What We Got Right in the War on Terror

I was hoping to do some big analysis of Abe Greenwald's masterful essay, at Commentary, but never got around to it. This is simply the best piece I've read on the war on terror:

Over the course of the 10 years, American authorities foiled more than two dozen al-Qaeda plots. Those averted tragedies were not foremost on the minds of revelers who gathered to celebrate Bin Laden’s demise on May 1 at Ground Zero, Times Square, and in front of the White House. But if a mere few of the plots had materialized, those spaces might not even have been open to public assembly.

Not only have U.S. authorities managed to keep America safe from al-Qaeda for a decade; by the time he was killed, Osama bin Laden was barely a leader. Among the items recovered at his compound in Abbottabad were some recent writings, in which the former icon lamented al-Qaeda’s dramatically sinking stock and pondered organizational rebranding as a possible antidote.

His growing insignificance as a global player was not the product of chance. The marginalization of the world’s principal jihadist was the result of audacious American policy—indeed, the most controversial and hotly debated policy undertaken in the wake of 9/11. In the words of Reuel Marc Gerecht writing in the Wall Street Journal, “the war in Iraq was Bin Laden’s great moral undoing.” In his desperate attempt to drive American fighting forces out of Mesopotamia, Bin Laden sanctioned a bloody civil war in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. The carnage failed to repel the United States, but in the end, the countrywide slaughter of Muslims proved too much to bear for al-Qaeda’s own one-time and would-be supporters. The “Sunni awakening” that helped transform Iraq was an awakening out of al-Qaeda jihadism, and the blow it delivered to Bin Laden’s ambitions was stunning.

After the turnaround in Iraq, the landscape of the Muslim world suffered even greater changes—with ordinary Muslims rising to revolt against Persian and Arab tyranny, not against American hegemony. As Fouad Ajami has written: “The Arab Spring has simply overwhelmed the world of the jihadists. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Syria, younger people—hurled into politics by the economic and political failures all around them—are attempting to create a new political framework, to see if a way could be found out of the wreckage that the authoritarian states have bequeathed them.”

It was the Freedom Agenda of the George W. Bush administration—delineated and formulated as a conscious alternative to jihadism—that showed the way. Indeed, the costly American nation-building in Iraq has now led to the creation of the world’s first and only functioning democratic Arab state. One popular indictment of Bush maintains that he settled on the Freedom Agenda as justification for war after U.S. forces and inspectors found no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The record shows otherwise. “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East,” he said before the invasion, in February 2003. “Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both.”

And something of the kind has come to pass. “One despot fell in 2003,” Ajami has said. “We decapitated him. Two despots, in Tunisia and Egypt, fell, and there is absolutely a direct connection between what happened in Iraq in 2003 and what’s happening today throughout the rest of the Arab world.”

Thus, there are three intertwined achievements that have proved to be the dispositive features of American success in the war on terror: formulating the Freedom Agenda in the Middle East, reversing the course of the war in Iraq, and establishing a national-security apparatus to foil multiple terrorist attacks. It is no coincidence that they are also the most controversial foreign policies America has implemented since the Vietnam War.

September 11 was a hinge moment in American history. The attacks plunged the nation into a full-scale war against non-state entities. Any adequate American response had to break with previous approaches in previous conflicts. War could not be waged on parties inside states in the same way it had been waged on states themselves. Prisoners captured on a battlefield in a country not their own and with no interest in following the rules of conventional war could not be handled as they had been. Getting the edge on Islamist terror would mean fundamentally rethinking our approach to both the blunting of deadly threats and the shuttering of the political hothouses of the Middle East in which such threats thrive.

The adoption of these unprecedented and uncompromising means of war inspired animated debate in the United States. In fighting the war on terror, we have been told, America has become—depending on the accuser—either too dismissive or too enamored of democracy. Some on the left think our national-security apparatus undermines our defining ideals. On the right, outraged voices condemn our naive enthusiasm for helping to secure liberty for Muslims abroad, calling it a form of multicultural self-sabotage. After civil war seized post-invasion Iraq, critics from across the ideological spectrum denounced our misguided effort. The fits and starts and frustrations of the war decade have this one thing in common: we have done battle in an age when spectacular setbacks appear to provide irrefutable evidence of our own baseness and incompetence—a few years before drab good news arrives to refute both expert opinion and common knowledge.

The arguments that we have prosecuted the war on terror immorally and ineffectually are important, and deserve the respectful hearing they have received, even if many of those arguing these points have resorted to launching the most abject slanders and accusations toward those who believe the war on terror is just and has been fought honorably. To be sure, not everything the United States has done in the war on terror has been correct. Far from it. As Winston Churchill said, “War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.” In the fight against Islamist terrorism, American blunders have come in all shapes and sizes, and in truth there are few small wartime miscalculations. This is especially so in an age of instant global headlines.

We continue to suffer for our biggest mistakes. Concerning the failure to catch Bin Laden and make serious efforts to nation-build early in the Afghanistan war, inaccurate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons, and the Pentagon’s ill-preparedness for the Iraqi insurgency, there can be no absolution. These errors have cost the country tragic sums in money, credibility, and life. They also set our efforts back precious years.

But these blunders, great as they are, have not undone America’s outstanding accomplishments. Ten years ago, the most delusional optimist among us would not have predicted the irrelevancy of Osama bin Laden or a decade without another al-Qaeda attack, let alone a democratic Iraq and a transformative explosion of antiauthoritarianism in the Middle East.

