration has pursued this goal has been flawed from the beginning. It has focused almost exclusively on building bridges with leaders and governments. Yet in Egypt, and in Iran, a gulf has opened between the government and the citizenry. Obama has strengthened ties with the aging Mubarak while ignoring the concerns of Egypt's increasingly restive population. "What about us?" one prominent democracy activist asked. "Do we count for anything in this U.S.-Egypt relationship?"

When rebels ousted the corrupt government in Kyrgyzstan in April, they noted angrily that the United States had never stood up for their rights in the face of rigged elections and human rights abuses, placing a clear priority on strategic cooperation with the government. Watch out. If the Obama administration does not figure out how to make clear that it supports the political and human rights of Egyptian citizens, while cooperating with the Egyptian government on diplomatic and security affairs, people will be saying that about the United States in Cairo one of these days -- and maybe sooner than we expect.

Answer: arch-neocon and co-founder of PNAC Robert Kagan, ten months ago.

Popular uprisings are particularly hard to predict; the USA is no worse at this than anyone else. The Soviets, for instance. were awful at it - especially considering the extent their intelligence apparatus had infiltrated centers of discontent. But while foresight regarding exact timing is elusive, the general concept is broadly understood. What is it, for instance, we've all been hoping for in Iran these many years? And even in China?

Ricky is straddling the horns of a dilemma, and he's not alone. Within one page here he says: "Should you be so idealistic? Yes." in response to my (rhetorical) questions but also says my salute to the Truman Doctrine is naive and that it's obsolete. We should actively spread freedom and democracy - but not use military force - but tax enough to support our large military - and all popular uprisings in recent history haven't benefited from US commitment to spreading freedom and democracy - especially in Eastern Europe. Maybe he's just having trouble expressing himself; it would be understandable because these are IMHO extremely difficult questions.

rickyp wrote:There was almost no foreign involvement when the countries of Eastern Europe fell to democratic rebellions. ...the west (US) had no influence on the events.

Wow. Where do I begin? You know... while sometimes Ricky seems to me to be way out in left field most times his observations have at least a few PPM of cogent and interesting thought. In this case I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and take it that he meant that when the Berlin Wall was torn down (for instance) US government employees weren't actively organizing and leading those young people while waving the red, white and blue. I know he's aware that we had troops stationed in Berlin - the focal point of the Cold War. Having fought that war for decades on many fronts worldwide was an essential precursor to what he's talking about in Eastern Europe. We supported and encouraged dissidents. We contained Soviet power and thus made world communism seem something less than inevitable. Well... there's too much to mention.

Folks, I'd not expect to see a cogent explication of what US doctrine should be from Ricky; I'm not expecting to see it from Obama or anyone else. I can't give you one. The world is chock-a-block with no-win situations and policy traps. There are things we can't do and things we can't not do, and they overlap. I can picture a USA that is activist, enlightened and idealistic about making the entire world a better place, but it's not the real USA and not the real world. Since WWII there have been a thousand turning points where we might have made that more or less realistic, but we almost never recognized those points when they arose or knew what cause-effect rules would apply at the time. The same will be true going forward.