I don't have anything to contribute except memories of media coverage in the distant past. In 1970, Nasser died. The general consensus in the American press was: "A titan of world history has died. The official successor, the little-known vice-president Anwar Sadat, is unlikely to last long." Then, in 1981, Sadat was assassinated, and the general consensus in the American press was: "A titan of world history has died. The official successor, the little-known vice-president Hosni Mubarak, is unlikely to last long."
January 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
Mr. Sailer - they are toppling a government that represents a foreign interest. Within their cultural context you cannot expect much as an American--to relate to. I say a round of applause is due for the recent protests in the mid-east - its better then terrorist groups preying on concern for westernization and being absorbed into a one-world order - that the mid-easterners that aren't watching western-american satellite television surely oppose.
It's too bad Mubarak hasn't has as interesting a life story as his two predecessors. Robert De Nero could have played him.
"A titan of world history has died. The official successor, the little-known ___, is unlikely to last long."
One tends to last long if one has the army on one's side. A few billion every year from the American taxpayer doesn't hurt, either.
Jimmy Carter ordered the Shah to leave Iran and he obeyed. Yesterday Hillary Clinton advised Hosni Mubarrak something similar. Americans never learn but fortunately the Egyptian dictator did.
you're not very talented Mr. Steve.
you're ignored by the mainstream press not because you're a truth-teller but because you're a one-note ukulele.
"you're not very talented Mr. Steve.
you're ignored by the mainstream press not because you're a truth-teller but because you're a one-note ukulele."
Steve has several orders of magnitude greater readership than you do, Mr. Troll.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote a famous essay for Commentary entitled Dictatorships and Double Standards in which she argued in favor of not undermining friendly or non-hostile authoritarian governments in relation to the Cold War. For the last decade at least, the Neocons have turned her argument on its head and most Neocons seem to favor handing Egypt over to the radical Muslims. After Israel’s Neocon Likudnik faction has managed to elevate the radical Muslims in Lebanon into power, and handed Iraq over to Iran, I guess reversing the peace between Egypt and Israel is the one thing left for the Neocons to do.
"Steve has several orders of magnitude greater readership than you do, Mr. Troll."
Don't feed him. Of course his comment made no sense - they're not supposed to.
I would say that Sailer's ukelele has more notes than that of many Leftist commentators.
The bigger problem is that there just isn't much money to be made telling the truth about race.
What Sailer really should do is write a book white-washing racial differences in the tradition of Stephen J. Gould and Jared Diamond. Then, once it becomes a best seller, publicly reveal that the first letters of each chapter spell out "This is bullshit"
I assume that everyone here is well aware of the disaster which would ensue if the Islamists were to gain the upper hand in Egypt.
Right?
Bueller?
I mean, seriously - YIKES!
Not good.
Not good at all.
And even if you don't care about the Muslims in Egypt, there are more than seven million Copts ready to be slaughtered.
[After Dubya removed the relatively secular government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and replaced it with a Muslim government, something like 500,000 or 1,000,000 Iraqi Christians were purged.]
Mubarak flew Spitfires in the post-war Egyptian Air Force.
Basically, Mubarak like Sadat before him is just an American stooge who is paid to be as neuterd and non-threatening to Israel as possible with large dollops of US taxpayers' money - and the egyptian people know this.
He is a nasty little dictator, but curiously, is never the victiom of incessant western media and political attacks like Belorus's Lukashenko, for example is, because he serves western interests well.
At crux, Egypt is a malthusian basket case with a rapid growing huge population that cannot feed itself and is largely workless - this is building anger and frustration (literally) amongst virile young men who are being left as sexually rendundant paupers.Food riots - when most Egyptians literally could not afford to but bread, scared sadat in 1977, thus letting Carter to dangle US taxpayers' money as bait and allowing the camp david accords in which Egypt - the biggest existential threat to Israel, was castrated.
The Egyptian people have not forgotten.
Sadat and mubarak are really just whores.
The interesting thing to watch is how unprepared the CFR types for this event are. They thought they controlled things: Support a dictator here, support another there, that'll keep the lid on.
