The Culminations of a Bunch of Culminations

Barack Obama has polarized like no president has done before. Not exactly the confidence boost one would want to give with 2012 coming up, especially after how George W. Bush laissez faire attitude towards Israel led to him gaining in the Jewish vote in his reelection. Hell, for some reason, Slate, the cattiest of publications, let Elliot Spitzer, a man rich in experience as governor of the state with the most Jews, weigh in on the interpretive dance-off between Obama and Bibi in DC this weekend. Last night began the culmination: Bibi played the grand finale to the AIPAC Policy Conference, where he told a huge chunk of the friends of Israel how they will vote in 2012. And then today, he was the 49th foreign leader, and second Israeli prime minister after Menachem Began did so in 1978.

It was nice of Howard Kohr, AIPAC's Executive Director, to come on between the two as a warm-up for Bibi, and tell the press today that Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. So will Bibi drive the stake in tonight? If what National Security Council leader Yaakov Amrari is the advice Bibi is following, expect the posturing mostly align with Obama. Amrari sees the dispute as what it really is: the media distortion of Obama's words to a soundbite (this is the same conclusion you can draw from the analysis on today's Diane Rehm show, but there still is some question into the hostility of Netanyahu, which can be traced back to the existential safety Israel truly desires), and ignore the land swaps that would be part of the negotiations. Amrari points out that this swap would leave too many Israelis outside of Israeli borders for one reason: this coalition is very dependent on the votes of settlers to keep the small parties, the kingmakers with enough votes to hold that power.

Netanyahu's speech is more of the same: agreeing with Obama, but as an alum of MIT, his tone shows he is fighting, mostly because he doesn't think Obama understands what Israel needs. However, he knows what to tell AIPAC and lawmakers. Still, his address to AIPAC included one clause that Abbas has not been about: recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. For how similar his vision is to Obama, his tone may be the driver that

Netanyahu's speech to Congress looked and sounded like a George W. Bush speech to the same group: lots of standing ovations and no booing (looking at you, Joe Wilson, for ending the streak for Obama). Hell, it may have sounded better because of his obviously tighter grasp on the English language. But the sticking points are very obvious:

1. Hamas is a terrorist organization: They did condemn the killing of Bin Laden, and Netanyahu was wise to use that statement as a rallying around the flag moment for the US legislators. Calling them the Palestinian Al-Qaeda was a bit far, but he has a point, as they quickly accepted the 1967 borders, but still stayed with the goal of destroying Israel, and any Congressperson who doesn't stand to clap for that would be sealing their reelection loss.

2. He agrees with Obama on the swaps: June 4, 1967, didn't work, so there must be swaps. The only issue I have with this is the way he phrases it seems to put him in opposition to Obama. Some people only read tone, and for that reason I think his AIPAC speech might drive a lot of Jewish voters from Obama when he has done much more for Israel (I know, by doing very little) than Bush did (he of putting the Palestinians to election and allowing Hamas to be elected).

3. He wants to sit down to negotiate: Every Prime Minister since Rabin, save Ariel Sharon, has been willing to negotiate. Netanyahu is no difference, and as the first Likud leader to accept two states. Danny Danon and Mahmoud Abbas both made unilateral action sound destructive.

4. Rockets: The rockets need to stop or there will be more incursions. The rockets equal war, and if they don't stop, well, that isn't peace. There is no other way to look at it, and the people who justify it are misinformed.

5. Settlers: C-SPAN opened up to their listeners, and one American Orthodox Jew (he called the West Bank יהודה ושמרון) called to criticize Netanyahu, saying that he had no plan for the settlers. However, he did: the land swaps will bring in many of those settlers, but some will be forced to move. I think that the one sticking point will be Hebron, the second most holy site in Judaism, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, מערת המכפלה, is there, and they will not be willing to put it under the jurisdiction of the Palestinians. Especially with the coalition, this will be the main sticking point for any final agreement.

Having Congressional leaders meet with Netanyahu after his speech put the ball in Abbas' court. Especially with Fayyad's health issue (now not a heart attack) yesterday, Abbas needs to show himself as a stable partner for this to move forward. Otherwise, the American blame will go to the Palestinians, and we will see Abbas and Danon's pieces in the New York Times come to fruition this fall.

The Nakba and US-Israeli Relations: Lots Going On

May 14th was the Gregorian anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, and the 15th marked the 63rd time that Palestinians have responded to those celebrations with mourning and defiance. The event is polarizing to say the least. Michael Oren wrote in Foreign Policy about the American need for Israel in these turbulent times, an assertion that was countered by Stephen Walt, he of the Israel Lobby fame (a book that just calls for AIPAC's legitimacy to be called into question, not the American relationship with Israel). This year, with the Arab Spring changing the tenor of the Arab world, Palestinians have began to protest in the countries bordering Israel. Ethan Bronner reported on the action for the New York Times, and the reports of protests within the West Bank were bittersweet to hear with the reaction from Israeli forces. A mixture of populist uprising for independence with action that delegitimizes the movement for Palestinian independence seem to be the ingredients of the past 41 years that has led to the stalemate that may have a chance to let up with a vote at the United Nations.

Civil disobedience is one thing that is missing from the Palestinian tenor. People throwing stones have been a part of the first two Intifadas, with protests barely ever staying nonviolent. But what has happened on the borders has provided the world with the polarizing issue that the Mavi Marmara did in its approach to Gaza last May. Both groups called for keeping with international law. The critics found the blockade of Gaza to be illegal and inhumane, and the raid to be in international waters. It is a double edged sword to deal with for the Israelis: keeping out the flotilla keeps their reputation for maintaining territorial integrity. Letting them in would make them lose that reputation (showing weakness) but make them seem so kind.

Rushing the borders in Lebanon and Syria create the same issue. Israel has maintained territorial integrity up there, and even had the UN take their side in a dispute when the Lebanese Army started shelling Israeli forces who turned out to not be violating any borders. These Palestinian refugees rushing the borders have had their actions pinned on the Lebanese government and Syrian government by Israeli intelligence officials. This seems a little irrational, as even a Lebanese MP blames it on UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army for abandoning their posts, probably at the behest of Hizballah. One can put the same blame on Syria's leadership for having their army abandon the border to focus on putting down the protests taking place all over their country. Of course, this can also be seen as Iran trying to make their influence in the region visible, and having it occur in two countries bordering Israel where their influence is known. Of course, Jordan and Egypt minimized the protests reaching the borders, a much harder task in Jordan where almost 2/3 of the population is Palestinian, but easier in both countries where their governments actually have authority throughout their territory.

These issues would stay in the limelight later in the week, with Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled to meet with Obama on May 20th. Mahmoud Abbas put the ball in Israel and the US's court with his New York Times Op-Ed that angered Netanyahu and led Danny Danon to say that Israel would gladly take an eye for an eye and pursue the same grievances and like any good constructivist, make what they will of any new political environment.