Nor do American achievements in this war mean we are in a position to quit the fight. The notion that America achieved closure with Bin Laden’s killing suggests to some, perhaps even the occupant of the White House, that the war on terror has had its decade and the United States can now move on. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” said Barack Obama this summer as he announced a sizable drawdown of troops in Afghanistan for the fall of 2012. The suggestion that our work is done has traction only because resolute American action at home and abroad have provided a sense of security so pervasive it now goes unquestioned.

The United States has fallen prey to false comfort in the past. So before we submit to the siren song of closure, we would do well to recall that that is exactly where this war began—and our retaining some genuine measure of security has been the result of thinking and acting more boldly than we have in generations.

Now go read the whole thing.

'Join the Rejects'

This story about UCLA student Chris Jeon joining the rebel insurgency in Libya reminded me of the Cockney Rejects: "Join the Rejects rebels and get yourself killed":

Also at Washington Post, "American student Chris Jeon joins Libyan rebels."

'I Admire Your Passion'

My classes went really well last week. And recall on Tuesday I mentioned that I'd be covering Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address during lectures. Well, I stress how President Lincoln appealed to Thomas Jefferson in the first paragraph of the Address, where he wrote:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The Civil War was not initially fought for the emancipation of the slaves, but for the preservation of Union. After Gettysburg the correlation of forces was shifting, and when Lincoln was asked to present at the dedication for the Soldiers' National Cemetery, he put great effort into composing a dedication that would transcend divisions and unify the continued campaigns around an elevated set of war aims focusing on human freedom and the American experience. Should the country be forever divided, it was very well possible that the spark of liberty would forever "perish from the earth."



While presenting the discussion to my students, I pull up my photo of President Lincoln's statue at the Lincoln Memorial, and I ask if students have visited Washington, D.C. A lot of students have not been to the nation's capital, so I share how I felt when I've visited, and I stress how deeply affected I have been, and how especially moving is the Lincoln Memorial. My textbook features a photograph of the left-hand wall of the Memorial, where the Address is engraved, and I mention how there are always people sitting down beneath it, reading quietly in appreciation. And then I remind students that Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Memorial. And if you visit, make sure to look for the inscription at the top of the steps, where it says that MLK delivered his speech from that very spot, August 28th, 1963. And I recite for my students how Dr. King challenged the country to "live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal." And I draw the line of liberty back from Dr. King to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson, and I remind folks that while this nation was indeed founded in crisis --- the crisis of slavery --- our greatness lies in our charter documents, pieces of parchment holding the political philosophy that pushes Americans to a higher moral standard, a template of universal goodness, one that still shines bright in the world. And we as citizens can't just stand on the sidelines hoping that the American democracy will continue, but that we have an obligation to ourselves and our fellow citizens to continue the work of our forefathers, to continue to ensure that democracy "shall not perish from the earth."



In any case, I do enjoy the discussions with students, and after my very last class on Tuesday, a young woman named Rebekah came up after I dismissed the class, and she said to me, "You know, Dr. Douglas, I admire your passion." I thanked her and I returned the compliment, because she's been very engaged in class, asking questions and volunteering to lead the discussions. Moments like that are what really make teaching meaningful. I hope I have a lot more of these over the course of the semester.



Also, related, I blogged Steven Givler's recent essay on the New York Times, where he mentioned we might benefit from the example of community college professors, and after I commented at the post, Steven wrote:

Hi Donald, I was actually thinking of you when I mentioned the community college.

As I always say, conservatives are good people. And I'm strengthened by the periodic feedback I receive that I am indeed doing something that is good and decent, and those efforts are not entirely overlooked by both my students and those who have followed my writing. Those of us of good moral standing know that decency and right always prevail, but we can never let our efforts wane, for Satan's toilers stalk along the sidelines, looking for a chance to weaken us and pave the way for darkness to spread across the land. We have faced the danger in history and we have come near to it again of late. Thankfully, the Obama interregnum is now half past, and we can soon push to victory in 2012 and reclaim some of the liberty that the dark side has vanquished.



Be strong dear friends and readers. I'm still in the fight.

Republicans Holds Four of Six Contested Seats in Wisconsin Recall Elections

William Jacobson warns not to celebrate just yet: "The Wisconsin Recalls Are Not Over." And he's right. Next week's recalls in Wisconsin will be crucial for control over the Senate. But I think a little celebration is in order. Don't you just love this screencap from the Los Angeles Times below. And I swear that Democrat on the right looks like she's wearing a shirt that reads, "Union Thug." Ha, ain't in the truth! And at the Times' article, "Parties seek clues for 2012 in Wisconsin recall election results."

William has more at Legal Insurrection, "“I can see 2012 from my house”," and "The Battle of Wisconsin was not Democrats’ finest hour."



RELATED: Don't miss Chicago Boyz, "This is What Democracy Looks Like." (Via Memeorandum.)

In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech

Some big news today on Geert Wilders' acquittal, at Telegraph UK, "Geert Wilders 'delighted' after being cleared of 'hate speech'."

And he writes about it at Wall Street Journal. A snippet:

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

RELATED: At Atlas Shrugs, "PAMELA GELLER, BIG GOVERNMENT: GEERT WILDERS VERDICT: WEST 1, ISLAM 0."

And EXTRA LULZ: Lizard Loser Charles Johnson is bummed that Wilders was acquitted: "Dutch Hatemonger Geert Wilders Acquitted of Inciting Hatred."

Syria Crackdown

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Gunfire, Arrests as Syria Continues Crackdown":

Gunfire reverberated Tuesday in the southern Syrian city of Daraa where the dead still lay unclaimed in the streets a day after a brutal government crackdown on the popular revolt against President Bashar Assad, residents said.

