It looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming a major player in the new Egypt. "In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes. It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment. [...] 'There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,' said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. 'It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.'[...]'We are all worried,' said Amr Koura, 55, a television producer, reflecting the opinions of the secular minority. “The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone'As Thomas Sowell points out what history shows being over optimist about the youth rising up in the name of revolution,
What we have also heard, too many times before, is the assumption that getting rid of an undemocratic government means that it will be replaced by a freer and better government.It also looks like Yemen is about to fall,History says otherwise. After Russia's czars were replaced by the Communists, the government executed more people in a day than the czars had executed in half a century. It was much the same story in Cuba, when the Batista regime was replaced by Castro and in Iran when the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollahs.
It is not inevitable that bad regimes are replaced by worse regimes. But it has happened too often for us to blithely assume that overthrowing a dictator means a movement toward freedom and democracy.
Of all the uprisings and protests that have swept the Middle East this year, none is more likely than Yemen to have immediate damaging effects on U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Yemen is home to al-Qaida’s most active franchise, and as President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s government crumbles, so does Washington’s influence there.[...]Further complicating U.S. efforts to build a new partnership in Yemen is the fact that one of the driving forces behind the protests is the country’s fundamentalist Islamic opposition party, known as Islah. The party’s spiritual leader, Sheik Abdel-Majid al-Zindani, is on a U.S. list of terrorists and has been described as a loyalist of Osama bin Laden. Though experts caution that Islah today is held together by shared opposition to Saleh, the group’s ties to al-Zindani would make it harder for Washington to justify spending more money to arm or stabilize an Islah-led Yemen.This is a short post that I might add to later. The point of this post is to show that the uprisings in the Middle East are looking like they will lead to an outcome that will not be good for Israel, America, the West, or the world especially considering that terrorist organizations seem to be the ones benefiting and getting a foothold in the new governments being formed as a result of the uprisings. Given the world's dependence on that region's supply of "black gold", there is a potential for some problems ahead for the world and definitely Israel. I am not going to try and predict or state what will happen as the result of recent events in the Middle East, although it is not hard to know. But I am willingly to bet the outcome will not be good. The events in the Middle East are definitely worth keeping up to date.
Drill, baby, Drill!
ReplyDeleteShort term, bad things could happen. Yes, Muslim Brotherhood (which has always been a signficant, if underground, force in Egypt. Long term: good chance for better things.
Though for Kaddafi and Assad, and with a little luck Ahmedenijad, it can't get any worse than it already is.
I looks like the military intervention is Libya was for the purpose of protecting Europe's supply of oil, at least that is what I got from an opinion piece.
ReplyDeleteI think the Muslim Brotherhood would be, if they do become a dominate force in those countries, far worse than Kaddafi or Assad. Both Kaddafi and Assad are not ideologically or religiously motivated to hate America nor do they seek to straight up destroy America or Israel like the brotherhood does. Kaddafi and Assad are just two despotic dictators as opposed to religiously motivated crusaders.
In Egypt, if the Muslim Brotherhood does become the dominate political force this would not be could for Israel, or for the West's interest in that region of the world because the MS wants to destroy Israel. Currently, Israel's peace agreements with Egypt serves as a pillar of its security. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/26/israel-warily-eyes-middle-east-uprisings/#ixzz1HmQ1ndxl
From the way things look to me as of now, some good things might not happen in the short term nor the long run.
Kaddafi has the blood of more Americans on his hands than any other Arab leader but the 9/11 plotters. Not sure how it can get any worse. He deserves death regardless. Also, I'm not sure the Muslim Brotherhood taking over from the dictators is that much worse regardless: they will run their countries into the ground and we (and Israel) will know exactly where we stand with them. Take for example Abbas of the Palestinian Authority: the Israelis need to pretend to play nice with him, because he is supposedly the voice of reason. They don't have to deal with Hamas at all. If Abbas joins forces again with Hamas, then Israel doesn't have to pussyfoot with the Palestinians at all. This is actually a good thing.
ReplyDeleteOverall, it would certainly be better to have reasonable democracies elected, but if what the people want is anti-US anarchy, fine. They'll at least have free will and can live with the consequences of their choices.