With this tense atmosphere, Obama was scheduled to give a sea-changing speech at the State Department in relation of US Middle East Policy, and he did not fall short, condemning the crackdown in Bahrain, telling Assad to either reform or get out of the way in Syria, and endorsing Israeli-Palestinian Peace based on the 1949 Armistice lines. Jonathan Schanzer points out that these lines will not be the endgame of negotiations for Israel, as they give Israel's main population center around Tel Aviv would be in a stretch of land 8 miles wide, with the West Bank on one side and the Palestinian state on the other.

Netanyahu arrived and showed his displeasure in front of the press. The word "unrealistic" doesn't seem to show good signs for the US-Israeli relationship. He was wrongly reported to have been livid beforehand, and the two leaders seem to still be cordial, while some bureaucrats believe that Netanyahu missed the point. While both view Hamas as a terrorist organization, Netanyahu still sees, and so does his whole coalition, that they have done all they can, despite their decisions to continue the construction of settlements.

Abbas made a quick reaction by calling a meeting with the Arab League. However, it does not look promising for Israelis to take the first steps with Hamas's response to the speech. Their legitimacy as a governing partner to negotiate with will not take any steps to give the Israelis good faith. It was refreshing to see Abbas take this step instead of engaging in the competitive chauvinism that his Op-Ed seemed to connote.

The biggest events will be at AIPAC starting today. Obama will preempt Bibi at AIPAC, speaking Sunday and with his Israeli counterpart following on Monday night. AIPAC's mission of blind support of Israeli policy seems to be backfiring as JStreet's mission for a two-state solution became Obama's stated goal. Alas, AIPAC's financial resources are much greater than JStreet's at this time, so their voice will be the one that stays in the ears of administration officials and legislators.

So, yes, basically, this is still a big mess.

Intervention's Negative Side

Today, the American-led establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya seems to be a success, with NATO set to take over imminently. The rebel forces fighting Qaddafi have easily taken many cities as Libyan forces are sued into submission.

But there remains a dark aura that could put a negative reflection on American involvement in this civil war. News came yesterday that the rebels are heading towards Sirte, hometown of Qaddafi and a bastion of support for him in the clan-based rivalries that his iron grip has blocked from view during his rule. This is eerily similar to two conflicts where outside powers have intervened and ended up allowing war crimes to be perpetrated that were the result of old rivalries that boiled over without the power structure that previously held the groups in check.

1. Sabra-Shatilla-The massacre at the two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut was done by the Maronite Christian militia, the Phalangists, that was the military wing of the party run by Bashir Gemayel, then-president of Lebanon. The Lebanese Civil War had started in 1975, catalyzed by the arrival of the PLO in 1968, which started launching attacks into Israel with a base in southern Lebanon and Yasser Arafat and the other leadership in Beirut. A consociational government had divided power between the Shia, Sunni, Maronites, and Druze, with little conflict. But the arrival of a great deal of Palestinians and their de-facto government was set to upset the instable peace.

Israel invaded in 1978 and 1982 to eliminate the PLO, and allied itself with the Phalangists who wanted to rid Lebanon of the PLO and sue into submission the Muslim populations. But in 1982, Israeli soldiers watched from a distance and heard the massacre in the camps, only seeing them the next day. The resulting trauma to Israeli soldiers present is shown by Ari Folman in his animated documentary, Waltz with Bashir, who were scared to remember what they witnessed during their deployment. The PLO left for Tunisia following the war, but Israel, and defense minister Ariel Sharon, created an even worse impression on Lebanon that has helped lead to the rise of Hezbollah into a leadership role in the government today.

2. Bosnia-Josef Tito was an excellent leader. Leading Yugoslavia, he insulted the Soviet Union, drawing the ire of Stalin, and helped start the first international organization for the developing world by the developing world, the Non-Aligned Movement. Tito played into an alliance with the United States, and kept down the strife between the Slavic groups that hated each other. Somehow, Tito kept them united through his rule. (An excellent analogy for this unstable union can be seen in the relationship between famous Yugoslavian basketball players Vlade Divac, a Serb, and Drazen Petrovic, a Croat, who trailblazed the Euro invasion of the NBA but died in a car accident during the peak of his career.)

But following his death, things started to change. The government began to weaken as ethnic groups pined for independence. Each group wanted autonomy but also to dominate the other, so civil war broke out. Serbs, under the leadership of Milosevic and Karadzic massacred Bosnians to ethnically cleanse the land they wanted to be theirs. American warplanes and peacekeeping forces ended the conflict, kept rivalry simmering with the Dayton Agreement making everyone unhappy.

The legacy of colonialism casts a long shadow in Libya, Lebanon, and the former Yugoslavia, but that shadow is neither as long nor as dark as that of the rivalries of ethnic groups, religious groups, and clans that were present before their arrival. Removing stability-creating forces, even as autocratic as Tito and Qaddafi, may benefit the country in the long-run, but it also opens up opportunities for these rivalries to play out so one group they can say they had the last laugh.

Please watch Sirte for the next few days, and watch how, if a new government does rise, it deals with clan tensions. Qaddafi may have been a terrible leader and an asshole to his countrymen, but innocent people associated with him because of clan ties should not be harmed to have revenge for his rule.

What really happened in Itamar?

Since Friday night, the biggest news stories out of Israel have concerned the murder of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, a settlement deep inside the West Bank. Only three members of the family survived, and the disgusting act was not discovered until midnight Saturday, when their daughter returned home to find no one answering the door and finally, with the help of a neighbor, entered to find five family members murdered.

Of course, there was only one way for the Netanyahu-led coalition to react: promise to build more homes and give Itamar recognition as a city, a sentiment cranked up by major stakeholder Eli Yishai. This seems a bit irrational, as it derails the peace process even more and gives the Palestinians cause to consider taking up arms. Right now, no one knows who perpetrated these murders. Mahmoud Abbas made a point of going onto Radio Israel to harshly condemn the attacks, and Saeb Erekat and other Palestinian Authority officials came out to harshly condemn the attacks as well. Of course, some Palestinians were disgusted with the announcement of new housing projects in the West Bank to reward the martyrdom of people who burn olive groves and desecrate Arab cemeteries.

But the irrationality of this coalition will not allow for these feelings of sympathy to fall on hearing ears. The attitude is analogous to Sarah Palin: instead of "drill, baby, drill," it's "build, baby, build," in the name of a family of martyrs killed by an unknown suspect. The brother of the father, Motti, eulogized the family and asked that they not be made pawns in a national struggle, a call that seems to be falling of deaf ears. It is funny because the cabinet seems to be bypassing the courts' and police's responsibility to figure out who did this, having already found the Palestinian people guilty. No formal investigation has come up with a perpetrator, but no one is willing to say if it were a terrorist. It could have been a serial killer. No one knows, but Netanyahu is in to declaring, not letting this opportunity to rally around the flag be for naught. And while the Israelis focus on oppressing Palestinian leadership into a submissiveness similar to its people, they lose another ally in Uruguay who come to support Palestinian independence.