Meanwhile, diplomats scrambled to find a way to stop the violence, appealing to Mr. Assad to withdraw his forces and seeking a special session of the United Nations's top human-rights body to condemn the bloody crackdown on protesters.

A Syrian human-rights group said authorities detained dozens across the country, mainly in several Damascus suburbs and in the northern coastal city of Jableh.

The Syrian army, backed by tanks and snipers, launched a deadly raid before dawn Monday on Daraa, where the uprising in Syria started more than a month ago. At least 11 people were killed in the southern city.

A relentless crackdown since mid-March has killed more than 400 people across Syria, with 120 dead over the weekend, rights groups said. That has only emboldened protesters who started their revolt—inspired by uprisings in the Arab world—with calls for modest reforms but are now increasingly demanding Mr. Assad's downfall.

See also earlier graphic video, at Pajamas Media, here and here (content warning). And at check The Lede for updated coverage, here and here.

Further, there's analysis at Frontpage Magazine, "The Bloody Streets of Syria." And especially, Fouad Ajami, "The Freedom Movement Comes to Syria":

Terrorism has always been part of the Assad regime's arsenal. It killed and conquered its way into Lebanon over three decades starting in the late 1970s. It fought and bloodied American purposes in Iraq by facilitating the entry of jihadists who came to war against the Americans and the Shiites. And in the standoff between the Persian theocracy and its rivals in the region, the Syrians had long cast their fate with the Iranians.

Under Bashar, the Syrians slipped into a relationship of some subservience to the Iranians—yet other nations were always sure that Syria could be "peeled off" from Iran, that a bargain with Damascus was always a day, or a diplomatic mission, away. It had worked this way for Assad senior, as American statesmen including Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were confident that they could bring that man, at once an arsonist and a fireman in his region, into the fold.

The son learned the father's tricks. There is a litter of promises, predictions by outsiders that Bashar Assad is, at heart, a reformer. In 2000, our emissary to his father's funeral and to his own inauguration, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, praised him in such terms. He was part of the Internet generation, she said.

But Bashar is both this system's jailer and its captive. The years he spent in London, the polish of his foreign education, are on the margin of things. He and the clans—and the intelligence warlords and business/extortion syndicates around him—know no other system, no other way.

"We need our second independence in Syria," an astute dissident, Radwan Ziadeh, recently observed. "The first was the freedom from the French and the second will be from the Assad dynasty." Would that the second push for freedom be as easy and bloodless as the first.

British Monarchy Tottering

Says John Burns, at New York Times, "A Royal Wedding, a Tarnished Crown":

For years, polls have been showing support for the monarchy running at levels that have made republicanism more than the marginal phenomenon it has been for most of modern times. While many Britons retain a bulletproof affection for the 85-year-old Elizabeth, their support beyond her seems conditional. This is especially so in the case of Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall; they stand first in line to the throne on Elizabeth’s death, but far behind Prince William and Miss Middleton in public preference. A clear majority in the polls favors the younger couple’s jumping past Charles and Camilla and acceding directly to the throne.

RTWT at the link above.

It's no big mystery that if Britons want the monarchy to continue and thrive, William should become king, and right away, not long after the wedding. The couple are perfectly modern, and they can help modernize the institution. Kate's as beautiful as Diana was, and perhaps she might come to be even more popular than Diana in the public's eye. At stake is the Britain the world knows as the preeminent democratic system, with a constitutional monarchy that's the symbol of political continuity. Things just wouldn't be the same should republicanism prevail. Political correctness and multiculturalism have already challenged the basic survival of the British state as it's long been known. Get rid of the monarchy and you can call it a day.

RELATED: At CBS News, "Poll: Brits, Americans think Prince William should be king."

Ban the Burka?

Perhaps.

See Licia Corbella, at Calgary Herald, "More evidence why the West should ban the burka" (via Blazing Cat Fur):

"Women who do not wear head scarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists . . .," states opening sentence of an April 18 story in the Daily Mail in Britain.

Sadly, nothing unusual there, except that these threats are being made to non-Muslim women. Again, this is not unusual, since that happens throughout much of the Islamic world that imposes rules about dress on all women, regardless of their religion.

What makes the above news so disturbing is the women who are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists for not wearing a hijab (the Muslim head covering) and a veil (the niqab) are non-Muslim women living in . . . wait for it . . . Great Britain. Yes, you read that correctly. Non-Muslim women in a free and democratic country are being threatened with violence or death in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood of London, no less.

But hey, no need to worry about creeping sharia in the West.

RTWT.

Nancy Pelosi: 'Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do'

She's a strange woman, in many respects. I don't see someone like Pelosi as possessing anything approaching critical thinking facilities. It's all just emotion and stream of consciousness. And that really explains the talk she gave at Tufts, where she says that Republicans should just take back their party because we "share values about the education of our children." Never mind that we don't really have shared values, especially when people like Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary in the Obama Department of Education, is a prototypical exponent of those values. Nancy Pelosi is out to lunch when she claims that "elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do." In fact, I might have passed up on this, but Steven Hayward has an essay worth sharing, at Power Line, "THE MASK SLIPS, FALLS TO GROUND, EXPLODES." I still think she's out to lunch, but this is good:

It is a mistake to dismiss Pelosi as the complete nitwit she often appears. The most clarifying single moment of the last generation may well have been Pelosi's famous remark that we'd need to pass the healthcare bill to find out what was in it. Rather than being a matter of ridicule, I thought Pelosi expressed perfectly the innermost character of congressional legislation in the modern administrative state. What she said was quite true and accurate: even at more than 2,000 pages, the enormous discretion and policy responsibility delegated to executive branch agencies meant that in effect the actual operating law would be formulated by administrators rather than Congress. And the huge number of waivers being granted under ObamaCare reveals the essentially arbitrary (some might say lawless) nature of administrative government.