And, as usual, Biden supplies the LOLS, Touretting what inner party members really think, for all their b.s. about human rights and democracy, etc.
I think the neocons feel that the radical muslim regimes in the ME would remove much popular resistence to waging total war in the regime. The secular authoritarians were a product of the cold war but do not benefit zionism.
you're ignored by the mainstream press not because you're a truth-teller but because you're a one-note ukulele.
Most members of the mainstream press are themselves one-note ukuleles.
Perhaps colonizing some southern African locales is the solution for this Malthusian crisis.
My God, what a shock it is for our foreign policy and intelligence agencies to be caught by surprise by such a change. A cynic might almost doubt their competence. Maybe if we double their budgets yet again, things will go better next time. No doubt, that will be their proposal, anyway.
The best thing we can do is stay the hell out of their revolution, beyond minimal stuff like offering to arrange safe passage out and exile for the current government, and doing what we can at low cost to discourage large-scale
bloodshed. The Egyptians will decide what government they have, and hopefully will get a better one than they have now.
"Mubarak flew Spitfires in the post-war Egyptian Air Force"
That's good to know, for when the neocons start suggesting that Mubarak really flew Messerschmitts, then the rest of us will know that the gig is really up for his regime.
Mubarak is 82 and wouldn't have lasted much longer in any case. It's typical in countries like Egypt that once you have hold of the tiger's tail you can't afford to let go. Of course the results of change will be worse, this is the third world after all. Our only concern should be preventing these people from immigrating here or to Europe.
Previously little-known, low charisma leaders staying in power for decades? I think submission to hydraulic despotism may be bred in.
I've been reviled by anti-semites for suggesting that the neocons in the US do actually believe in "global democratic transformation", that destroying authoritarian secular regimes will lead to a flowering of liberal democracy in the ME.
The alternative would be that neocons actually want the Islamists to take over the ME, so that (a) Israeli nukes can then turn it into smoking rubble and (b) tens or even hundreds of millions of Muslim refugees can flood into what's left of the West.
What will happen when the Israelis destroy the Aswan dam?
Steve, please stop saying "general consensus." A "C" is by definition general. Just say consensus or general agreement. Sincere thanks.
Mubarak is nasty, no question, but he's useful.
Lest we forget, Egypt has one key part in global commerce: the SUEZ CANAL. Through which about 5.38 billion worth of goods passed through in 2008, according to Wiki. Much of that Europe's oil from the Gulf.
A Muslim Brotherhood led Egypt is likely to close the Canal, for a non-trivial period of time (to satisfy Islamism among their followers) sending oil prices skyrocketing. Brent crude is already at $100 a barrel on the news, likely to go much higher.
An oil shock is in our future. Egypt has no oil but geography means much oil passes through the Canal.
As for Mubarak-Sadat, they both represent Nationalism (gaining territorial recovery through diplomacy with the US/Israelis) against Islamism (fight the Israelis no matter how many die). That nationalism has failed against Islamism ("better future through JIHAD!")
An addition --
Jihadist/Islamists argue that population itself is a weapon. That the proper "winning strategy" for Muslim counties is to have as many people as possible, and replicate Mohammed's astonishing conquests by mass wave attacks. [Mohammed and his immediate successors conquered Christian Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, North Africa, Sicily, Southern Italy, Iberia, and nearly Constantinople. They seemed unstoppable.]
Islamists argue "forget about science and technology except borrowing from the West." Forget about China's competitive threat. Return to the Old Time Religion of Conquest through Jihad! with having so many people to spare, and live as new rulers among the conquered. This has the argumentative advantage of being familiar to nearly all Muslims as a historical analogy.
Islamist regimes in say, Egypt or Tunisia cannot and will not produce economic/social advances to their people, save through conquest. Which they view as relatively straightforward since Europe is straight across the Med, divided, inept, depopulated, and in their view incapable of putting up any real resistance. No European nation has anything but a pretend, toy military anyway save Russia. The Belgian Coast Guard now has more ships than the Royal Navy.