The next election will not be until 2013, unless there is a coalition breakdown. The religious parties will avoid a vote of no confidence at any cost, because that may play into the rise of a secular, left-leaning government. If Netanyahu were given a vote of no confidence, it is possible that Tzipi Livni would be given the chance to form a coalition, and Netanyahu, sick of the lack of diplomatic ability from Avigdor Lieberman, would accept a chance to govern in a national unity government, leaving the religious out of the fold. Kadima, with 28 seats in the Knesset, would lead, with Likud's 27 and Labor's 8 would give them enough of a majority (Let's leave the power-hungry Ehud Barak and Atzmaut out of this, as Labor wouldn't trust him and what's five members of Knesset worth?). The inclusion of Meretz's 3 would bring them up to 66 members. Possibly add in the Arab parties and you'd have 74. However, it is very unlikely that the Arab parties would join in a coalition with Likud, famous for oppressing the Arab Israelis (usually Christians and Muslims) that make up their constituents.

But could you imagine an Israeli coalition without any religious parties involved? The Interior Ministry would be able to accept so many more potential Jewish immigrants who would not need to have been converted by an Orthodox rabbi. Housing authorities would cater to building projects that do not claim more of the West Bank and instill confidence in the peace process among the Palestinians. This may be problematic in exposing the schisms between religious and secular in Israeli society, and launch a civil war that waits for the end of an Arab-Israeli conflict to be exposed, but the majority must take back the democracy it deserves sometime.

As Netanyahu clings to power, one may see the disaffected secular population finally show its power at the polls in the event of an election being called. As long as religious parties continue to be kingmakers, peace cannot be within reach. Instead, the government will continue to isolate Israel from an Arab world that is modernizing and beginning to see that the democracy they aspire to be is more oppressive than it claims.

Apocalypses Now

I love John Milius's work. As a screenwriter, there are few who can get close to him in terms of success rate. As a director, well, he made Patrick Swayze among others look like Tommy Wiseau in Red Dawn, and his terrible record in that position made his last few attempts at it TV movies. I do love him for the same reasons Vince Mancini does: he has a goatee that makes him look like Walter Sobchak and he satirized hippies through creating a rudimentary version of the Apocalypse Now symbol.

But Milius is a huge pessimist. His portrayal of the Vietnam War in Apocalypse Now is known for its soldiers distancing themselves from the conflict in front of them via drugs and booze (PURPLE HAZE, MAN, PURPLE HAAAAZE!) and its use of imagery of Greek mythology's underworld, the onus of which could be put on Francis Ford Coppola:

But Milius' writing outside of his work on Rome and a future series about the Pharaohs, the man has a gift for momentary pessimism, by which I mean that he sees the worst thing possible happening very soon. This is probably what makes his movies so popular: he scares the shit out of people with ease because the man can envision the worst possible event to wreck your life. Red Dawn theorized that the declining Soviet Union would try to exploit the American breadbasket in the Midwest and obliterate the coasts. Even his Twilight Zone segment, which he didn't write but did direct, "Opening Day," had a man put into the body of a man he murdered, a day before said murder.

And now you can add videogames to that list. Tomorrow Homefront, a first-person shooter produced by THQ with a storyline straight from Milius, will be released in the US. Let's take a look at the speculative timeline employed:

• 2011: North Korea faces another UN sanction over its latest nuclear test.
• 2012: Kim Jong-Il passes away, he is succeeded by his son Kim Jong-un.
• 2013: Kim Jong-un is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and featured on the cover of Time Magazine for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.
• 2014: American military withdraws from the Korean Peninsula. General Motors declares bankruptcy for the second time.
• 2015: The effects of peak oil are felt as gas prices reach up to 20 dollars a gallon due to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia cuts off all oil trade with Europe. Survivalist literature become bestsellers in America. China's influences diminish.
• 2016: America withdraws its military from Japan and other countries overseas, focusing on its instability back home. Texas splits from the United States, border bloodshed takes place as refugees from other states attempt to enter Texas.
• 2017: Martial law is declared in the United States as its infrastructure crumbles due to financial deficiencies.
• 2018: After the destruction of one its nuclear facilities by Korean special forces, Japan surrenders to the Greater Korean Republic and is capitalized into avassal state.
• 2019: The UN goes out of commission.
• 2020: Canada closes its borders to Americans. The US military takes over the functions of many emergency services, as well as the distribution of basic goods. This causes many Americans to abandon the suburbs in exchange of the military-managed urban centers.
• 2021: Korean forces succeed in annexing many countries in Southeast Asia. A new pandemic known as the Knoxville Cough, type of bird flu, begins to spread in the United States.
• 2022: To prevent the contagion of the Knoxville Cough, Mexico closes its borders to Americans. Hyperinflation pushes the US dollar to the edge of collapse.
• 2023: The Knoxville Cough ravages the American public. The Korean People's Army reaches 20 million total personnel.
• 2024: Using the captured M-V rockets at the Uchinoura Space Center, Kim Jong-un announces a new space satellite program, under the pretense of replacing the decaying GPS system, which America could no longer afford to maintain.
• 2025: A thermonuclear device is detonated by one of the Korean satellites 300 miles above Kansas, blanketing America with an EMP that wipes out its power grid and most of the electronics above ground. The US infrastructure is virtually in ruins. This is followed by the Korean seizure of Hawaii and landings in San Francisco. Korean paratroopers are dropped into central United States. The economic downfall in Europe prevents its nations from intervening.
• 2026: The United States is split into two as the KPA irradiate the entire Mississippi River, as a fortification for their control of the western side.
• 2027: The United States Armed Forces are completely scattered.

Damn, shit is going to go downhill. So is this useful? With many apocalyptic perspectives ringing in from all parts of the political spectrum, maybe this strategy will help for this inevitable invasion. It's also great entertainment, and engenders the same rallying around the flag mentality that leaders love to take advantage of at wartime.

Red Dawn was the quintessential Reagan movie: it instilled fear with its prophecies of a weak USSR invading to avoid implosion, and made Reagan's additions to defense spending seem reasonable. This game may lead to similar attitudes, but defense spending is getting cut in some way this year, as it is taking up such a great deal of our budget and even relative gains from China, who will be increasing their defense budget by 12.7% this coming year, will not close the gap enough to make a difference to the status quo.

There is one bone I would pick with any sort of reality that Milius thinks is created in this timeline: the diplomatic daft of Kim Jong-Un. The younger Kim has already been put into place as the heir, and will soon be visiting China to possibly learn something about diplomacy that his father never could. And an obvious lack of skill with the ladies is helping him get emasculated in front of the South Korean public over the internet is not helping. Hopefully, he'll be better at it than he is at holding binoculars (this photo of course brings back memories of Amir Peretz's failed transition from garbage man/union leader to defense minister). As many reports say he is exactly like daddy, expect this Kim to continue a tradition of megalomania, cult of personality, and health problems that has become a tradition dating back to his father's rule. The status quo seems likely to stay the same, and another John Milius prophecy of doom will go without manifesting itself in our world, but the dude is sure to do damage with the sales.

Will Anyone Ever Look in the Mirror?

