Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Tony Blankley starts off a section on events in Egypt.
… President Obama may be facing one of those fateful moments now. Of course, if the path were obvious, it would not be fateful. But history and current conditions would suggest that the odds of the revolution resulting in a Western-oriented democracy that serves the interests of the Egyptian people are slim.
Providing public and private support of President Hosni Mubarak and helping to keep some semblance of the status quo (perhaps in the form of an army-led regime) is likely to serve both our immediate geopolitical interests and our ability to shape that regime in the interest of the Egyptian people.
Mr. Obama had a chance in 2009 to respond with strong support for Iran’s Green Revolution – but his near silence crushed the hope of many young Iranians and surely aided (inadvertently) the hated enemy Iranian regime.
Now the president risks getting it wrong in the other direction: undercutting a friendly regime by sincere but ill-considered support for a revolution that is more likely to result in a government adverse to our – and the Egyptian people’s – interests. Note that a recent Pew poll of the Egyptian public disclosed that they preferred “Islamists” over “modernizers” by 59 percent to 27 percent (cited by Barry Rubin at the Gloria Center website). Instant democracy, anyone?
Also, and importantly, if America undercuts its ally of 30 years, we would be seen as feckless – and thus we would undermine the value of our support for allies current and future.
As Ari Shavit wrote in Israel‘s leading liberal paper, Haaretz, the failure to support Mr. Mubarak “symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.” …
Christopher Hitchens doesn’t quite see it that way and since he’s here often, we include his vent.
Not long ago, a close comrade of mine was dining with a person who I can’t identify beyond telling you that his father is a long-term absolutist ruler of an Arab Muslim state. “Tell me,” said this scion to my friend, “is it true that there are now free elections in Albania?” My friend was able to confirm the (relative) truth of this, adding that he had once even acted as an international observer at the Albanian polls and could attest to a certain level of transparency and fairness. The effect of his remarks was galvanic. “In that case,” exclaimed the heir-presumptive, thumping the table, “what does that make us? Are we peasants? Children?” The gloom only deepened, apparently, as the image of the Arab as a laughing stock—lagging behind Albania!—took hold of the conversation.
Who could have predicted that such a comparison would have turned out to be such a catalytic one in the mind of this nervous dauphin? So multifarious are the sources of grievance in the Arab world that it could have been any one of a host of pretexts that ignited a revolt, or revolts. This ought to make one beware of too glibly selecting the ostensibly crucial one. Poverty and unemployment? These are so pervasive that they could explain any rebellion at any time—and in any case Tunisians are among the richest per capita in North Africa. Dictatorship and repression? Again, these are commonplaces, and so far the most conspicuously authoritarian despotisms—Syria and Saudi Arabia, for instance—have been spared the challenge of insurrection. (May these words of mine go out of date with all speed.) …
We get a history lesson as Investor’s Business Daily editors compare El Baradei to Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky, head of Russia’s pre-communist 1917 provisional goverment, died at 89 in New York City.
… ElBaradei brings little to a new government apart from name recognition. He has no power base, no governing philosophy, no party. As such, the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood will use him as a moderate figurehead in a unity government, then discard him when convenient to seize power for themselves.
In this, he resembles the hapless Alexander Kerensky, the ardent socialist who served as prime minister of Russia after its revolution of 1917, only to be discarded and sent into exile by the far more devious and ruthless communists.
At a minimum, the U.S. should let it be known that while we respect Egypt’s genuine democratic urges, an unelected Egyptian regime headed by the extremist Muslim Brotherhood and its soon-to-be puppet ElBaradei is entirely unacceptable.
The Corner and Powerline remind us of the 2004 election and El Baradei’s efforts to defeat Bush.
I’d all but forgotten this — but Powerline remembered:
El Baradei achieved his greatest renown in connection with the pre-war weapons inspections in Iraq, which he headed on behalf of the IAEA. One particularly discreditable moment in his tenure, which sheds considerable light on El Baradei, requires a walk down memory lane.
You probably don’t remember the Al Qaqaa affair, but it dominated the last days of the 2004 presidential campaign. In a last-ditch effort to pull out the race, John Kerry and the Democrats fabricated a story that was intended to undermine President Bush’s national-security credentials: They claimed that the U.S. Army had failed to secure 377 tons of explosives at a weapons depot near Baghdad (Al Qaqaa) that subsequently disappeared, presumably into the hands of terrorists. The story turned out to be a lie, and the day after the election it was completely forgotten — having failed to serve its purpose — but in the last week before the election, the liberal media gave it all the play they could.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph, UK, would have us take a Malthusian view. We don’t agree, totally. Nor does he. But it is worth exploring the thought.
… The surge in global food prices since the summer – since Ben Bernanke signaled a fresh dollar blitz, as it happens – is not the underlying cause of Arab revolt, any more than bad harvests in 1788 were the cause of the French Revolution.
Yet they are the trigger, and have set off a vicious circle. Vulnerable governments are scrambling to lock up world supplies of grain while they can. Algeria bought 800,000 tonnes of wheat last week, and Indonesia has ordered 800,000 tonnes of rice, both greatly exceeding their normal pace of purchases. Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Bangladesh, are trying to secure extra grain supplies.
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said its global food index has surpassed the all-time high of 2008, both in nominal and real terms. The cereals index has risen 39pc in the last year, the oil and fats index 55pc.
The FAO implored governments to avoid panic responses that “aggravate the situation”. If you are Hosni Mubarak hanging on in Cairo’s presidential palace, do care about such niceties?
