Who Needs a Democratic Egypt?

egypte_25In the big marble halls of Washington, in the slow ambling pace of summer cocktail parties where veterans of the political establishment still shake their heads at the fall of the Graham dynasty and the sale of the Post to a parvenu dot comer, the second favorite topic of conversation is how to make Egypt fall into line.

All the cocktail party guests, the senators, their aides, the editors and editorial writers, the heads of foreign affairs think-tanks and generals angling for a lobbying gig with a firm that just might want to move some big ugly steel down Egypt way once all the shouting dies down, haven’t had much luck.

Or as the New York Times, the paper that has displaced the Washington Post as the foreign affairs leak hole of the administration, put it, “all of the efforts of the United States government, all the cajoling, the veiled threats, the high-level envoys from Washington and the 17 personal phone calls by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, failed.”

And all the community organizer’s horses and his men couldn’t put the Muslim Brotherhood back together again.

Not even 17 personal phone calls from a man who couldn’t get through his confirmation sessions without becoming a national laughingstock accomplished anything.

Washington isn’t giving up, but its foreign aid card has just been neutralized by the Saudis who have offered to make up any aid that it cuts. And unlike Israel, Egypt isn’t vulnerable to threat of being isolated. Not with a sizable number of the Gulf oil countries at its back and the Russians and Chinese eager to jump in with defense contracts.

Instead of asking how to make the Egyptians do what Washington wants, it might be time for the cocktail party goers to ask what they really want from Egypt and what they really need from Egypt.

The two aren’t actually the same.

We may want Egypt to be democratic, because it fits our notions of how countries should work, but that isn’t something that we actually need.

The editorial writers and foreign policy experts who never got beyond the expat bars of Cairo will try to blame Egypt’s lack of democracy for our terrorism problem, but Egypt’s original unwillingness to bow to the Brotherhood nearly redirected Al Qaeda away from its war against America as the Egyptian faction sought to fight an internal war of the kind that Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria are now fighting.

We need a democratic Egypt about as much as we need sensitivity training from Mayor Filner. A democratic Egypt is unstable, vulnerable and unfriendly. And those are just its good sides.

Our first hint that democracy wouldn’t turn Egyptians into Americans should have been the polls showing that the majority of Egyptians favored the death penalty for adultery and blasphemy. There was no way such an electorate was going to produce some Egyptian counterpart of America.

Of the four major players in Egypt, three are fundamentally undemocratic, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian military and the Egyptian elites of officialdom, often mischaracterized as Mubarak loyalists, and one lightly sprinkled with democracy, the liberals and the left. And that sprinkling is very light indeed.

With an electorate whose idea of democracy is indistinguishable from Islamic law and a political elite that is undemocratic even when it participates in democratic elections, what reason was there for believing that overlaying democracy on them would lead to democratic values, rather than just democratic functions?

Now two undemocratic players and one lightly democratic player ganged up on a ruling undemocratic player. We can call the whole thing a coup or a candy store; it doesn’t matter much.

The process that removed Morsi was similar to the one that removed Mubarak. The same senators abandoning their cocktail parties to demand an end to foreign aid for Egypt because of the C word, were celebrating the same C word that took down Mubarak.

The difference, they will argue, is that Morsi was democratically elected. But so was Mubarak. But, they will say, Mubarak’s election was not truly democratic because it was marred by all sorts of electoral irregularities. And they will say that Mubarak acted like a tyrant. But the same was true of Morsi’s election. And Morsi did act like a tyrant.

The coup position is reduced to arguing that the overthrow of one elected leader by popular protests and the military was a very good thing while the overthrow of another by the same means was a bad thing because one election was somewhat cleaner than the other on a scale from Chicago to Detroit.

Never mind that the first leader was an ally of the United States and that the other was its enemy.

Is the gram’s worth of difference in democracy that we’re fighting for really worth undermining our national security?

I’ve met lawyers who have told me that they would have defended Hitler pro bono because of the principle of the thing. I’ve never entirely understood why the principle of this thing trumps genocide. The application of the pro bono Hitler lawyer clause to the Muslim Brotherhood’s democracy seems even more dubious. And I have a healthy suspicion of people who too eagerly volunteer to be Hitler’s lawyer or the Muslim Brotherhood’s press agent for the principle of the thing.