I am not a huge fan of Daniel Ayalon, who has been the pet of Avigdor Lieberman since this coalition came to power, which is what one would do if one were the Deputy Foreign Minister and the other the Foreign Minister. But this Foreign Ministry's efforts have been marked by a bastardization of statecraft and the deterioration of relations with the rest of the world as Lieberman pushes his agenda despite the fact that it was Netanyahu's coalition to ruin. Even more ridiculous is that Ayalon is a career diplomat in the Israeli Foreign Service, having been Ambassador to the US from 2002 until 2006, but the chain of command has led him to do a lot of stupid stuff, like put the Turkish Foreign Minister in a small chair and mock him in Hebrew as relations between the allies deteriorated, and refusing to see Congressmen visiting Israel on a tour with J Street.

But Ayalon's article on Foreign Policy's website show that he still has the skill for statecraft and can write about the misuse of the UN that leads to criticism of Israel while other states operate without hearing a single word in response to their disgusting acts. Somehow, while on the Human Rights Committee, Libya even had a report filed to demonstrate how free and transparent they are. The report mentions that people were allowed free speech until it became harmful to the state. But who would notice all those secret detentions? Gaddafi's delusions were pushed to the margins because so many others are, like him, Muslim and Arab, so why should we really care? Instead they focus on the actions of one small group that makes up less than 1/1000th of the world population. It is true that Israel has committed violations of human rights, and it irks me that this admission continues to not enter the official position of the Israeli government, as it is a necessary step towards normalizing relations. Especially when in this context, where Ayalon seems to play Israel off as an archangel of human rights.

Let's run through the highlight nations of human rights abusers on the Human Rights Council (Note: I remember the Nakba and other events that affected the Palestinians, it's just that I aim to show how bad everyone else is too):

Saudi Arabia: Yes, you can still get the death penalty for numerous offenses, including anti-government rhetoric (which I would assume doesn't have too high a bar to jump over), adultery, theft, and homosexuality.

Cuba: Where technology can't be introduced until the government figures out how to control it. And even after the introduction, people are scared to use them.

Pakistan: Two government officials have recently been killed in Pakistan: one for trying to protect a Christian woman from being convicted of blasphemy, the other for being a Christian.

Bahrain: They're essentially engaged in the same situation as Libya, except with less fighter jets bombing their people. Of course, the Human Rights Council would never condemn one of its own members until Libya was suspended.

China: The worst one but with the most economic clout, so who really cares? Critics of the government get to enjoy house arrest and harassment from police. Also, does anyone remember the suppression of Tibetan activism and assault on Buddhist monks and how the Chinese started to censor foreign singers from criticizing their imperialism?

United States: Name one state that hasn't violated human rights. Even as an American, a balanced lens is a patriotic lens when looking at the history of your own country. Remember when we deposed Saddam Hussein and catalyzed a civil war in Iraq? How about Grenada? What about the occupation of the Philippines for 48 years and the violent putting down of any insurrection against American rule or independence from it? And what about using those atomic bombs at the end of World War II? Were they really necessary?

How does the UN think it can uphold human rights to its standards when there is no accountability on the committee that decides who has violated these rights? Or let a conference on racism turn into a pseudo-academic pursuit of claiming that Zionism is racism? The UN is extremely messed up, and it will continue to be because it requests no accountability within nations, only that they show up to the General Assembly and pay their dues. This is why I could never get enthused about Model United Nations, because it was pipe dreams of an effective international body that can never exist in the real world.

Fox News Poops on the Truth

Let's get one thing straight on Megyn Kelly. First off, she needs to learn how to spell. What a cruel, Freakanomics-like joke of a spelling of a first name. Second, this woman believes anything put on the teleprompter and fed to her. So, of course, this absolutely nonsensical story is going to be broken by this idiot.

Luckily, the Washington Times does not take this report as complete fact, but it's important to note that Ms. Kelly seemed very enthusiastic about it, and even had the report's author, who works for a Pentagon subcontractor, on to discuss how correct it was.

This is fear-mongering on another level. Linkage theory is already considered asinine by conservatives, in its use by Arab states to explain their problems as being due to Israel's existence. This feeds into a twisted conspiracy that foreign entities worked to put Obama into office, and that George W. Bush had no responsibility in making the government's relationship with the economy as laissez faire as possible so that the subprime mortgage crisis could derail what was an economy on steroids. The Republicans want to turn back the clock and change the story to say that it wasn't them who allowed this to happen, in the way that Bush introduced tax cuts and blamed the Clinton administration for inflating a debt that Bush produced all by himself.

Revisionist history like this disgusts me. While the Republicans whine about Obama's socialist programs that would actually be beneficial to poorer people, they extol the legacy of Ronald Reagan on his 100th birthday, when Reagan was the man who, as Andrew Bacevich put it in the HBO documentary about him, asked us to relax and not worry because there will be oil forever, while turning around and giving huge tax cuts to the rich expecting their spending to trickle down to the lower class, which never happened.

And if there is one person who you shouldn't trust on financial matters, it is a Pentagon subcontractor. The Pentagon is notorious for going over budget, and this is mainly to pay subcontractors like this. The American Intelligence Community is split up so that agencies focus on different aspects of keeping the US safe and ahead in the game of international politics. When there is overlap, they should work together, but as we saw in the failure to prevent terrorist attacks along with counterespionage operations by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, cooperation does not always work out. And if anyone should be investigating, there is an Intelligence unit within the Treasury who would be monitoring

But what does Megyn Kelly know? Here's a list:

1. What's on the teleprompter-she reads this

2. Coming up with questions that lead herself and whoever she is leading through questions to bash Democrats-she ignores any other questions, like:

a. Isn't there an intelligence agency within the federal government that is supposed to look into financial or economic warfare?

b. Why are you engaging in economic research for the Pentagon? It may be part of the Unconventional Warfare Program, but aren't there more important economic research topics to look into, like the theft of technology?

c. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that we call it economic terrorism when China actually owns such a large share of our debt?

But Ms. Kelly has no reason to ask the questions, because they are not part of the Fox News agenda. And of course, who is watching Fox News at 1:30PM? Unemployed people, who are probably pissed that they don't have jobs. Just fanning the fire, Ms. Kelly. Rupert Murdoch thinks that's good hustle.

Review: World News Connection

Reading the Wall Street Journal today, I was intrigued by an article about translated news stories from the CIA available via the internet at World News Connection. The Journal shows how one can get a glimpse of history from the database, looking at the beginnings of World War II, the closing of the Suez, as well as other events, giving a perspective of other countries for these important events as opposed to the usual look at how it affects the US. This is a perspective that is useful to people doing research that focuses less on American perspective but lack the language skills to translate. Of course, one may ask, "What if these translators are hiding stuff?" Well, let's take a look at what they're disseminating. They list their sources, so no need to worry. Interestingly, one of the sources they list for Israel is the Jerusalem Post, which is available in English and for free on the internet. I found it interesting that Haaretz wasn't listed, as their English version, while excellent, sometimes has issues with grammar. As well, as one taking a cursory glance at the two pages can see, via pictures, that some stories are emphasized to Hebrew readers while others are emphasized to English readers.