France’s Nicolas Sarkozy blames the commodity spike on hedge funds, speculators, and the derivatives market (largely in London). He vowed to use his G20 presidency to smash the racket, but then Mr Sarkozy has a penchant for witchhunts against easy targets. …
Closing this section is Bret Stephens who channels Mubarak and appreciates his unfolding strategy.
… there are the middle-class demonstrators, the secular professionals and minor businessmen. In theory they’re your biggest threat. In practice they’re your ace in the hole.
What unites the protesters is anger. But anger is an emotion, not a strategy, much less a political agenda. What, really, does “Down With Mubarak” offer the average Egyptian?
If the Brotherhood has its way, Egypt will become a Sunni theocracy modeled on Iran. If the democracy activists have theirs, it’ll be a weak parliamentary system, incapable of exercising authority over the army and a cat’s paw for a Brotherhood that knows its revolutionary history well enough to remember the name of Alexander Kerensky.
Luckily for you, this analysis is becoming plainer by the day to many Egyptians, especially since Mr. ElBaradei, imagining he has the upper hand, stumbled into a political alliance with the Brotherhood. Also increasingly plain is that it’s in your hands to blur the “fine line between freedom and chaos,” as you aptly put it last week, and to give Egyptians a long, hard look at the latter. No, it wasn’t by your cunning design that thousands of violent prisoners made a jailbreak last week. And the decision to take police off the streets was done in the interests of avoiding bloody scenes with protesters.
Yet all the same, the anarchy unleashed on Egyptian streets has played straight into your hands. The demonstrators want a freedom that looks like London or Washington. Your task is to remind them that it’s more likely to look like Baghdad, circa 2006. …
Next we turn to the subject of the president’s attempts at saving his skin. Bill Kristol is first.
So the much-anticipated pivot to the center in the State of the Union speech has happened. As pivots go, President Obama’s wasn’t the most elegant—there were no triple lutzes or extended camel spins—but he didn’t fall on his face either. It seems clear that, for the next two years at least, President Obama is going to give us a break from claims of transforming America, à la FDR, and will work on triangulating to stay in office, à la Bill Clinton. The question is, can Obama pull a Clinton?
We’re skeptical.
First, Clinton’s pivot in 1995 was all well and good, but the reason he was reelected in 1996 was that the economy was growing at more than 4 percent, and unemployment on Election Day was 5.4 percent. The budget deficit was lower than it had been when Clinton took office. His landmark piece of economic legislation, the 1993 budget—passed despite Republican opposition—seemed more or less vindicated by events.
Will the real world be as friendly to the incumbent president in November 2012? It’s doubtful. …
Jennifer Rubin looks to 2012 also.
… As exemplified by the State of the Union address, Obama turned out to be a political adolescent, full of himself, but, ultimately, irresponsible and lightweight. He is unable or unwilling to face up to our greatest domestic challenge: our fiscal mess.
Republicans need to find the grown-up who is both tough and appealing (the two often don’t go hand in hand). The unserious and the irresolute need not apply. And oh, by the way, the same seriousness of purpose candidates display on fiscal matters, coupled with their ability to delineate the bad and good guys in the world (and be candid about the fact that there are good and bad actors), may give us some indication how they are going to conduct foreign policy. It’s no coincidence that Obama finds it difficult to confront Congress on entitlements and to confront despots abroad.
The dig on Obama from many conservatives has been that he doesn’t grasp the essence of America or embrace the role America must play in the world. There’s plenty of evidence for both of those critiques. But in 2012, the most effective Republican is going to be the one who makes the case that he, not Obama, is willing to do the hard and big and important things to restore American prosperity at home and influence abroad.
Michael Barone likes 2012 for the GOP.
… In the Senate, where Democrats have a 53-47 majority, but not iron control, the situation is different. In the 2012 cycle 23 Democrats come up for re-election and only 10 Republicans. You can get a good idea of their political incentives by looking at the 2010 popular vote for the House in their states. Since the mid-1990s, when partisan percentages in presidential and House elections converged, the popular vote for the House has been a pretty good gauge of partisan balance.
Of the 10 Republican senators up for re-election, only two represent states where Democrats won the House vote — Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts. They’re both well ahead in local polls.
For the 23 Democrats up for re-election, the picture is different. Eight represent states where the House vote was 53 to 65 percent Democratic and where Barack Obama got more than 60 percent in 2008. Count them all as safe.
But 12 represent states where Republicans got a majority of the House vote in 2010. These include big states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Virginia, and states like Montana and Nebraska where Republican House candidates topped 60 percent. Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin round out the list.
In another three states — New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota — Republicans won between 46 and 48 percent of the House popular vote. These were solid Obama states in 2008. They don’t look like solid Democratic states now. …
Debra Saunders thinks “government innovation” is a hoot.
… The problem with left-leaning elites trying to run the U.S. economy from the top down is simple: They think the answer to America’s economic woes is to create more jobs that replicate managers just like them.
They cannot comprehend that, to a good number of American voters, the theme of President Obama’s State of the Union address – government innovation – is an oxymoron.
And so they nodded their heads in recognition of their own greater wisdom as the president intoned, “We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology and especially clean-energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet and create countless new jobs for our people.” As if more of the same deficit spending is the answer.
They fail to recognize that so-called green jobs are the most over-hyped jobs in America. (After years of subsidies and special treatment, they represent 174,000 jobs – less than 1 percent of the total – in California, according to the public policy group Next Ten.) …