And the Sea can be a highway, as the Mariel Boatlift proved.
Here is a link to the economic fallout including fears of Suez closing: Forbes.
Gold is rising too. Worth noting that when Ben Ali fled Tunisia, he took Gold with him, not bank accounts in Zurich (subject to seizure).
The key prize is of course Saudi Arabia. All these Muslim nations are being hammered by commodity price rises and the inability to generate subsidies to cover them. The most fragile regimes falling first. But Saudi could conceivably fall, and they are the OPEC price setters, if they go it's probably $250 or higher for a barrel of oil.
Lets just stay out of it.
Why the hell should we be in the business of choosing regimes? It's not like we need protectorates or satellite states overseas. Let the Egyptians figure out if they want Mubarak or the Muslim brotherhood or democracy. If some Islamic government takes power, then that's their choice. It's their country and they have to live in it.
Think, for example, how offended we would be if foreign countries, like Mexico, interfered in our elections. Oh, wait........
Whiskey,
The biggest container ships can't even pass through the Suez Canal anymore. Soon after the Egyptians expropriated it, its relevancy declined.
I am an American and I would welcome a Muslim Brotherhood government. Power to the people and they deserve to be governed by loyal leaders.
Many have a misconception of the Mohammedan. The misconception is summed in the terms 'islamist' and as Mr, Sailer pointed - 'islomofacsim'. Since the western world is a product of the counterculture that made it degenerate, inluding their faith. So there is no return to the thirteenth century its that they seek to preserve their culture and overthrow dictators -- of wich you could argue -- are part of their culture. So as the neoconservtaives ill reason: it is not that they need a Reformation (Glenn Beck sickly suggested such), what they need (in actuality - what they do not need and what delinquents want) is a counterculture.
"ihadist/Islamists argue that population itself is a weapon. That the proper "winning strategy" for Muslim counties is to have as many people as possible, and replicate Mohammed's astonishing conquests by mass wave attacks. [Mohammed and his immediate successors conquered Christian Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, North Africa, Sicily, Southern Italy, Iberia, and nearly Constantinople. They seemed unstoppable.]"
Whiskey, you should understand why people mock you, but you don't. It is really simple: you have a cartoon view of the present, which is complemented by and exceeded by your cartoon view of the past.
Take this howler for example: "Mohammed's astonishing conquests by mass wave attacks".
WTF? Read some real history books, Whiskey; stay away from the neo-con comic books. The Muslim armies did not employ "mass wave attacks". This is sheer idiocy, even for you, Whiskey.
The Muslim armies were quite small; the Persian and Byzantine Greek ("Roman") armies were also fairly small. The Muslim armies didn't outnumber their enemies, in fact they were usually the ones who were outnumbered, and they didn't employ "mass wave attacks"; they simply were more maneuverable and better motivated than their opponents, the Byzantines and the Persians, who were both worn out and bankrupted after decades of self-destructive, fruitless back-and-forth warfare against each other.
You also have to remember that the Byzantine empire was deeply unpopular with most of the population, who were persecuted for not going along with the version of the "one true Church" in Constantinople. They welcomed the Muslim invaders and did not resist them; the taxes were lower and the religious freedom much greater under the Muslims initially - the full impact of dhimmitude would come much later. The same process was at work in Persian territory, with Zoroastrianism instead of Orthodox Christianity as the "one true Church" persecuting the rest. Few were loyal to either the Byzantines or the Persians; not enough were willing to fight for either empire.
In Whiskey's mind the Muslim conquest was like a combination of the Mongol Hordes and the Wehrmacht, crushing all in its path. In reality it was a one time historical fluke, the right men in place at the right time, not the least bit formidable in themselves had they come along earlier or later in different circumstances, but by happenstance they were able to walk in and take a prize that was ripe for the taking.
Whiskey, Egypt does have oil. It's just that it no longer has any surplus oil for export, which brings the whole system of subsidies crashing down.
Whitey Lawful - Mr. Sailer - they are toppling a government that represents a foreign interest.