Of course, the question with every source, especially with an aggregate like this, is who do you trust? Sure, it is great to read about South Korean perspective on Middle Eastern instability or tales of Syrian-Iranian cooperation, but no one has the breadth of language skills that these CIA translators do, so of course some information is unavailable. I also had to use my Pennkey to access it. It is disappointing that this resource is not available to more people and is instead dependent on whether your college, company, or you personally, are willing to shell out for what is probably an annual thousand dollar subscription.

We think this is a useful service, but like almost all information available, sometimes you have to take it with a grain of salt.

A Case for Intervention

Marc Lynch already made the point that it may be necessary, and the evidence in the media seems to be enough of a case. If there was ever a time for a coalition to violate the Westphalian sovereignty of an independent state, it is in Libya right now. Protestors should not be the victims of jet attacks. But military interventionism is known to draw the ire of citizens when it fails, or help public opinion when it succeeds, so governments, especially the US after its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to walk a tight rope when getting involved in the domestic affairs of others.

The failure of the Clinton administration to intervene in Rwanda and the Congo has gone into the historical record as a failure because the US at the time was enough of a military power to make things right in a way that Belgian peacekeepers could not. However, neither Rwandan side had the military resources at their disposal what Qaddafi has in Libya. The protesters do not have access to fighter jets, but he does. To bomb your own citizens is disgusting.

Internally, in Libya, when will the military see this error? Qaddafi has the status as a revolutionary that he constantly flaunts. He fuels it through the creating ties to the past, such as that of Omar Mukhtar, whose life Qaddafi bankrolled into a biopic starring Anthony Quinn. He also showed up to meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi wearing a picture of Mukhtar to emphasize the colonial legacy Italy left during its time in Libya and the reparations they received. But now there is no colonialism, but the cult of personality of Qaddafi seems to engender support that Mubarak could not among the Egyptian military. For that reason, it is necessary for military intervention. Italy's status as a former colonizer may require a coalition to get some input from them, but the trial of Berlusconi may discount them from the process, as they are too occupied with domestic politics. But Berlusconi may get involved to serve him some improvement in public opinion and get Italians to rally around the flag and forget about his  indulging in underage prostitution.

The lengths to which Qaddafi has gone to stay in power are deplorable, but he will remain in power unless other countries come to the aid of the protestors. It would serve Obama well in the court of public opinion both at home (rally around the flag, again) and in the international realm to intervene. Hopefully he sees this soon and we can end the oppressive and malevolent rule of Qaddafi once and for all.

Dr. Kevorkian, this is Helen Thomas

So, Helen Thomas, remember how you stupidly told someone with a camera (the red light means they're taking movies of you!) that the Jews need to get out of the region of Palestine? Well, even as you did leave your post, you still didn't understand what was wrong.

According to Ms. Thomas, Jews could have stayed in Poland and Germany because there wasn't any persecution after World War II. It's funny, because I could swear that all of Poland and half of Germany was taken over by one Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, who considered the Jews to be spies for the West and restricted their rights. Of course, Thomas also forgets that others are subjugating the Palestinians, like the Jordanians, who give the Palestinians that make up 2/3 of their population no say in governance in favor of Hashemite and tribal dominance politically and economically. And the Egyptians put restrictions on Gaza following the 1948 War that essentially sealed shut any sort of talk of Palestinian independence. And what about the Kuwaitis responding to the position Palestinians were given until Desert Storm took Iraqi rule out of the kingdom.

What Helen Thomas needs is a history lesson before she talks, but I guess her ignorance continues to get the better of her. I'm sorry you have to be so ignorant, but now we don't have to hear your "pointed" questions during White House Press Conferences anymore, and hopefully your limited scope is shut out of all media. Or just preface every comment she makes.

Both Sides of the Jordan

My last post failed to expand on the new Jordanian cabinet, and there is a lot to discuss within Israel, so here it goes.

First off, Jordan. With a new cabinet will come new viewpoints, but there is one that is definitely not reassuring. Hussein Mjali is the new Justice Minister. But Mr. Mjali has some interesting views on the geopolitical situation at his western border. First, he rejects the 1994 treaty with Israel, and considers Israel a terrorist state. Which leads us to our second point, which is that he defended Ahmed Daqamseh, a Jordanian soldier who killed seven Israeli schoolchildren at the Israeli-Jordanian Island of Peace Park on the border. Now, with reports surfacing that he wants his former client freed, there seems to be some instability in Jordan that Israel should watch closely. Especially with a new cabinet coming in following the dismissal of its predecessor, populist moves make you popular, and what happens when the people decide they like the Justice Minister? Abdullah is going to struggle with this one, but he better recognize the need to keep Mjali in check or otherwise draw the ire of Israel and possibly destabilize relations.

And what of Netanyahu and Lieberman on the other side of the river? When Aluf Benn thinks you're being publicly emasculated by your deputy, there might be some problems. Netanyahu has lost a lot of his political capital to the coalition, and he doesn't seem to be gaining any back anytime soon. Fear-mongering by both Bibi and Lieberman won't help either, but Bibi has taken a step in the right direction by responding to Hizballah's Nasrallah with an acrid comeback. Bibi is losing control of his party and his coalition, and it looks like the cycle of parties in and out of party will continue in the coming election, whenever it arrives.

But the religious parties will remain, and people will be allowed to do stupid things like Dov Lior. So now, there will be a law that allows you to say whatever you want as long as the Torah backs it. This is a new low. But it is very possible that this backfires. Hell, soon you could see gay marriage legalized, or the rabbis completely removed from any sort of power. Unless the law has conditions that keep that from happening. And making an equivalence with "left-wing academics?" What a joke. Left-wing academics do not condone violence against non-Jews. If this doesn't make people stop believing in coalition politics, what will?

Finally, another right-wing proposal may find itself backfiring, as now it has been revealed that the leader of Im Tirzu is doing business with Iran. Im Tirzu is an organization that focuses on responding to any criticism to Israel, not admitting any missteps, which is exactly what Peter Beinart finds to be the main issue with American Zionism. Without some sort of internal criticism to actions, what is the point of free speech?

Short-term and Long-term Forecasts

Things are changing quite a bit in the Arab world, and in the Persian world, we are getting some more of the same. As protests have risen in Bahrain, Iraq, and Libya, as responses to those successful ones in Tunisia and Egypt, one is left to wonder what is the future for the region.

The protests in Arab countries have been marked by violence, but not like those protests in the streets of Tehran last year following the Ahmadinejad election. There has been more change, as both Egypt and Tunisia have seen governments overthrown and now wait for permanent replacements to come to power. Jordan is seeing some sort of reform, but it does not seem to be the type that will satisfy a country where 2/3 are Palestinians treated like second class citizens. Bahrain seems more likely to placate its citizens, and it is a strategic locale for American interests in tampering Iranian regional hegemony. It also has a large Shia population, which makes it likely to go to Iran's open arms in the case of a government overthrow. However, the tone of the king in his response to protesters following the death of two protesters was mild and seemed to favor some sort of reform, as opposed to Mubarak's defiant and stubborn reaction to those in Tahrir Square. By continuing to let the people protest, he is showing an ear for their demands that Mubarak did not show, as he hid in safety and sent the police and army to hear them out.

