A few thoughts on just possibly being wrong about Egypt and Tunisia.

I'm very happy over that possibility!

The "revolution" in Egypt just might have something to uphold. According to London's The Daily Telegraph, American diplomats have been fostering this result for the past three years....

Now this is Machiavellianism at its moral best. At least at first glance, we seem to have found a People's Revolution and supported it. Yes, in a sense we did depose the leader of a foreign land, but for once we just might have done so to enact the will of the people rather than simply the ambitions of that leader's rivals. Theoretically then, a setback in one life may have resulted in real relief for several million.

If Obama took this opportunity, we will at last be able to negotiate from a position of strength in the middle east, and to quell the source of our power, middle eastern leaders will at have to heed the will of their citizens. This sort of thing was the supposed reason for our invasions of Iraq and the now supposedly "nice" (previously unacceptable) Taliban previously ruling Afghanistan, and this time, given success, we just might not leave ground forces behind.

In this case, not actually a thought, but a hope....

PS: Of course--and this just came in--the news now claims The Muslim Brotherhood to be the cause of the Egyptian uprising. I don't know much about them, but the simple fact of their having an agenda other than that of service to the people of Egypt does not bode well. Oh well, I'll still hope for the best for Egypt, but then, I did that before

A Few Thought on The Uprising in Egypt

Well, inspired by the Tunisian example, the Egyptians are trying to riot their leader out of power. As with the Tunisians, I wish them absolute success, but I cannot state my optimism for this affair either.

To put it plainly, a revolution that simply throws someone out of power creates only a power vacuum, and in the face of such anarchy, even people of strong will and good intention are likely to accept the most stable government possible, even that of a dictator. Successful revolutionaries, such as those in my country, or in eighteenth century France, or twentieth century Russia, had or put some form of government in place to fight for. Cromwell's revolt and assorted civil wars in the third world lacked this structure, and they resulted only in dictatorships.

In some ways, establishing a shadow government or swearing loyalty to a Continental Congress, is simply the least test of a people's desire for change. Without genuinely organizing something to oppose oppression, they prove their lack of resolve to fight an oppressor able to inflict pain--and are there any other kinds? Furthermore, without anything to put in power at the end of the fight, the Egyptians and the Tunisians may find themselves with nothing but another single ruler, perhaps promising not to be a tyrant, but only perhaps.

Just a few thoughts....