RTWT.

Ann Althouse Slams Lying Abe 'Sauerkraut' at The Awl!

No doubt THERS = DOUCHEBAG will register his outrage, considering how much he hates lying scumbags, or something.

I commented on this previously while smacking down Thers on the Wisconsin clean-up. The Awl's post is here, "Class War: Who Were Those Folks at the Madison Budget Address? Ann Althouse's Husband, For One."

And Ann responds, "Abe Sauer — blogging at The Awl — goes on a bizarre rampage about Meade getting in to see Scott Walker's budget address." Check especially the part where Sauerkraut lied about State Representative Brett Hulsey's office not providing tickets to Gov. Walker's speech:

Meade spoke to Hulsey's office yesterday, and they said they would not disclose such information about their constituents. Maybe Sauerkraut thinks it's important, newsworthy information about me and Meade. Is it? I think you'd first want to know what the procedure is for getting into a Governor's speeches and whether there's anything amiss if a legislator gives a ticket to someone outside of his district.

Sauer didn't bother to do the research before he began flinging mud shredded pickled cabbage around. Meade, however, did the research. It turns out the Governor's office controls the tickets to his speeches. That's true now, and it was true in the past when there were Democratic Governors. The Governor's office distributes some tickets directly and gives other to the majority and minority leaders of both houses, who then pass those out however they want. (If Hulsey, a freshman, didn't get any tickets, it was, I think, his own party leader's decision.) Now, the minority leader of the senate is one of the fleebaggers. So no tickets went that way. Anyway, one of the legislators who had tickets to distribute offered me 2, and I accepted the one for Meade. (I had to teach a class.)

OMFG!! WHAT A SCANDAL! I doubt that'll stop the scumbag progressives from smearing Athouse as sucking Koch.

What If Gaddafi Holds On?

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "Other regimes in the region will wonder just what, exactly, are the benefits of an alliance with a diffident America":

Top government officials and ordinary newspaper pundits are debating whether the U.S. and its allies should intervene militarily against Moammar Gadhafi, perhaps by establishing a no-fly zone. This is the wrong question. The right question is: What happens if Gadhafi holds on?

That possibility no longer seems remote, as the colonel and his loyalists keep a firm grip on Tripoli and start inflicting military reversals on the rebels. A society as brutalized as Libya's will retain a powerful fear of its dictator even in his hour of weakness. Many Libyans will recall how Saddam Hussein crushed the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings of March 1991. They will recall, too, that the first Bush administration—which included then-deputy national security adviser and current no-fly zone skeptic Bob Gates—stood aside as Saddam viciously struck back.

What happened next is one of the darkest chapters of recent memory. An estimated 60,000 Iraqis, perhaps more, were killed in the revolt. Two million fled the country. The Iraqi people had to endure another dozen years under Saddam. The U.S. spent billions enforcing a no-fly zone that was a case of too little, too late. The war that ultimately toppled Saddam's regime exacted another huge toll in lives, including those of more than 4,000 Americans.

Looking back, it's worth noting that all of this may have been avoided if only the U.S. had forbidden Saddam from flying his helicopter gunships, which proved decisive in turning the tide of revolt. So why won't President Obama run the comparatively minor risk of doing similarly in Libya? Does he think he needs the U.N.'s permission? Sadly, he probably does.

Should the conflict in Libya turn into a protracted civil war, it will mean more killing, more refugees, and even higher energy prices. And should Gadhafi's counteroffensive begin to show results, previously emboldened Libyan rebels could start to panic, and their reversals could quickly turn into a general rout.

Folks can see where Stephens is going with this. It goes without saying that the administration's waffling and timidity is sending powerful signals to the world's tyrants. Iran last year and Egypt last month. Tunisia went under the radar and was expected to be an anomaly by realists like Harvard's Steven Walt. But the message is clear: Don't expect democracy promotion from these amateurs. I like the idea of a no-fly zone, actually. Although I wonder how deep a military commitment the American public will support, particularly without presidential leadership? Not only that, a protracted civil war with massive humanitarian losses could trigger demands for ground troops, and I cringe at the thought of a ground incursion under Barack Hussein's command.

Side note: Bret Stephens is a treasure. He sounds more neocon than Charles Krauthammer. Cool!

Muammar Gaddafi Flees Tripoli — Regime's Grip on Power Crumbles Amid Mounting Pressure

At London's Daily Mail, "On the run: Gaddafi flees Tripoli as protesters set the Libyan parliament building alight."

And at New York Times, "Qaddafi’s Grip on Power Seems to Ebb as Forces Retreat":

The 40-year-rule of Libyan strongman Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi appeared to teeter Monday as his security forces retreated to a few buildings in the Libyan capital of Tripoli where fires burned unchecked, senior government officials and diplomats announced defections, and the country’s second-largest city remained under the control of rebels.

Security forces loyal to Mr. Qaddafi defended a handful of strategic locations, including the state television headquarters and the presidential palace, witnesses reported from Tripoli. Fires from the previous night’s rioting burned at many intersections, most stores were shuttered, and long lines were forming for a chance to buy bread or gas.

In a sign of growing cracks within the government, several senior officials — including members of the the Libyan mission to the United Nations — announced their resignations. And protesters in Benghazi, the city where the revolt began, issued a list of demands calling for a secular interim government led by the army in cooperation with a council of Libyan tribes.

Security forces loyal to Mr. Qaddafi waved green flags as they rallied in Tripoli’s central Green Square Monday under the protection of a handful of police, these witnesses said. But they constituted one of the few visible signs of government authority around the capital.

