We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click here. When processing your donation through PayPal please indicate in the “Special Instructions for Seller Box” for GLORIA Center. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
Briefly, this seems to be the nature of the U.S. debate over Egypt:
Conservatives, eager to score partisan points on President Barack Obama, criticize him for not pushing Egypt hard enough on reform, remembering President George W. Bush’s backing for democracy.
The left and liberals criticize Obama for not going further pushing Egypt hard on reform.
In short, both camps want the regime to fall. Now if we are talking about Husni Mubarak being replaced, he is after all 82 years old and wouldn’t be long in office any way. And if we are talking about Gamal Mubarak, his son, not taking power as successor, that makes sense because he isn’t up to the job.
But if this bipartisan consensus is talking about bringing the regime down altogether and fundamentally transforming Egypt, be very careful what you advocate, you might get it.
Analogies to places like the Philippines, South Korea, and Chile (!) don’t work so well because none of these are Middle Eastern countries, all had strong democratic pasts, and in the first two there was no serious radical threat. In the third, Chile, the radical forces were the ones being overthrown.
Now, Iran (Islamist), Lebanon (Hizballah), Gaza Strip (Hamas), Algeria (bloody civil war) are in the Middle East. And the differences with case studies of countries in Asia and South America are not just accidental.
While the Obama Administration is pushing too hard for my taste and not giving enough public support to the regime–not the Mubaraks personally–its critics seem to be even more wrong.