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.

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."

The Most Meta Military Coup? and Why Jordan is Just as Important in the Scheme of Things

The dust is far from settling in Egypt, as evidenced by the massive campout that continued last night in Tahrir Square in Cairo and despite the fact that Egyptian trains have been shut down and the internet continues to be spotty. This is a chess game, and the Egyptian people have made thousands of themselves pawns. The army says they don't intend to shoot, but this is a guarantee that could easily be reversed.

One must remember when the National Democratic Party initially came to power back in 1952, with Mohammed Naguib as the figurehead president. It was the military that rose to power, capitalizing on the unpopular sentiments that came out of the defeat at the hands of the nascent Israeli Army, which showed much greater organization than the one put out by the Egyptians to crush them. It was time for King Farouk to go, and go he did, into exile in Rome, leaving a vast stash of porn and a ridiculous wardrobe. He would die after eating a gigantic meal in his new home.

Nasr and the Young Officers would take over and bring a surge in nationalism. Naguib, of course, would be deemed an enemy of the Revolution and put under house arrest as Nasr took power. Nasr has differed from his two successors greatly. First off, his response to violence directed at him showed a perseverance that engendered popularity in Egypt, as he took a bullet in the shoulder from a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but continued this impassioned speech. He emphasized relations with the third world, buddying up with the Non-Aligned Movement with Josef Tito of Yugoslavia and Jawaharlal Nehru of India to help it build steam in its beginnings. He took assistance from the Soviets more to oppose American assistance to Israel than to be their ally. His greatest victory, getting the French, British, and Israeli forces to withdraw following the Suez Crisis, was by no means a military victory, but it made him popular in the post-colonial world, where he fought off an attempt by the West to take back Egypt. The United Arab Republic failed, but it still engendered great popularity among all Arabs, and drew the ire of the puppetry that continues today in Saudi Arabia. It was Nasr who was willing to admit defeat at the hands of the Israelis in 1967,

only to be begged by the Egyptian people to come back to lead them. While one can question any Arab leaders' commitment to the Palestinian movement at the time, it was Nasr who was willing to broker a peace between Jordan and the PLO following the bloodshed of Black September.

Sadat had the practicality to see the benefits of being friendly with the United States. The intifah opened up Egypt to private investment and on the eve of the October War, the Israelis missed the cue for war when he kicked out all Eastern European advisors. The limited scope of the October War helped him to achieve his goals. He no longer needed war with Israel to gain popularity following the Camp David Accords, but he needed to show some sort of economic improvement, which was hard for him to come by. He had isolated Egypt from its neighbors, as peace with Israel had led to the country's forced exit from the Arab League (as well as the relocation of its headquarters from Cairo). This led to his assassination at the ceremony celebrating the 3rd anniversary of the peace he had made, at the hands of an officer in the Army of which he rose from to be a leader of the Young Officers. Khalid Islambouli, the lieutenant who shot him, declared, "I have killed pharaoh."

Mubarak took over from his position of vice president, having risen up as a member of the Air Force. He kept the status quo in Egypt's international relations that he inherited from Sadat, with peace from Israel and foreign aid from the United States. He has shown his strength against the opposition and made it legally impossible for them to take him out of power. Banning the Muslim Brotherhood killed his strongest opponent, but they are gaining strength with the protests this week.

So will the Egyptian army save the people once again as they did through Nasr and from Sadat? Their guarantees and their camaraderie with protesters during this past week may be an encouraging sign. Mubarak may have overstayed his welcome, and the first to inform him of this would be the military. Hopefully it will not be in a bloody display as with Sadat. It could be peaceful, seeing as millions are on the streets in Cairo right now asking him to step down. But this conflict is now in the hands of the military. It is up to them to decide Egypt's next step, and if they choose to follow the people's will, don't expect any Pharaonic ruler to come to power anytime soon.

-----------------------

But what of Jordan? Protests in Jordan are a scary development for Israel. The demographics belie the official name of Jordan. While it is a Hashemite Kingdom, Hashemites make up a minority and the Palestinian majority is actually over two thirds of the population. It's great that Queen Rania is Palestinian, but it will not appeal to the population. Black September already put a damper on relations between leadership and the Palestinians that continues today, and kicking out the cabinet will probably not be enough. It may be time for Abdullah to give up some of his power and let the Palestinian population have a real say.

What does this do for Israel? In the case that the Palestinians do gain power in Jordan, it will not be as large of an issue as it was when Saddam was in power and many right wingers feared a Palestinian Jordan connected to Saddam's money on one side and the West Bank on the other. Could it become an enlarged Palestinian state? While many Palestinians want to return to the way things were, demanding the right of return, this could open up more land and, possibly combined with the West Bank, make for a much more viable state. May this hypothetical state be a security issue for Israel? It should absolutely be looked at through a realist lens. But first these protests must continue to some point of completion.