Tripoli descended into chaos in less than 24 hours as a six day old revolt suddenly spread from Benghazi across the country and into the capital on Sunday. The revolt shaking Libya is the latest and most violent turn in the rebellion across the Arab world that seemed unthinkable just two months ago.

In a rambling, disjointed address delivered about 1 a.m. on Monday, Mr. Qaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, played down the uprising sweeping the country, which witnesses and rights activists say has left more than 220 people dead and hundreds wounded from gunfire by security forces. He repeated several times that “Libya is not Tunisia or Egypt” — the neighbors to the east and west that both overthrew their veteran autocrats in the space of the last six weeks.

The United States condemned the Qaddafi government’s lethal use of force.

Also at BBC, "Libya protests: Col Gaddafi under mounting pressure," and Hot Air, "Protestors holding Libya’s second-largest city?" (via Memeorandum).

The Way Forward in Egypt? Defeat the Left's Red-Green Alliance and Build the Secular-Representative Alternative to Mubarak

Over the last few days, William Kristol has been among the most vocal supporters of dramatic democratic change in Egypt. And in today's essay he pushes back against Glenn Beck and others on the right who fear a Red-Green Alliance of communists and Islamists. Kristol also disagrees with Charles Krauthammer, but that seems secondary to him slamming those positing "one-world conspiracies theories" of a communist-backed caliphate across the Muslim world. The problem is that while Glenn Beck's show sometimes comes off as half-baked, the neo-communist left has indeed aligned with global jihad in a campaign against the West. In fact, today was the progressive-left's "international day of mobilization and solidarity with the Egyptian people." The neo-Stalinist ANSWER homepage has the announcement, "Emergency demonstrations: Stop all U.S. aid to Mubarak dictatorship!":

Emergency demonstrations in solidarity with the uprising of the Egyptian people are taking place across the country to demand that the U.S. government stop all aid to the Mubarak dictatorship.

As I've reported many times, the ANSWER contingents have been at the center of every left-wing mobilization over the past decade, from the Iraq war to Proposition 8 to the anti-SB 1070 campaign last year. The left's all-purpose protest machine, ANSWER is bolstered by Democrats and progressives, many of whom have ties to the Obama administration. Code Pink's Jodie Evans, for example, served as a top campaign fundraiser for Barack Obama, and now her organization is leading a fundraising operation for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: "Code Pink: Obama, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood Ally Raising (Tax Exempt) Money to Overthrow Egypt Gov’t:

As we reported previously, Code Pink has been on the ground in Cairo since the beginning of the uprising. The group has made nine trips to Egypt in the past two years as part of a campaign to undermine the Egyptian government and the blockade against Hamas-controlled Gaza.

For over a week now we've had international solidarity protesters calling for an anti-American, anti-Zionist revolution in Egypt, so, folks might want to step back and go easy on the freedom euphoria just a bit (in favor of a prudent democratic realism).

In any case, Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey, a.k.a. Mahmoud Salem, offers a way forward for Egypt's democracy:

So here are my two cents: next time when you head to Tahrir, alongside blankets and food and medicine, please get some foldable tables, chairs, papers, pens, a laptop and a USB connection. Set up a bunch of tables and start registering the protesters. Get their names, ages, addresses & districts. Based on location, start organizing them into committees, and then have those committees elect leaders or representatives. Do the same in Alex, In Mansoura, in Suez, in every major Egyptian city in which the Protesters braved police suppression and came out in the thousands. Protect the Data with your life. Get encryption programs to ensure the security of the data. Use web-based tools like Google documents to input the data in, thus ensuring that even if your laptops get confiscated by State Security Goons, they won’t find anything on your harddrives. Have people outside of Egypt back-up your data daily on secure servers. Then, start building the structure.

You see, with such Proper citizen organization and segmentation, we’ll have the contact information and location of all the protesters that showed up, and that could be transformed into voting blocks in parliamentary districts: i.e. a foundation for an Egyptian Unity party. That Egyptian Unity Party will be an Umbrella party that promotes equality, democracy & accountability, without any ideological slants. It should be centrist, because we don’t want any boring Left vs. Right squabbling at that stage. Once you institute the structure, start educating the members on their rights and their obligations as citizens. Convince them to bring their friends and relatives into meeting. Establish voters’ critical mass , all under that party.

The Egyptian Unity Party, however, will not be a permanent structure, but rather a transitional entity with a clear and direct purpose: create the grassroots organization to take back the parliament and presidency in the next elections. Once sufficient votes and seats have been obtained, the party will amend the constitution to promote civil liberties, plurality, and truly democratic elections. Once that constitution is in place, the party can disband, and its elected members can start forming their own parties and collations, based on their personal beliefs and ideologies, or they can join any of the existing parties, and breathe some life into their decaying carcasses. We will end up with an actual political process and representative political parties that will actually discuss policy and have to represent those who voted for them so that they can get re-elected. Democracy in action. An old but brilliant concept. A way to ensure that no matter what, we will have a huge influence on who becomes the next Egyptian President come election day in September.

That sounds awesome. The only problem is that during revolutionary crises the most highly organized factions often seize power through divide, conquer and assassination politics. We know now that Egypt's Arab street will not be silenced. But the shape of developments is still extremely fluid, and given the left's heavy investment and mobilization in the Muslim Brotherhood, a certain caution is well warranted.