Israel's peace agreement doesn't serve as the pillar of their security, their kickass military does. Egypt signed the Camp David accords from a position of weakness and a need to get on with life rather than being wasted by the Israelis.
I think you are looking at this with a limited- dimension perspective. Kadifi is a bad guy that has killed Americans, but he does not want to completely destroy the West as Al Qaida does, so it could get worse. And Kadaffi was willing to do business with the West and especially Europe by selling oil and allowing European oil companies to do business in Libya. And some interesting news is that some of the rebels that America is supporting in Libya are actual al qaida that fought in Iraq and Afghan, "As the United States and other nations build ties with rebels and political opponents trying to oust Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, intelligence suggests al-Qaida and other terrorists have a small presence within the opposition group, a top military commander said Tuesday." http://www.military.com/news/article/stavridis-signs-of-al-qaida-in-libyan-rebels.html
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, then America is arming its enemies in a limited way.
The point I am trying to make is that if al qaida or the muslim brotherhood does get a foot hold in Libya or Egypt, things could get worse than they were before. I think you are saying that if this happens, then America and Israel will know for sure who its enemies are and can just wipe em out. I don't think that is a likely outcome of such a situation and there are more factors like how Russia or China would react or the distablization that would occur in that region of the world. And I don't think America, with its current leadership especially, nor Israel are willingly to kill millions of Muslims is the outcome that would develop in your senario.
Israel's military is certaintly one of its pillars of security along with its peace agreement with Egypt. With Israel's peace agreements, it would have to go to war and wipe out some nations along with its people that don't like it. I don't know how the international community would like that or even America as America is on what is becoming less and less friendly terms with Israel.
What I have stated is my understanding from what I know. I know that nothing positive in the short term or medium term will come out of the recent developments in the Middle East.
Kadaffi deserves death for what he has done. Period. I'm not saying we will begin laying waste to Muslim Brotherhood-run countries. I'm saying we won't have to play games with them, like we have with Kaddafi or Mubarek or the Saudis regarding whether they are friends or not. Just as the Palestinian Authority is actually harder for the Israelis to deal with than Hamas, whom they can just wall off and bomb (or worse) whenever Hamas gets uppity.
ReplyDeleteI've also got to say that so far, I'm not sure what we are trying to do in Libya, so I am not officially yet in support of that mission.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Kadaffi deserves death. And I am in the same boat with you as I am not exactly sure why America is involved in Libya.
ReplyDeleteThe point I am trying to make is that it appears that the the events in the middle east might be leading to worst leaders replacing the previous bad leaders: in the case of Libya some of the rebels are acutally Al Qaida if the news article is correct and in the case of Yemen it appears that a government friendly to Al Qaida might replace the previous one, "With all that, the challenge for the U.S. will be to persuade Yemen’s next leader to continue an unpopular campaign against al-Qaida. Sheik Hamid al-Ahmar, a leading member of the opposition who has been mentioned as a possible president, has dismissed al-Qaida in Yemen as a creation of Saleh’s government. The Obama administration, however, considers the group to be the most serious terrorist threat to the U.S.", and in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization that has an interesting intellectual and spiritual leader.
Thomas Sowell noted that history points to the fact that as the result of revolutions bad governments are not automatically replaced by better ones in the ariticle in my earlier post and more recently pointed out the fact that "President Obama's Monday night speech was long on rhetoric and short on logic. He said: 'I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us.'"
"Just what would lead him to conclude that this includes the largely unknown forces who are trying to seize power in Libya?"
"Too often in the past, going all the way back to the days of Woodrow Wilson, we have operated on the assumption that a bad government becomes better after the magic of 'change.' President Wilson said that we were fighting the First World War to make the way "safe for democracy.' But what actually followed was the replacement of autocratic monarchies by totalitarian dictatorships that made previous despots pale by comparison." http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/03/30/measuring_force
Change is not always a good thing and history has shown that revolutions that are sparked by oppressive governments don't necessiarily led to better governments. This trend appears to be continuing in the Middle East.
The Middle East is being "transformed" and keeping up to date on what it is being transformed into is worth one's time. I am fairly certain it won't be good for the West.