On Feb. 11, the Egyptian people achieved what no expert thought possible: A popular revolution was able to force the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to step down after 30 years in power. People all over the region rejoiced at the second successful uprising in a mere two months. Other countries began to plan their own days of protest, including Algeria, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain. If the Tunisians and Egyptians could gain their freedom, then Arabs everywhere were determined to achieve the same for themselves.
Unfortunately, the brutal security forces in these countries have been quick to react. Over 70 people have died in Libya during protests thus far, targeted by the thugs of the dictator, Muammar al-Gaddafi. In Manama, Bahrain, nonviolent protestors (including women and children) were viciously attacked and massacred by the police on behalf of the corrupt monarchy.
Internet and other forms of communication have been cut off in both countries, so we can only imagine what these governments hope to achieve hidden away from public scrutiny.
As usual, the American response to the uprisings in the Arab world has been positively shameful. Just as the Obama administration made no move to support the protests in Tunisia and Egypt until after their success, the recent calls for stability and affirmations of US support are just disgraceful attempts to “ride out” the wave of restlessness. Only when the regime is on our list of belligerents will the US outright condemn the violence against peaceful demonstrators.
Otherwise, ambiguity or open support of dictatorship is all the Arab people can expect. Bahrain’s geographical location makes it perfect for harassing Iran, which is why we have a Naval base there — along with no intention of changing the status quo.
The US has historically supported authoritarian regimes in the Middle East against the democratic will of their people. When pan-Arabism erupted across the Middle East in the 1950s and ’60s, the United States did its best to encourage anti-democratic sentiment by allying with the Saudi regime and buying off strongmen like Saddam Hussein. After Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s death (considered the icon of pan-Arabism), we helped prop up the cruel Anwar Sadat in Egypt.
Today’s uprisings represent a resurgence of pan-Arabism, with the same themes of self-determination, dignity and freedom. However, the protestors today understand the mistakes of the past. Social justice is the ultimate goal.
Dana writes, "People all over the region rejoiced at the second successful uprising in a mere two months."
What makes these uprisings successful? We have absolutely no idea where this is heading. Iranians were dancing in the streets of Tehran after the "succssful" uprising there in 1979. Now they are thrown in prison for dancing. Isn't there a good chance this is where Egypt and Tunisia will end up?
Dana writes, "As usual, the American response to the uprisings in the Arab world has been positively shameful."
What would you have us do? We've tried the "nice guy" approach with the insane people of the Middle East and also the "tough guy" approach, as well as most everything in-between with always the same end result: theocracies or dictators. Yet you blame us for their problems? Gosh, boy genius, had it ever occurred to you that the problem lies within Islam, it's despotic and theocratic prophet, and its Koran and Hadiths which encourage non-democratic, theocratic forms of governemnts?
Dana writes, "The US has historically supported authoritarian regimes in the Middle East against the democratic will of their people."
Could you give us a name, or two, of these Muslims who you suggest are the Thomas Jefferson's and John Adams of the Muslim people?
You know, don't you, your editorial is offensive. After WWII America led the Marshall Plan and at great cost to Americans to develop democracies in Germany and Japan. Rightly or wrongly we tried to do the same in Iraq only to be met with wave after wave of Islamist madmen. Now we're leaving with just one more dictator in power (just as we're seeing in Afghanistan too).
It's not our fault, even if we went about this clumsily or horribly, our intentions were clear. Our fault lies in not realizing that democracy and Islam are completely incompatible. That's why wherever we see Islam we see strongmen, dictators, despots and insane theocrats.
By Dana's logic if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt it will be America's fault because we supported Mubarak all this time. What would Dana have us do? Are you the Thomas Jefferson of the Muslim world we should be supproting? Are you the Muslim who is brave enough to call Ahmadinejad an insane Hitler, or for the trial of Omar al-Bashir and the ouster of the House of Saud, and the refomration of your religion?
Seems to me if you're the man than tell me where I can send money because I'll gladly do it. But, I know, you are not the man and that there is no man in the Muslim world up to this, for when a Muslim does speak out (like Salman Rushdie) he spends the rest of his life in hiding for being an apostate: a crime punishable by death in Islam.
Dana – what has changed in Egypt? Mubarak, a man of the army, was forced out by elements of the current army. Why? Partly because the military did not like the idea of Mubarak appointing his son, Gamal, as President after him, because he'd never served in the army. Now the military is in power, and while it has promised an orderly transition of power and elections in six months, that is a long time. Have the Egyptian people really gained freedom, as you put it?
Source: STRATFOR's weekly geopolitical and security emails.
Anwar Sadat wasn't cruel check your facts he did way more than Nasser, Nasser's an icon solely because of popularity but as a politician it is clear he was a failure there is an obvious anti-Israeli bias in that statement because of Sadat's peace treaty with Israel