Political Transition in Egypt — Reports: Mubarak Resigns National Party; Opposition Leaders Resist Negotiations, Demand Regime Change

This just in at Los Angeles Times, "Leadership of Egypt's ruling party resigns; opposition groups resist meeting with vice president." And at New York Times, "West Backs Gradual Egyptian Transition." Also, conflicting reports on the situation earlier, at The Lede, "Ongoing Confusion about Mubarak's Role." And on Twitter, "Mubarak NOT resigning from Egypt's ruling party: AlArabiya reporter." And Enduring America:

It seems news of Mubarak's resignation as head of the ruling National Democratic Party may have been premature. Confirmation cannot be obtained by many news outlets and the state TV seems to be reviewing its earlier announcement of the move.

And check this, at NY Daily News, "Katie Couric fires incorrect tweet saying that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down." That's getting way ahead of events. Way to go CBS!

Expect updates:

Democratic Realpolitik and Egypt

From Dr. Robert Bunker, "Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World" (via Great Satan's Girlfriend):

National self-interest now requires that we reevaluate our relationship to autocratic states, both client and otherwise, in the Islamic World and, for that matter, everywhere else. Our interests are now best served by implementing a new U.S. foreign policy approach—one that is sum-sum for our country and the burgeoning masses who live under the yoke of oppression in autocratic Islamic states. Under this new sum-sum strategy, we „play the old diplomatic game‟ and hold our friendly despots even closer while we do everything in our power, short of getting caught (and of course not engaging in crimes against humanity), to seize upon golden opportunities that are now presenting themselves in Egypt and in other Islamic lands to support Democratic revolution. We should not instigate it and we should not invade like in Iraq— Democracy should be seductive, something that is desired and not necessarily forced upon others. If the spark of Democratic revolution should come about spontaneously due to the actions of flash mobs and social network-inspired rioting or is orchestrated from within by more organized bodies, we should support it from the shadows. If a critical tipping point is approached—one in which relative superiority hangs in the balance— and if the stakes are worth it, we may even need to show our hand and threaten or buy off the targeted despot and his military forces in order to make them stand down.

RTWT.

Talk about nuance. Dr. Bunker adds this, for example, "Realism and idealism must always exist in balance, with one not sacrificed for the benefit of the other, if our nation is to remain strong." Yet he warns of obvious and inherent dangers, that some states will succumb to Islamist extremism --- like Egypt today, right? Sure, but see the Wall Street Journal, "Hamas, the Brotherhood and Egypt":

Those who believe that a democratic Egypt is doomed to fall into the Muslim Brotherhood's hands frequently cite the 2006 elections as Exhibit A. But the lesson of those elections is that Hamas should not have been allowed to participate, not that elections should never have been held.

If the Brotherhood wants to participate in elections, it should have to promise to play by democratic rules, respect religious and social pluralism, and honor Egypt's treaty commitments, especially to Israel. And because promises can be broken by those in power, Egypt needs a constitutional system of checks and balances to withstand any attempt to impose one man, one vote, once. Egypt can have a viable democratic future, provided that the democracy is for democrats.

See also Charles Krauthammer (the father of "democratic realism"), at WaPo, "Toward a soft landing in Egypt": (via Memeorandum):

The overriding objective is a period of stability during which secularists and other democratic elements of civil society can organize themselves for the coming elections and prevail. ElBaradei is a menace. Mubarak will be gone one way or the other. The key is the military. The United States should say very little in public and do everything behind the scenes to help the military midwife - and then guarantee - what is still something of a long shot: Egyptian democracy.

More at Los Angeles Times, "Egyptian throngs have a word for Mubarak: 'Leave!'," and New York Times,"Egyptian Government Figures Join Protesters."

Birth of an Authentic Egyptian Democracy

I doubt folks need reminding that Nicholas Kristof's a bleeding progressive, but he's on the ground in Egypt, and he's lived there previously. And from the majority of video clips I've seen and posted, the bulk of this account rings true. "Exhilarated by the Hope in Cairo":

As I stand in Tahrir Square on Monday trying to interview protesters, dozens of people surging around me and pleading for the United States to back their call for democracy, the yearning and hopefulness of these Egyptians taking huge risks is intoxicating.

When I lived in Cairo many years ago studying Arabic, Tahrir Square, also called Liberation Square, always frankly carried a hint of menace. It was cacophonous and dirty, full of crazed motorists in dilapidated cars. That was way back at a time when the then-new Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, talked a good game about introducing democracy.

Now the manic drivers are gone, replaced by cheering throngs waving banners clamoring for the democracy they never got — and by volunteers who scrupulously pick up litter, establish order and hand out drinks and food.

“I’m going home right now to get food and drinks for the demonstrators,” one middle-age man, Waheed Hussein, told me as he hopped into his car near Tahrir Square shortly after curfew fell. While talking to me, he allowed a hitchhiker to jump in, and then the hitchhiker decided to bring back supplies as well. With great pride, the two new friends explained to me that this would be their contribution to the birth of an authentic Egyptian democracy.

In short, Tahrir Square has lost its menace and suddenly become the most exhilarating place in the world.

Yet one thing nags at me. These pro-democracy protesters say overwhelmingly that America is on the side of President Mubarak and not with them. They feel that way partly because American policy statements seem so nervous, so carefully calculated — and partly because these protesters were attacked with tear gas shells marked “made in U.S.A.”

The upshot is that this pro-democracy movement, full of courage and idealism and speaking the language of 1776, wasn’t inspired by us. No, the Egyptians said they feel inspired by Tunisia — and a bit stymied by America.

Everywhere I go, Egyptians insist to me that Americans shouldn’t perceive their movement as a threat. And I find it sad that Egyptians are lecturing Americans on the virtues of democracy.

Read the whole thing.