Im interested to know where you get your information regarding the demonstrators. How do we know they dont, ultimately, represent a foreign interest, the same one in fact?
In the US, TPTB desire large scale immigration, yet the discourse is managed in such a way that assorted leftists, liberals and hipsters have come to believe that by aiding abetting that very same immigration they are sticking it to The Man. Fools.
It may well be the US desires regime change in Egypt. What better way to get it than to allow the idea that the new regime is not desired by the US/
you're not very talented Mr. Steve.
you're ignored by the mainstream press not because you're a truth-teller but because you're a one-note ukulele.
And a sphincter boy says what?
Most members of the mainstream press are themselves one-note ukuleles.
Come now John, thats hardly fair. Many of them are adept at the air ukulele.
Why would Egypt close the Suez canal? That is a major source of revenue for them.
Hmmm...
I wonder if the example of the Egyptian masses overthrowing their foreign-dominated puppet government in a huge popular uprising might inspire Americans...to overthrow their own foreign-dominated puppet government in a huge popular uprising...
I am not a journalist and not an intellectual. Its obvious to me that they are opposed to their Government--not just because it is ran by dictators--but because of its American influence. Does not traditional middle eastern society oppose foreign influence? As opposed to America where only the fringe do? If the majority here are not in favor of the new world order then we are ran by dictators equal to the those in Egypt.
Pardon the typos in my previous post.
anon:
"Take this howler for example: "Mohammed's astonishing conquests by mass wave attacks".
WTF? Read some real history books, Whiskey; stay away from the neo-con comic books. The Muslim armies did not employ "mass wave attacks". This is sheer idiocy, even for you, Whiskey. "
Agreed - Whiskey's analysis of the Islamic/Arabic way of war is, shall we say, 'not accurate'.
Arabic/Islamic warfare emphasises subtlety, misdirection and the psychological factor to collapse an enemy, it is very much not Western-style 'force on force' warfare - and when Arabs do try force-on-force they're very bad at it (the non-Arab Turks and Iranians do better).
Mohammed developed a three-stage ystem for Islamic conquest, which is functionally identical to the 3-stage insurgency warfare strategy developed by Mao Tse-Tung, which has been the basis of many successful insurgencies in modern times, including Vietnam.
1. Establish secure bases/enclaves in enemy territory. This may involve hijra/immigration of your loyal population into enemy territory. Avoid conflict wherever possible, any fighting is defensive. Ideally the enemy doesn't notice your existence.
Modern Examples: Muslim immigration into Western Europe pre-9/11. Albanian immigration into Kosovo. Muslim immigration into US.
2. Expand your bases. Begin lightning raids (9/11 & 7/7), disruption of the enemy, emphasising destabilisation and de-moralisation of the foe. Avoid force-on-force. Psychological/propaganda attacks are at least as important as violence. In the West that includes 'Lawfare'.
Example: Muslims in Western Europe after 9/11: terrorism, riots, removal of pork from canteens, etc. Vietcon insurgency in south Vietnam.
Continue stage 2 until the enemy is disintegrating at the moral level, what some call "4th Generation Warfare".
3. Once the time is right, launch the final military assault to conquer the weakened foe.
Examples: KLA US-backed conquest of Kosovo. Final NVA conquest of Vietnam.
At no stage is it necessary that Muslim forces have conventional military superiority over the enemy. And no 'human wave attacks'.
RKU:
"I wonder if the example of the Egyptian masses overthrowing their foreign-dominated puppet government in a huge popular uprising might inspire Americans...to overthrow their own foreign-dominated puppet government in a huge popular uprising..."
I take it you're talking about Israel. And this is why I stopped subscribing to The American Conservative. I was sick of this constant Israel-bashing. One can plausibly argue that American government is largely Jewish-dominated, via campaign contributions, the news media, lobbyists etc. And most US Jews are supportive of Israel. But that is not the same as claiming that the poor old state of Israel controls the US. Leave them alone! >:)
"But that is not the same as claiming that the poor old state of Israel controls the US. Leave them alone! >:)"
Okay, as long as "leaving them alone" also means cutting the purse strings. No more foreign aid from us. Not one thin dime. No military hardware, either. Nada. Zip.
