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.