Saturday, January 29, 2011

Another View of Egypt

The AmSpec blogger Guardiano has a different take on the Egyptian situation.

...So it is that many conservatives -- even many so-called experts -- on Fox News and elsewhere, have been impugning the Egyptian revolution with comparisons to the Islamist takeover of Iran in 1979.

This is a wrongheaded and mistaken comparison. And it is causing too many conservatives to withhold their support for the legitimate and democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people.Are there Islamist elements in Egypt? Of course. There are Islamist elements in every Muslim country. But are they the dominant political element there? No.

Do most Egyptians support the Islamists? No.

Is the revolution in Egypt about an Islamist demand for theological purity and an exclusion from Egyptian society of Western influence? Absolutely not.

He's of the opinion that the Egyptian military will play a very large role AND happens to be 'the good guys' in this affair.


Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC said...

This is a good time for the US to STFU and wait until the smoke clears. We can only influence this in a bad way, so let it go. If it is for democratic rule, great. If not, we need to prepare for that eventuality. Right now, the outcome is far from clear.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link, Dad29. Excellent summary.

Except, this part in the article..."Indeed, the last thing the United States should do is abandon Egypt in the same way that President Carter abandoned Iran in 1979. Carter's abandonment of Iran led to the Islamist takeover there, which is something we don't want to see happen, obviously, in Egypt."

Poppycock. Iran was gone WAY before Carter's "abandonment". The CIA coup of Iran's government in the early 1950's that brought the Shah of Iran in part fomented radical Islam. And let's not forget the infamous words by Reagan "I don't negotiate with terrorists". No, he only traded arms with them in exchange for money to be used in an illegal war in Central America.

But, overall, a good piece.

Dad29 said...

Umnnnhhh....what does Reagan have to do with a Carter-Administration dumping of Iran?

As to Palavi: I won't argue with you that the Palavi regime was a bad bunch. The more important question is 'whether US intervention COULD have led to non-Islamofascist results?'

Or put another way: was THAT the 'abandonment' of which the author speaks?

Anonymous said...

American intervention, I contend, was a major reason for that 1979 Revolution. Carter's actions certainly didn't help matters there, but those who want to blame him for not stemming the tide of radical Islam are attempting to rewrite history. At the very least, he was impotent to do anything about the situation. Keeping the Shah in power would have only made matters worse. And the reason I referenced Reagan is look what happened when America "intervened" in the 1980's. If anything, the Reagan Administration further contributed to the "abandomnent" of Iran with the arms deal.

Dad29 said...

Well, you're forgetting something here, too.

It's reasonable to assume that KGB had some hand in the Iranian revolution, and even though it went all-religious, so what? Iran was separated from the US.

Gas pipelines, disruption of neighbors, yadayada....all well within the interests of the USSR.

What "happened" in the contra/arms deal is that we preserved Central America. Since Iran was already lost, whassabig about it?

Central America, however, is covered by the Monroe Doctrine, unlike Iran.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't care less about the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine and T.R.'s big stick diplomacy by the Reagan Administration.

My focus is on the Constitution in this particular case. It was p*&^% on by Reagan's henchmen.

1) Congress passed the Boland Amendment, which barred any administration to give money to the Contras. The will of the people was circumvented by Iran-Contra. Oliver North is NO hero. I will grant you, he did was he was told, like any good soldier boy.

2) Elections were eventually conducted in Nicaragua, a noble intention, but to state unequivocally that American aid was directly responsible for enabling the Contras to achieve that goal is debatable. Certainly funneling ILLEGAL money to the Contras through the sale of arms to a TERRORIST nation helped their cause, but other factors played a role into the fall of the Sandinistas.

3) Speaking of terrorist nations, remember what Reagan said--"We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business". Well, I guess that historians who have a thing for him conveniently overlook that point in his administration's dealings with Iran.

4) Furthermore, the U.S. was fully aware of the drug trafficking the Contras conducted to fund their efforts, but looked the other way.

There is NO grey area here. That is "whassbig about it".