dagblog - Comments for "Erdogan and the future of... Egypt "

I think it is fair to say

David Seaton — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:03:04 +0000

In reply to I'm with you on that. It's

I think it is fair to say that Dubya took care of his base much better than Obama does.

I'm with you on that. It's

acanuck — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:17:17 +0000

I'm with you on that. It's frustrating that a man so obviously smarter than his predecessor feels constrained to follow almost exactly the same policies.

Another thing Obama can't

Atheist — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:44:40 +0000

In reply to No, what they were selling

Another thing Obama can't admit (I don't know if he sees it) is that backing Mideast govts based on their support for narrow, short-term U.S. interests actually is destructive to broad, long-term U.S. interests. And the narrow interests end up suffering anyway.

I'd like to believe Obama is too intelligent not to see it, whether or not he can admit it.

No, what they were selling

acanuck — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:34:33 +0000

In reply to I haven't kept up with the

No, what they were selling was swampland they didn't even hold title to. But I think behind Cheney's obsession to annex Iraq lay a cold-eyed realistic assessment: Especially with peak oil looming, the era of overpriced, overhyped U.S. military might was not sustainable. Cheney's pitch to the president was, "Use it now, massively, and try to rearrange the Middle East more favorably to U.S. interests (i.e., control of oil). It's our last chance." Bush took the gamble, and lost big time. Obama is trying to retreat in orderly fashion, but can't afford to admit the country's disastrous blunder.

Another thing Obama can't admit (I don't know if he sees it) is that backing Mideast govts based on their support for narrow, short-term U.S. interests actually is destructive to broad, long-term U.S. interests. And the narrow interests end up suffering anyway.

I haven't kept up with the

Beetlejuice — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:08:40 +0000

In reply to Erdogan and the future of... Egypt

I haven't kept up with the news concerning the ClubMed cartel of Arab influence, however, I have noted some chatter about the democracy serpent rearing its' head.

If I'm not mistaken, hasn't bin Laden's argument against the US been the driving influence of our presence in the Middle East as well as our pedaling money and equipment to military regimes to tow the whims of the US policy for the region and keep their people in check?

For the US, it's been a high political price to pay to keep hot spots, like Turkey and Egypt, on the back burners, but eventually even the back burner can boil over if given enough time.

I suspect the failure of US forces in Iraq (for all our efforts, the best we achieved was a draw) and the pending failure in Afghanistan (we let the Taliban regroup, resupply and entrench themselves in both Afghanistan and Pakistan) are feeding public opposition in the Middle East against their current governments. They've realize the military might of the US is nothing more than a projection with very little substance...it is possible both their government and US influence can be defeated by the will of the people.

Thanks to Bu$h, we do live in interesting times. Unfortunately, America's political regression in the Middle East wasn't what I thought Bu$h and the republicans were selling at the time.

You gotta love the way much

acanuck — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:29:27 +0000

In reply to Erdogan and the future of... Egypt

You gotta love the way much of the western media is playing the Turkish referendum: Erdogan Extends Control Over Secular Opponents!

What actually happened is that in an impeccably democratic vote, Turks turned out en masse and voted (58 to 42%) to repeal parts of a constitution imposed after a 1980 coup. Parts like military immunity from trial in civilian courts. The changes also restore the govt's role in naming new members to the country's top court and put limits -- limits! -- on that court's power to dissolve political parties on a whim.

In the aftermath, did dissidents' blood flow in the streets? No. Rather, the European Union hailed the changes as advancing civil rights, and Turkey's stock market soared.

As you suggest, the State Dept is clearly conflicted about Turkey. They'd obviously prefer a more malleable leader like Mubarak. But Erdogan's AKP, despite its Islamist roots, is a far cry from the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, Turks -- unlike Egyptians -- seem to have internalized the idea, not just the form, of democracy. And this vote suggests Erdogan has a very good shot at a third four-year term.

In the immediate wake of Turkey's tiff with Israel over the Gaza aid flotilla, Tom Friedman led a spate of right-wing spammers in demonizing Erdogan as a terrorist enabler and/or lionizing Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the new leader of the secular opposition. Those attacks lasted a few weeks, ending as suddenly as they began. Probably coincidence, but I'm pretty sure some people with clout realized further pissing off the Turks was not in U.S. interests.

The United States (and even Israel) will find a modus vivendi with Erdogan's Turkey. But they don't yet see a need to come to terms with even moderate Islamists in Egypt. So they'll keep propping up the creaky, despotic National Democratic regime (backing Mubarak's son for leader since he has no credible rival inside the party). Personally, I'd like to see El Baradei put together a winning team, but the electoral deck is stacked against him.

Depending on how politically competent Mubarak Jr. proves, the West can probably get a few more years' service out of the old National Democratic horse. Not decades, though.