Iraq shows an interesting case. As American troops will be out by the end of the year, Moqtada al-Sadr has shown himself to be the leader of the final push, allowing no mercy if American troops stay beyond their deadline of the end of the year. And with protests arising in Kut against a provincial governor, it may worry some about the stability of the region. al-Maliki has already declared the end of his time as prime minister, and it's a crapshoot on who will replace him, but it will probably be a Shia. We must wonder: how much influence will Sadr have? Will it be a similar influence to the Khameini in Iran, the country in which Sadr was in exile to avoid American threats?

Speaking of Iran, now that protests will become a part of life again, I cannot say that I see legitimate democracy overthrowing the theocracy in place. Why? Well, it isn't so much a theocracy as it is a theocratic oligarchy. The Basij wield a monopoly on violence that non-violent protest has shown itself unable to overcome. The Revolutionary Guard helps them hold that force, with the aid of their monopoly on the economy. Whoever Khameini wants to lead will lead, this is a certainty. Khatami's one-term rule was not questioned, because everyone knew what was happening in 2003 when his democratic reforms lost to a believer in the traditional, Ahmadinejad. However, as Iran basks in the glow of having been the catalyst for these revolts with their efforts in 1979 (yes, it took 32 years), they may be seeing a sea change in the part of the world. What if secular rule does rise? How do Khameini and Ahmadinejad explain that? Why do they continually put the blame for protests on other countries?

We may end up seeing Bush's democratization goal reached in much of the Middle East soon. Could it be something that he uses in 2012 to get voters to switch sides? Probably not, but it's a damn good foreign policy selling point. But the point I want to make is that Bush's strategy didn't work as well as Obama's approach. Obama let it stay in the hands of the country, trying to stay as hands-off as he could until things became too chaotic. Bush just talked about reform, bombed the countries he thought needed reform, and didn't speak another word. Soft power is on the rise, folks.

And speaking of soft power, the US is making a tangible attempt to increase their reserves of it with this cancellation of the extra F-35 engine. Military spending takes up a huge chunk of our spending, and while money is pulled out of programs like NPR and PBS,

PLUG: CLICK THIS LONG LINK AND SIGN THIS PETITION TO MAKE SURE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KEEPS FUNDING NPR AND PBS

we usually have money continually funded to a defense budget that is greater than those of every other country in the world combined. But things have changed. This shows a weakness, sure, but think about how far ahead the US military is compared to other countries, besides the obvious nuclear deterrent.

While there are some spotty issues, my pessimism, for today, is gone. Some intermittent showers, but the sun is coming.

You can't always get what you want....

...but if you try sometimes, you get what you need! Or so the song goes. Apparently the Rolling Stones weren't thinking of authoritarian despots when they wrote it. Shocker, there.

So what do the people of Egypt want? What are they trying to accomplish? And what, precisely, do they need? These are all questions that a whole lot of people are attempting to answer. The chatter from the media, politicians, pundits, whosits, and whatsits regarding the situation in Egypt and the wider Middle East has become an absolute roar. I mean, even Sarah Palin has chimed in. Even the person who stands for all things ignorant and insular in the American public sphere knows what's going on in Egypt. Or think she does. Or thinks that Obama does, and thinks that Obama should tell us. Or her. Or maybe her and those other people she likes. Not the people she doesn't like...well, you get the idea.

Now, apart from those brief flashes of brilliance, there has been a whole lot of crazy going on. Let us be assured, the protests in Egypt and the (possible) fall of the Mubarak regime do not signify the resurrgence of a Muslim Caliphate. Let's just lay that to rest...if the Iranians didn't ressurect the Caliph in 1979, its highly unlikely we're going to see that system of government again. And even if we did, it's even less likely they're going to steal our refrigerators. Or whereever it is Beck is going with that train of thought.

Let's make another thing clear: No one knows who the Muslim Brotherhood really are. Or if the Egyptian people even want them. I mean, people know that they were founded in 1928, they've been violent in the past, some of their most famous leader/philosophers have espoused violence, and once in awhile they catch someone doing something violent that claims he's a Brother. They developed at least in part as a response to imperialism in the Middle East following World War II. This is at least mildly entertaining because the other major response to imperialism in the Middle East, Arab nationalism, was the purview of Assad of Syria, Hussein of Iraq, Nasser of Egypt, and even to some extent Mubarak today. Every time someone claims "foreign influence" they're basically hearkening back to the nationalist movement of the post World War II era.

ANYWAY, the reason this is entertaining is because the nationalists have basically stood in opposition to the Brotherhood since the two ideologies were created. This makes more sense if you realize that the Brotherhood, and Sayyid Qutb, one of their most important leaders, are widely credited as the predecessor to the modern Islamist movements. Like Hamas. Who is the main opposition to Fatah. Which was lead by Yasser Arafat. Who got his start opposing the occupation of Palestine. By "imperialists" (we'll leave that one in quotes lest it be perceived as controversial). So basically they started out hating us (or the us that were all up in their business about 70 years ago), and now they hate each other. And sometimes, they hate us. Though hate is a strong word.

Which brings me to my last point. Mubarak has been using the Brotherhood as his shadow adversary for years. He has stayed in power, and on our (the United States') good side largely due to his willingness to keep the Muslim Brotherhood down. And by proxy, serve as a buffer between us and Islamists across the Middle East. It stands to reason that the scarier the alternative, the better he looks. So for all we ("the West" - I love me some arbitrary labels) know, they could not really exist at all. Or the Brotherhood could consist only of those old dudes walking arm in arm at the protests about a week ago (I don't really know when that was, it all starts to run together after awhile). Or the Brotherhood could have supporters in every person in Tahrir Square. We simply don't know.

So every time a pundit, or a politician, or a journalist - the lines blur after awhile - mentions that the protesters seem to be secular, they're playing on your fears. Fears that the fall of Mubarak inherently means the rise of the Brotherhood, and the rise of the Brotherhood indicates another tide of Islamist (read: terrorist) feeling across the region. It doesn't. One, assuming the Brotherhood is violent is a leap. They stood in the 2005 elections, indicating their willingness participate in the democratic process (not institute another Caliphate). Assuming their rise to power would immediately lead to a rise in anti-American activity across the Middle East is a stretch. If someone who sympathizes with Brotherhood took power in Egypt, it would not automatically empower Hamas in Gaza. A power vacuum in Egypt leading to anarchy on the Sinai border is more likely to cause trouble, and even then it wouldn't necessarily be the doing of Hamas. Keep in mind, Hamas now represents law and order in the Gaza Strip, and therefore don't really gain from anarchy.