Are we really obligated to vigorously defend the Muslim Brotherhood’s right to take over a country because the election that allowed it to come to power wasn’t as dirty as the last election? Does the principle that democracy should be implemented here, there and everywhere, even if it leads to a terrorist group taking over the most powerful country in the region, really trump our national security?

Why have we volunteered to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s pro bono democracy lawyer?

The Arab Spring has thoroughly discredited the idea that spreading democracy enhances regional stability and protects our national security. We would have more luck promoting vital national interests by spreading viral goat yelling video memes than by bludgeoning other countries into having elections.

We don’t need a democratic Egypt. What we need is an Egypt that is not too excessively sympathetic to our enemies.

We’ll never be very good friends. A deep and meaningful friendship with a population that believes in chopping the hands off thieves and stoning everyone else was never in the cards. But most alliances aren’t built on enduring love or even mutual affection.

They’re built on something better. Cynical pragmatism.

We had a wonderfully pragmatic and lovingly cynical relationship with Egypt. If Chuck Hagel stops making 17 personal phone calls every hour telling the Egyptian government how not to shoot Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, maybe one day we’ll have a cynically pragmatic relationship with Egypt again.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Alvaro

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s concept of democracy would take Egypt with a one way ticket to the 7th century and finishing off secularism (and minorities)for good.

    Secularism (the separation between religion and state) is required in order to have a functional democracy, and a military rule and the annihilation of the Muslim Brotherhood might strengthen the secular elements enough in a few decades to transition Egypt to democracy.

    • NSNZ

      Suggest you google ‘Maspero massacre’ Alvaro to see military action in practice. Army tanks loaded with mohammeds intentionally running down Copts under their wheels. Not a lot of hope there…

      • defcon 4

        It was elements of the Egyptian army that had Sadat assassinated for signing a peace treaty with Israel.

  • truebearing

    Yet another brilliantly lucid analysis by Daniel Greenfield.

    “And all the community organizer’s horses and his men couldn’t put the Muslim Brotherhood back together again.” LOL!

    Democracy isn’t inherently superior to anything. Hitler was democratically elected and the list of tyrants using democracy as a stepping stone to totalitarianism doesn’t stop there. Take Barack Obama, for example.

    These idiots yammering about democracy as if it is the cure-all for the world’s ills fail to understand that an immoral population will elect immoral leaders which results in a corrupted, and short lived, democracy. If the electorate is well educated and morally enlightened, the democracy will succeed. When the majority are uneducated and immoral it will fail (see: The United States in the 21st Century).
    Democracy is a political mirror and it will reflect what the population is made of. No Middle Eastern country, other than Israel, has the quality of people that will allow self-representation to succeed.

    The other thing that is so moronic about this babbling about democracy being a political panacea is that Islam doesn’t want or allow competing ideologies, especially ones that are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Muslims don’t want people to be free, they don’t suffer political opposition, and the Quran expressly states that all other religions, ideologies, etc should be destroyed. How did the blathering class miss that rather obvious fact?

    • defcon 4

      I had thought Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and then he seized power on the pretext of the Reichstag fire, none of which sounds particularly democratic to me.

      • truebearing

        He was appointed Chancellor, and basically usurped the presidency, but 85% of the voters then voted to keep him as the supreme leader of Germany. The Nazis were also the majority party at that time. They certainly were democratically elected.

        • defcon 4

          I wonder how legitimate either election was? It’s not as if there was an independent non-partisan body verifying the election returns in either case.

        • maru

          Germans never voted to keep Hitler supreme leader. More precisely, the Nazis hold a Referendum to merge the offices of president and chancellor after Hindenburg’s death in August 1934 – by then Germany was already transformed into a dictatorship.

          Additionally, the Nazis were never supported by a majority. They achieved their greatest electoral success — in free elections — in July 1932, when 37% of the electorate gave them their vote. Their share of votes decreased to 32% in November 1932. Due to the fact that the communists remained strong and concentrated their efforts against the democratic left, there was no longer a possibility of a pro-republican coalition backing a democratic government in parliament.
          So there was never an overall majority for Hitler, but after July 1932 there was a majority against democracy.

          Form my point of view, Hitler’s rise to power is a classic example of immaturity and immorality of parts of the population and a complete failure of the so called “political elite”.
          But you are right: your main point remains unaffected.