I've been reading Kristof's reporting at The Lede. He's got this recurring premonition that the tanks are going to roll like in Tienanmen in 1989. That's distressing. But as far as I can tell, the military is standing firm against the use of force against the demonstrators. That move is probably designed to clear the way for Suleiman's transition, but it's still a good sign. The military brass view the revolt as reflecting legitimate demands for reform. A crackdown would throw the country into the abyss. Death and destruction could spiral. What Kristof ignores, of course, is the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood. It's still early. Today's "march of millions" could be the turning point. It's depressing that the Obama administration continues to dawdle. Time is of the essence, at least in showing that the U.S. stands in solidarity with the populist street in Egypt. Waiting too long may sow distrust at U.S. intentions. The U.S.-made tear gas canisters are bad enough as it is. As I've said throughout my reporting, all of this is dangerous for the Middle East and especially Israel. But still no one knows. From the hardline anti-jihad bloggers to folks like John Bolton, it's all speculation at this point. So again, say some prayers for Egypt's democracy. A majority of the population wants stability and good government. Over time I'm confident that --- with good leadership and U.S. backing --- we'll see an anti-Islamist regime emerge that puts the welfare of Egyptians front and center.

So, here's hoping Nicholas Kristof's intuitions prove correct.

'Let the People of Egypt Vote'

Via Ahmed Al Omran on Twitter:

She's Saudi, apparently, but a precocious little thing like this is the face of modernity for the Middle East.

And in other news, some conservatives and libertarians are still resisting democratic change in Egypt. Sure, no doubt ElBaradei is a poor prospect, although I'm still waiting to see who will form a viable secular opposition. And as I noted previously, we saw ElBaradei shilling for the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday on CNN. So let's be clear about no illusions here. I've chronicled the risks over the last few days. But as Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, Mubarak's regime is the ultimate source of popular discontent, and maintaining the status quo will simply exacerbate the rage on the street. Building on that sentiment is Danielle Pletka, "How Should the US Respond to the Protests in the Middle East?":

Some say that a freedom agenda only opens the door to Islamists; the truth is that our support for secular dictators does more for Islamists than democracy promotion ever did. We have an opportunity to right our ways and stand with the people of the Middle East - not forgetting Iran - in their quest for basic freedom. But it's going to take more than bland statements and White House hand-wringing. The president himself needs to stand up and unequivocally make clear America's position: in favor of the people over their oppressors. Suspend aid to the Egyptian government. Initiate an immediate review of all programs in the Middle East. Get the word out to our diplomats. Now.

See also, Michael Rubin, "The U.S. Should Not Fear Egypt Regime Change":

Today, the U.S. is paying the price for its refusal to cultivate liberal opposition. Next to Iraq and Afghanistan, Egypt hosts the largest American embassy in the world. That no American diplomat saw this uprising coming, however, should raise serious questions about how our embassies operate. That the Muslim Brotherhood presents a real challenge to American policy is undeniable. In neither Tunisia nor Egypt, however, have Islamists led the popular protests, although there is a risk that the Brotherhood may co-opt the protests. The mistake the White House has made in the past - both under Bush and Obama - is that it has accepted the rhetoric of democracy and liberalism without setting tough standards. Militias should never be accepted as political parties, nor should any group that legitimizes terrorism ever have America's imprimatur. The sooner the White House and State Department engage non-violent opposition groups in the Middle East, the more influence the U.S. will enjoy when the going gets rough and the dictators get going.

That's one way to tackle the Muslim Brotherhood question, and while sweet-sounding and wonkish, it's not satisfying in the short term. Jihad Watch reports that the Muslim Brotherhood has pledged war with Israel in the advent of power: "Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Prepare for War with Israel."

Things are still really up in the air. See Business Week, "Egypt’s Suleiman to Seek Dialogue With Opposition," and New York Times, "Government Offers Talks After Army Says It Will Not Fire." But see Foreign Policy, "White House Prepares for Life After Mubarak." Also at Memeorandum.

Anyway, I'll have more later.

And no, I'm not a socialist.

PREVIOUSLY: "Move Quickly on Egypt Democracy."

Added: From Laura Rozen, "Egypt VP Suleiman, Defense chief preparing transition from Mubarak rule, analyst says."

Move Quickly on Egypt Democracy

I've been reading around the conserva-sphere, and there's a lot of backtracking on Egypt. The euphoria's gone, replaced with a deep fear of an Islamist regime in Cairo. It's certainly understandable. This New York Times story on Israel paints near trembling at the prospects of collapse of secularist Egypt: "Israel Shaken as Turbulence Rocks an Ally." And Melanie Phillips, one of my favorite writers, made a surprisingly pointed effort to distance herself from the neoconservative agenda of democracy promotion: "The Arab world on the brink...but of what?"

But folks need to get a grip. Nostalgia for Mubarak is exceedingly misplaced. Yeah, he's our guy and all that. But he's been a disaster for Egypt's development, and in an age of increasingly rapid global communications, the regime's failures are exponentially multiplied by the day. Victor Davis Hanson points out that the roots of radicalism in Egypt have more to do with Mubarak's rule than anything found in Israel or the United States, "What’s the Matter with Egypt?"

What’s next? “Finger-in-the-wind” diplomacy may work for a while, but it requires deftness that follows conditions on the street in a nanosecond to avoid appearing purely cynical (a skill beyond Hillary, Biden, and Obama). I think in this bad/worse choice scenario we might as well support supposedly democratic reformers, with the expectation that they could either fail in removing Mubarak or be nudged out by those far worse than Mubarak. Contrary to popular opinion, I think Bush was right to support elections in Gaza “one time” (only of course). The Gazans got what they wanted, we are done with them, and they have to live with the results, happy in their thuggish misery, with a prosperous Israel and better-off West Bank to remind them of their stupidity. All bad, but an honest bad and preferable to the lie that there were thousands of Jeffersonians in Gaza thwarted by the U.S.