For now, let's not make any assumptions about the Muslim Brotherhood, the protesters in Tahrir, or who wants what where. Instead, let's try to understand what the Egyptians are saying. The Brotherhood, Mubarak, the protestors, even El Baradei (who appears to be totally irrelevant to everyone except "the West"). And let's not jump to conclusions.

This Sounds Like It Could Be a Biiiig Problem

Sometimes, here where everything is seasoned right and you will never pick up the salt shaker, we like to focus on the home front, because what is the point of international politics if it's to prop up a worthless society?

I just read this, and I have to say, this is not good for the future of the United States. If at most three out of five teachers can handle basic questions about evolution and the history of the Earth, there is a major problem. The ones who don't understand are not indulging these children's curiosities, and that is why the Chinese as well as other countries can be seen lapping us over and over again on the sciences track. People will continue to complain about Obama trying to interfere with their lives, but it's for their own good. There's a reason so many people are held back by a glass ceiling in the United States: the education systems in nearly every state is terrible. And so is the restrictions put in place by insurance companies that essentially leave people to die if procedures cost too much.

For how unconstitutional these laws may be to some, maybe it's time for us to let the Constitution evolve. Sure, it was written for 1789, but today is different. For one thing, were the Founding Fathers carrying around machine guns? No. So why should anyone be carrying one around now? I'm fairly certain a shotgun will just as easily kill that deer. And leave less bullets to pull out if you plan to eat it.

John Quincy Adams wanted to buck trends and make laws that were beneficial to the population. Slave owners were extremely pissed off at him after he recognized Haitian independence, because that meant that slaves could run their own country and might jeopardize the use of slaves in the US. Adams bowed to their pressure, but it probably wouldn't have mattered, since the slaves in the US were extremely isolated from one another and struggled to foster any sort of rebellion to the terrible oppression they faced.

Like Obama now, Adams wanted to focus on building American infrastructure, but faced great opposition to his efforts, even from his own party. And despite losing his position in the 1828 election, Adams showed his commitment to his American System by joining the House of Representative 2 years after leaving office and serving almost 17 years for three different Massachusetts districts. He introduced so many bills to abolish slavery that southern Democrats invented a gag rule for him.

While Obama continues his commitment to the political strategy of the great orator Reagan, I think he should consider following in the footsteps of Quincy. The Senate was once a place for elder statesmen to debate whether laws would be beneficial, with party lines not being the frequent issue they are today.

In short, think about what the country needs, not what would be most popular. Because judging by the people we have teaching our children, we're getting dumber everyday.

The Quest for Op-Ed Columnists Who Don't Make Me Want to Throw Up, Part 1

Op-Ed columnists are lucky. They get paid a lot to write how they feel, and get to travel to awesome places in order to put facts behind these sentiments. Most of them, however, like to stay home and make ridiculous claims about theories I learned were ridiculous when I took Political Science classes in college. David Brooks is one of those people.

This will be the first in a series of critiques of Op-Ed's by myself and the Nag. Look, it's great that you get these ideas out there, but your manufactured populism is just so...boring and makes us want to reverse the course of digestion through our bodies (and not like this). So now, we check which PoliSci cult David Brooks has decided to join.

I wonder if sometime around 50 years ago a great mental tide began to sweep across the world.

I asked my dad, who was 14 at the time, if he remembers this tide. And he does not recall any sort of tsunami hitting his brain that year. JFK?

Before the tide, people saw themselves in certain fixed places in the social order. They accepted opinions from trusted authorities.

Oh, so this is when the machines took over and the whole origin story of The Matrix begins. I get it now.

Or do I?

As the tide swept through, they began to see themselves differently. They felt they should express their own views, and these views deserved respect. They mentally bumped themselves up to first class and had a different set of expectations of how they should be treated. Treatment that had once seemed normal now felt like an insult. They began to march for responsive government and democracy.

Like how the CIA killed the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba that year? Or that military coup in South Korea? No, it's the opening of the first Six Flags in the country, right? Or was it Adnan Menderes, the man who tried to lighten restrictions on religious practices in Turkey when he was president, being hanged by a military coup?

It was, however, the year of the Freedom Riders, which was a big deal in the US Civil Rights Movement. And JFK cam to office and inspired Bono to be the douchiest philanthropist possible. But you know David Brooks, specifics are nothing when you can take a terrible Political Science theory that has been proven wrong to be your own. But that will be in a little bit.

I’ve covered some of these marches over the years in places like Russia, Ukraine and South Africa. While there are vast differences between nations, the marchers tend to echo certain themes — themes we are hearing once again in the interviews that reporters are doing in Cairo.

I've traveled a lot, and generally, people don't like be marched all over. They like to do the marching themselves. But usually they can't find bodies to march on, in which case they're prone to light things on fire.

Protesters invariably say that their government has insulted their dignity by ignoring their views.

It's more insulting that it takes you this long to start marching. But people will never do anything unless they know someone else wants to as well. (Collective Action Problem Ownage)

They have a certain template of what a “normal” country looks like — with democracy and openness — and they feel humiliated that their nation doesn’t measure up.

Mean Gene Okerlund: Is...is that...is that Francis Fukuyama's music I hear?

(Explanation: Francis Fukuyama is an American academic who came up with a theory following the fall of the Soviet Union and the democratization wave that swept many of the newly independent countries left in its wake. To him, democracy was the end point of history, and once all nations saw the light and achieved it, there would be no more war and the Earth would be a utopia. Fukuyama may be right, but it's not going to be for a damn long time till anyone knows.)

(Second explanation: Mean Gene Okerlund was the straight-man announcer to many crazy wrestlers back in the late 1980's and into the 1990's. His interviews involved him being freaked out by the likes of "Macho Man" Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan.)

So, yes, David Brooks just finished his first glass of kool aid at this sweet rager at Fukuyama's pad in Baltimore. I hear Jimmy McNulty will be bringing Jameson, not any Protestant whiskey. God, I love The Wire. Mostly because it makes way more sense than any damn David Brooks column. Anyways, back to the breakdown.

Moreover, the protesters tend to feel enormous pride that they are finally speaking up, even in the face of danger. They feel a surge of patriotism as the people of their country make themselves heard.

/Fukuyama runs out to the ring, sliding in under the bottom rope and grabs the microphone from Okerlund.

Fukuyama: You people KNOW what I was talking about in 1992, right?

/Crickets chirp as Egyptians look at each other

Random Egyptian: Who's the Asian guy?

This quest for dignity has produced a remarkable democratic wave. More than 100 nations have seen democratic uprisings over the past few decades. More than 85 authoritarian governments have fallen. Somewhere around 62 countries have become democracies, loosely defined.

So of the 85 authoritarian governments that have fallen, 23 have definitely just gone back to authoritarian governments. And who knows how democratic the other 62 really are, since they are being "loosely defined" as democracies. Is that progress?

Fukuyama still stands by his theory, and he has to, otherwise he loses his legitimacy as an academic. And that doesn't help you get that tenure at Johns Hopkins, and probably gets it revoked if you do have it. Russia is probably one of the countries that Brooks has in his mysterious data, and is probably among the 62. All they do is ban opposition parties and poison with radioactive substances and execute critical journalists. All in a day's work to keep democracy going.