Deal?
Let's just check this script:
Western-supported strong man starts fading away as he enters old age, population grows restive, students take to the streets, strong man departs with billions of dollars, western Governments press interim Govt for free and fair elections, said elections produce a regime hostile to western interests, western aid ends, military topples Govt, pro-western strong-man takes control of Govt., repeat as needed
JSM:
"Okay, as long as "leaving them alone" also means cutting the purse strings. No more foreign aid from us. Not one thin dime. No military hardware, either. Nada. Zip.
Deal?"
It's not my business whether the US gives Israel free stuff, either for realpolitik or sentimental reasons. Personally, if I were in charge of the US I wouldn't give Israel free stuff, but it doesn't bother me that other people in the US want to give Israel free stuff.
It's the demonisation of Israel as being responsible for all the USA's woes I don't like. Or in the case of RKU's AmCon magazine, the complaints about Israeli spies in Washington (shock, horror) annoyed me, for some reason.
"the complaints about Israeli spies in Washington (shock, horror) annoyed me, for some reason."
Does Israel spy on us and give/sell militarily sensitive secrets to gov'ts that America doesn't want to have those secrets? Yes, they do.
I DO happen to find Israeli spying horror-worthy. If you can only muster annoyance at US for complaining about it, then that means you are no friend to America.
Should China ever decide to use those secrets she got from Israel to launch on us, then, yes, Israel IS the cause of all our woes (the ones that matter, anyway).
****
Ever heard of AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee)?
That's the group that lobbies hard for the foreign aid Israel gets which is the largest share of all American foreign aid (close to half).
Not Israel's fault, you say? Do they decline the money? Nuh-uh.
That makes it their fault.
Where did Israel get that military hardware to give to those countries that America wants to not have that hardware? Foreign aid. America gives Israel an allowance to come pick out F-15s, etc., and then Israel turns around and sells it to them.
If Simons in London tell us to butt out of Israel's business, you ought to tell Israel to butt out of our pocketbooks. Or else I'm in favor of tit-for-tat, even if you don't like it. If you're my enemy why would I care what you like?
Simon in London, step 1 doesn't sound appropriate for Mohammed's era. Medieval Christians wouldn't have tolerated Islam in their territories. I'm going to take a wild guess and say nowhere will you find any statement attributable to him along those lines.
TGGP:
"Simon in London, step 1 doesn't sound appropriate for Mohammed's era. Medieval Christians wouldn't have tolerated Islam in their territories. I'm going to take a wild guess and say nowhere will you find any statement attributable to him along those lines."
I'm going to take a wild guess that Mohammed's era predated the Middle Ages. :p
Initial Arab advances depended a lot on riling up local non-Muslim populations in rebellion against unpopular ruling elites, such as the ERE in the Levant and the Visigoths in Iberia. By the time Islam was firmly established as the great enemy of Christendom, the Islamic three-stage system stopped working, but the damage was done. Islam then ceased expanding for 3 centuries, until the invasion of the Turks, with a different way of war.
I wonder what they will say about Omar Suleiman in 30 years!
I agree that the strategy involved riling up already resident non-Muslims (Monophysites being a classic example). Because a strategy of electing a new people would not have worked.
Belated thought --
There is one prominent American whose opinion on the developments in Egypt should be sought after, more than anybody else's.
Not for guaranteed penetrating insights (though who knows, he might offer some) -- but so that he can go On The Record, and give the American public his view of Lessons Learned.
That person, of course, is Jimmy Carter.
Yet the Mainstream Media has shown no interest in what Pres. Carter has to say. He has gotten a free pass, so far.
I wonder why.
dearieme said...
What will happen when the Israelis destroy the Aswan dam?
Not much, the thing is so silted up it's basically just a wide river by now.
Whiskey sez:Egypt has no oil but
crap, Egypt has oil, but when on a rant don't let facts get in the way.
Post a Comment