So step back and watch it play out with encouragement for those who oppose both Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood— hoping for the best, expecting the worst.

And as I indicated earlier, the dawdling Obama administration is only empowering the Green-Red alliance working to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Even mainstream progressives are pooh-poohing the Brotherhood's ties to Hamas and global jihad. So we need to move quickly in transitioning to an interim government committed to free-and-fair elections in the near-term. William Kristol offers the appropriate response, "Beyond Mubarak: ‘Twere Well It Were Done Quickly":

In a crisis like this, moving quickly is often more important than moving in an “orderly” way. After all, an “orderly” transition is far less important than a desirable and orderly outcome. Trying to ensure now that everything is “well thought-out” to the satisfaction of diplomats can easily become an excuse for a drawn-out transition. And that means trouble. The more drawn-out this transition is, the more likely it is to end badly. The best case—the least radicalizing one for the population, the least advantageous for the Muslim Brotherhood—would be a quick transition now to an interim government, with the prospect of elections not too far off, so people can rally to the prospect of a new liberal regime. Uncertainty and dithering is what helps the Lenins and Khomeinis in revolutionary situations. Acting boldly to prevent more disarray and more chaos offers the best chance for an orderly outcome.

I'd recommend folks visit Jennifer Rubin for updates throughout the day as well. She hammered the administration's dalliances earlier, "On Egypt, Obama offers 'too little, too late'." And in another entry she points to the pragmatic manifesto of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

"For far too long the democratic hopes of the Egyptian people have been suppressed. Their cries for freedom can no longer be silenced.

"I am deeply concerned about the Egyptian government's heavy-handed response seeking to silence the Egyptian people. It is imperative that all parties involved avoid violence.

"I am further concerned that certain extremist elements inside Egypt will manipulate the current situation for nefarious ends.

"The U.S. and other responsible nations must work together to support the pursuit of freedom, democracy, and human rights in Egypt and throughout the world."

That's the right balance and the right approach. It's time to move forward. The neo-communists will seize the initiative and attempt to install the Islamists in power. Their useful idiots on the progressive left --- in the media and Democrat Party apparatus --- will help propel that outcome. For the true friends of freedom, the best bet is to quit whining about how bad the Muslim Brotherhood is and start working to help the Egyptians on the street take back their country. Those folks are at the top video above. They help us capture a vision of what an emerging secularist democracy could look like.

Cairo, Ramses Square, January 28, 2011

From Sarah Carr's Flickr stream. Especially powerful is the Christian and Muslim cooperation at top. Considering recent developments, let's hope we see more of this:

Facing the Unknown in Egypt

From Ross Douthat, at New York Times, "The Devil We Know":

As the world ponders the fate of Egypt after Hosni Mubarak, Americans should ponder this: It’s quite possible that if Mubarak had not ruled Egypt as a dictator for the last 30 years, the World Trade Center would still be standing.

This is true even though Mubarak’s regime has been a steadfast U.S. ally, a partner in our counterterrorism efforts and a foe of Islamic radicalism. Or, more aptly, it’s true because his regime has been all of these things.

In “The Looming Tower,” his history of Al Qaeda, Lawrence Wright raises the possibility that “America’s tragedy on September 11 was born in the prisons of Egypt.” By visiting imprisonment, torture and exile upon Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak foreclosed any possibility of an Islamic revolution in his own country. But he also helped radicalize and internationalize his country’s Islamists, pushing men like Ayman Al-Zawahiri — Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant, and arguably the real brains behind Al Qaeda — out of Egyptian politics and into the global jihad.

At the same time, Mubarak’s relationship with Washington has offered constant vindication for the jihadi worldview. Under his rule, Egypt received more American dollars than any country besides Israel. For many young Egyptians, restless amid political and economic stagnation, it’s been a short leap from hating their dictator to hating his patrons in the United States. One of the men who made this leap was an architecture student named Mohamed Atta, who was at the cockpit when American Airlines Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center.

These sound like good reasons to welcome Mubarak’s potential overthrow, and the end to America’s decades-long entanglement with his drab, repressive regime. Unfortunately, Middle Eastern politics is never quite that easy. The United States supported Mubarak for so long because of two interrelated fears: the fear of another Khomeini and the fear of another Nasser. Both anxieties remain entirely legitimate today.

RTWT.

Douthat is right to say that, in the end, the Egyptians have the last word on what government is right for them. But looking at the clip above, with the "we have to destroy Israel" sentiment, it's gonna be a rocky road ahead.

And here's an exit question. Do you think the signatories of this "Open Letter to President Barack Obama" are saying the same thing?

In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy. On Friday you rightly said that “suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” For that reason we urge your administration to seize this chance, turn away from the policies that brought us here, and embark on a new course toward peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of the Middle East. And we call on you to undertake a comprehensive review of US foreign policy on the major grievances voiced by the democratic opposition in Egypt and all other societies of the region.

A number of prominent communists are signatories. And for the left, this is an anti-colonial revolution with explicitly anti-Zionist goals attached to it. (I'll scour around for more, but you'll get a chill reading some posts at Mondweiss. For example, "This revolution ‘undoubtedly means the end of Israel as a Jewish state’.")

That's frightening. Still, there's obviously no turning back on revolutionary change. The trick is to manage it. The goal is a reasonably secular interim government committed to democracy.

Expect updates ....