  • John

    Daniel G For president – Nice piece of writing , doubt you broke a sweat writing it – Pointing out the obvious , something lacking in those marble halls of mirrors and cocktail parties

  • wildjew

    I am sure conservatives tire of me. Why do Republicans leaders, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Ted cruz, McCain, Graham, etc., think it is time to punish Egypt’s military for the coup which deposed Muslim Brotherhood Nazis, by cutting aid to Egypt? Maybe it would be better to discuss foreign aid “after” Egypt is stabilized. These Republicans – in league with Obama – will cut the legs out from under those who are trying bring a semblance of order to Egypt. Why would a Republican, if he really loves his country, support anything this dangerous man in the White House supports? I cannot for the life of me understand why Republicans keep as Speaker a man who passes continuing resolutions to fund Obamacare; who plays golf with this demagogue, who stated in an interview on ABC, “I absolutely trust” President Obama.

    • knowshistory

      we should stop aid to Egypt, not because of a coup that replaced a vile government with a vile government, but because we never should have been giving aid to Egypt to begin with. if we have an established pretext, that’s ok, if we require a pretext. there is no amount of money we can give to muslims that will change then into anything but muslims, therefore it should not be given. they are muslims, stupid. what more does anyone need to know? they are obliged by their holy scriptures to kill or enslave us. why would any other reason be required?

      • wildjew

        I understand your point. I can support ending foreign aid in principle. On that, I can agree with Rand Paul except it could be his motives are different from mine. I would reserve the option of coming to aid a country if there were an emergency or a catastrophe, like Israel had in the 1973 Yom Kippur war when she needed an air-lift because Russia was massively re-arming Egypt and Syria. The problem with cutting aid immediately to Egypt is that it will send a very bad signal to jihadists like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. I disagree with you to the extent that I believe there is a gradation of vileness. For example Stalin was vile but to me Hitler was far more vile, so we allied with Stalin for a few years in order to defeat Hitler. Same holds true in Egypt and other ME countries. Egypt’s military might be vile but not nearly as vile as Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood fascists.

        • knowshistory

          hitler killed jews, stalin killed gentiles. I see your point.

          • wildjew

            I should have added, I speak as a Jew. Nevertheless, I’m not sure you are entirely correct. Stalin murdered his political enemies, including Jews who opposed him. If you went along with Stalin’s Utopian Collectivist scheme, you might have lived. Hitler murdered his racial enemies. If you were Hitler’s racial enemy, there was no going along, no placating, no appeasing.

          • defcon 4

            Stalin’s genocidal purges were magnanimous.

          • wildjew

            Funny. Do you think Churchill and Roosevelt were wrong to help arm Stalin to defeat Hitler? If you’ve read the history, FDR and Churchill let Russia bleed considerably before they committed massive troops.

          • knowshistory

            dunno about def, but I submit that Roosevelt was wrong to be so comfortably in bed with stalin. don’t blame Churchill, he was not, and every effort he made to steer Roosevelt away from his love of stalin was slapped down. Roosevelt definitely knew where his political sympathies were. “bleed” Russia? it was stalin that stopped the offensive at the vistula to wait while the Nazis stomped warsaw, eliminating the enemies that stalin really hated–patriotic poles. stalin started the war on hitler’s side, a fact conveniently forgotten and forgiven by all good leftists. not stalin’s fault that his buddy hitler backstabbed him. it was Roosevelt, not Churchill that ordered the western allies to stand down at a time when the bulk of eastern Germany was undefended to the west, and would have capitulated to a minimum effort from the west. there is no question that Roosevelt’s sabotage of our offensive was due to desire to help his political ally, stalin, gain control of eastern Europe. other than the dupe Eisenhower, our generals, as well as Churchill, were against surrendering eastern Europe to stalin. Roosevelt, the perpetual heartthrob of the left, however, knew where his loyalty was–in Moscow. contrary to your assertion, there is nothing funny about Roosevelt’s backstab to the west.

          • wildjew

            You wrote: “….there is no question that Roosevelt’s sabotage of our offensive was due to desire to help his political ally, stalin, gain control of eastern Europe.”

            Could be. Could also be you are a conspiracy-monger.

            “bleed” Russia?

            Yes, bleed…

            “…stalin started the war on hitler’s side…”

            Right: Hitler-Stalin Pact

            “Operation Overlord (finally) commenced on 6 June 1944 with the Normandy landings….”