And how funny would it be if Egypt was one of those 62 "loosely defined" democracies? If we stretched the data back to 1951, you'd see that, yes, Egypt held its first presidential election following the Young Officers' coup in 1957. Wow, they're "loosely" a democracy!

And where are your statistics coming from? I love when people pull stuff out of their asses and just assume that you'll believe them. This is exactly what that idiot Greg(g) Easterbrook does on ESPN every week, and he gets a free Super Bowl ticket. The world is just messed up.

The experiences of these years teach us a few lessons. First, the foreign policy realists who say they tolerate authoritarian government for the sake of stability are ill informed. Autocracies are more fragile than any other form of government, by far.

Really? Democracies still get victimized. The reason 9/11 happened is that we lived inside this bubble where we didn't care about how the outside world would affect domestic security. Then a bunch of dudes from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, fed up with our military and corporate presence in their country, walk onto a plane and turn it into a missile. Did anyone check their bag for those box cutters? No, because people are free to walk around the do what they want. The same can be said for Mexico, a democracy where drug dealers are currently running around kidnapping people and killing mayors like they own the place.

My favorite example of this incorrect observation? Iraq. Under Saddam, no one heard a peep from a terrorist or a protest. Then, the US invades, takes him out of power, and a CIVIL WAR BREAKS OUT. This is the same line of reasoning behind what happened in Yugoslavia following the breakup of Tito's amalgam of ethnicities.

Second, those who say that speeches by outsiders have no influence on places like Egypt have it backward. The climate of opinion is the very basis of the revolt.

Of course, due to my self-righteous nature, I'll never tell you who made the speeches. I'm just going to assume you believe it. This article makes my senior thesis look publishable in a leather-bound book that will be put in a bookcase that smells of rich mahogany.

Third, for all the pessimism and nervousness that accompanies change, most countries that have experienced uprisings end up better off. We can all think of exceptions, like Iran, but we should greet these events with eagerness and hope.

Hoping that the worst possible result doesn't come up? Look, it's someone else's country, let them run it however they want to. Is the Egyptian military up to invade Israel? Well, maybe this new leader wants to find out. Not our business. Just being a realist, bruh.

Fourth, while the public hunger for dignity is unabated, the road from authoritarianism to democracy is rocky and perilous. Over the past few years, the world has experienced a “freedom recession” with more governments retreating from democracy than advancing toward it. For outside powers, the real work comes after the revolution — in helping democrats build governments that work.

Sounds like your data from before, wherever it came from, has some serious issues.

And how about nation building? Nation building doesn't work too well with the aid of outside powers. Look at this guy trying to run Hamid Karzai out of office while Obama is trying to work with him. In Iraq, first we destroyed a nation, and now we're working on putting together puzzle pieces that don't fit. Plus, who knows what Sadr is planning to do following the withdrawal?

The other thing we’ve learned is that the United States usually gets everything wrong. There have been dozens of democratic uprisings over the years, but the government always reacts like it’s the first one. There seem to be no protocols for these situations, no preset questions to be asked.

The United States has strategic allies. Yes, we love democracy, but we also love having peace of mind on the home front through having necessary resources readily available. Plus, you never want to piss off someone who could be very important to you in the future. We're lucky Cuba has nothing to offer us, except for cheap sugar cane that could wean us off the disgusting and possibly dangerous corn syrup that pollutes so many of our manufactured our food, great cigars, and a possibly awesome and cheap place to vacation.

Policy makers always underestimate the power of the bottom-up quest for dignity, so they are slow to understand what is happening. Last week, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the Egyptian regime was stable, just as it was falling apart.

Well, they usually are meeting with the heads of state, who aren't exactly at the bottom and heading up. And Clinton said that on the first day of protests. Did someone else say something sooner? Was it Miss Cleo? DID SHE READ IT IN THE CARDS?

Then their instinct is to comfort the fellow members of the club of those in power. The Obama administration was very solicitous of President Hosni Mubarak during the first days of the protests and of other dictators who fear their regime may be next.

That's how you preserve stability. The people in power stay in power. Again, Brooks is basing this off the first day of protests and the Obama administration's initial reaction. Look, he has been in power for 30 years, I would say it's pretty wise to discuss returning stability with Mubarak over someone else.

Then, desperately recalibrating in an effort to keep up with events, they inevitably make a series of subtle distinctions no one else heeds. The Obama administration ended up absurdly calling on Mubarak to initiate a reform agenda. Surely there’s not a single person in the government who thinks he is actually capable of doing this. Meanwhile, the marchers heard this fudge as Obama supporting Mubarak and were outraged.

Brooks has a point here. Operation Egyptian Freedom needs to start today! Ready the warships! We're invading. Pull out of Iraq early! Get out of Afghanistan! We're taking this country by force and installing a...government that doesn't actually rule its own country. It'll be just like Iraq and Afghanistan, but with more repressed and pissed off Muslims who hate us! And did the marchers really care what Obama was saying? Again, their own country.

The Obama administration’s reaction was tardy, but no worse than, say, the first Bush administration’s reaction to the uprisings in the Baltics and Ukraine. The point is, there’s no need to be continually wrong-footed. If you start with a healthy respect for the quest for dignity, if you see autocracies as fragile and democratic revolts as opportunities, then you’ll find it much easier to anticipate events.

Look, we have these relationships with countries already. We depend on Russia to cooperate with us on aspects of trade and the biggest issue of them all, getting rid of all this nuclear weapons, of which we will never rid ourselves completely. Why not just isolate them and turn them against us? Keeping the world stable. If it were President Brooks, we'd be in a humanitarian nuclear wasteland right now.

The Working Group on Egypt, co-led by Michele Dunne and Robert Kagan, has outperformed the U.S. government by miles. For months, they’ve been warning of Mubarak’s fragility. As the protests started, they issued a smart and concrete set of policy recommendations.

Started? By the date on that link, I'd say they started four days after the protests did. And it's been eight days? David Brooks, show me your time machine or stop writing columns every week. Take your pick.

Over the past decades, there has been a tide in the affairs of men and women. People in many places have risked their lives for recognition and respect. Governments may lag, and complications will arise, but still they will march. And, in the long run, we should be glad they do.

Yes, I also hope free will continues and that people make their voices heard. But maybe you shouldn't make statistical evidence such a huge part of your argument. It really kills the mood when it doesn't work.

And I'm sorry we don't communicate via thoughts so our government wouldn't be so laggy. I bet the most turned on David Brooks got was the sex scene in Demolition Man (warning: sort of NSFW)

DAMNIT STALLONE, WHY DID YOU BREAK CONTACT?! YOU WERE ABOUT TO GET YOUR MIND-PENIS BLOWN!

Also, does anyone else realize that Mr. Brooks' concluding statement builds nothing from his introduction? Sure, both use the word tide, but each one essentially boils down to saying "there is a tide, it's been around for a while."