Walk like an Egyptian

Hell, Jambo and I should just stay there next trip up to NEPA! Although that does preclude the possibility of the chambermaid finding excuses to wander in, which I rather enjoy, even if I don't take full advantage ... hehe.

Your previous post begs the most basic of US foreign policy questions - shall we support a dictator within a troubled region because he is our "friend with benefits" (to use a colloquialism)? Or should we shun him based on our founding principles? Clearly US foreign policy should have the aim of benefiting the US. And the realities of the world dictate we must align ourselves with despots from time to time to fight the greater good, or at least defeat the greater evil. FDR supports "Uncle Joe" to fend off the fascist Huns; Reagan with Saddam over the hostile Iranians; Bush with Mubarak & Musharraf (of Pakistan) in advance of the war on terror. These were both reasonable and understandable alliances when forged, and almost always come back to bite us. The problem is we must more often then not accept that later "bite", for the alternative is to succumb to the vastly greater clear and present danger of the moment.

Now that being said, I have always held to the maxim that the dictator whom loves us is more dangerous then the democracy that hates us. Meaning our support of despot A, B, or C, in order to serve the greater good (or defeat the greater enemy), can not be indefinite, and in fact almost always is not. Is this hypocritical? To eventually turn on the rabid dog we used to chase off intruders? Yes. But this is a game for grown ups, and such is the way of the world.

In the case of the Arab (or Persian in Iran's case) world, there is a particular wrinkle. When it comes time to cut our despotic "friend" loose, because the people have risen and demanded liberty, there is the very real chance that their free will would result in a fundamentalist regime - see Hamas. What is our obligation in a post 9/11 world? With such an election we could see the fruits of a decade of waging the war on terror wiped out with a single election. I've thought about this, and while to my core I believe the inherent human right for a people to select their leaders is without constraint (in fact because of it), I do not think the US is under any obligation to support "free and fair elections" whose very aim is to be the last free and fair election held. The Muslim Brotherhood has a charter which reads similar to Hamas: Sharia law, infidels, yada, yada, yada. Their ascendancy in any election would surely be less a free initiative of the people, and rather the free initiative of an organized minority seeking to take advantage of the chaos. In either case it would be the last "free" initiative of any party involved. I wouldn't advocate military intervention to stop such an election, a disaster on every conceivable level, but rather do what we do better then anyone - covertly try and push the people's choice to be one that allows that choice to be exercised again and again in the future. There is the very real chance we would fail, as happened in the PA. But it is the only course I see as viable - when we witness Egyptian style uprisings within the Muslim world we must engage covert nudgings toward a democratic leadership, versus our overt prevention of a fundamentalist take over. Even that limited intrusion may seem less then democratic, but as I said, I feel we are under no obligation to support a free election who's entire aim is to ensure it is the last.

Now, an interesting tid-bit on a completely different subject -

I Googled our site name the other day, having accidentally deleted it from my favorite tabs on my phone. And I found several entries, the first few of which were simply links to our various posts. But about four down something caught my eye: The Illuminati Order.com Apparently, we are linked there, and I am quoted 2/3rds of the page down. Curious, given the post in question refers to their ilk as "whackadoos."