            “In November, 1943, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt met together in Teheran, Iran, to discuss military strategy and post-war Europe. Ever since the Soviet Union had entered the war, Stalin HAD (for many months) BEEN DEMANDING THAT THE ALLIES OPEN-UP A SECOND FRONT (emphasis mine) in Europe. Churchill and Roosevelt argued that any attempt to land troops in Western Europe would result in heavy casualties. Until the Soviet’s victory at Stalingrad in January, 1943, Stalin had feared that without a second front, Germany would defeat them.

            (Hitler-Stalin Pact: Aug 23, 1939)

            Stalin, who always favoured in offensive strategy, believed that there were political, as well as military reasons for the Allies’ failure to open up a second front in Europe. Stalin was still highly suspicious of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and was worried about them signing a peace agreement with Adolf Hitler…..

            (Hitler-Stalin Pact: Aug 23, 1939)

          • knowshistory

            stop crying about oppression. the Bolsheviks were heavily populated with jews. that they lost out in the power struggle to control communism does not mean they didn’t try. stalin was no hater of jews, but he sure did hate the ukranians, whose food he stole and left millions of ukranians, whose only fault was minding their own business and growing food, to starve during the winter. those who attempted to hide their food were given the gift of a quick bullet to the head instead of death by starvation. the world has always been a tough place, and not just for jews. if you want to whine about genocide, cry for the midianites. do you know any midianites? I don’t either. it would be refreshing if jews would stop whining about genocide of less than a century ago, and recognize their own contributions to genocide, eg, the midianites, and start doing something to stop the coming genocide planned for jew and gentile alike by our peaceful muslims, so loved by the left, which is heavily populated by jews, just like bolshevism. can you offer some defense other than insanity for the large jewish majority vote for the muslim mole Obama? I cant, and if I were jewish, I would be ashamed of my kind. it is bad enough that so many gentiles, at risk for genocide at the hands of islam, voted for a muslim. in the coming genocide, jew and gentile are equal. one of us doesn’t seem to comprehend that. regarding Egypt: they are muslims, or at least will be, as soon as the copts are all murdered, and as muslims, they are sworn and deadly enemies of jew and gentile alike.

          • defcon 4

            LOL what genocide of the Midianites? When was the last time anyone met or saw a Midianite? What language do the Midianites speak? Then again, maybe you’re just another lying islam0nazi trying to claim the Paleswine are the midianites.

          • knowshistory

            lol. the “islamonazi” suggests you read Numbers31. might be enlightening. of course we don’t know any midianites. read the chapter and you might understand why. genocide did not begin in the 1940’s. genocide has been a human tradition for thousands of years. the important thing is not who was genocided in the past, but who is about to be genocided in the future. white people have set themselves up for a magnificent genociding, and the admirers of mohammed are only too willing to give them the genocide that they so fervently desire. jew and gentile alike need to stop agonizing over the past, and start preparing for the very near future. it doesn’t look very appealing for anyone that doesn’t wish to worship an evil god and revere an archcriminal prophet. but I am just an “islamonazi”, so don’t pay any attention to me. do read numbers31, though.

          • defcon 4

            You have yet to prove the ancient (and I do mean ANCIENT) Hebrews committed a Midianite genocide.

          • knowshistory

            31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

            3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

            7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

            13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

            15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

            19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

            21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is what is required by the law that the Lord gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.”

            Dividing the Spoils

            25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part. 30 From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle.” 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.

            32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

            36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:

            337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675;

            38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72;

            39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61;

            40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.

            41 Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part, as the Lord commanded Moses.

            42 The half belonging to the Israelites, which Moses set apart from that of the fighting men— 43 the community’s half—was 337,500 sheep, 44 36,000 cattle, 45 30,500 donkeys 46 and 16,000 people. 47 From the Israelites’ half, Moses selected one out of every fifty people and animals, as the Lord commanded him, and gave them to the Levites, who were responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle.

            48 Then the officers who were over the units of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—went to Moses 49 and said to him, “Your servants have counted the soldiers under our command, and not one is missing. 50 So we have brought as an offering to the Lord the gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the Lord.”

            51 Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted from them the gold—all the crafted articles. 52 All the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds that Moses and Eleazar presented as a gift to the Lord weighed 16,750 shekels.[a] 53 Each soldier had taken plunder for himself. 54 Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds and brought it into the tent of meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord

          • knowshistory

            hmmmmmmmm. kill all the men and boys, and all the women who are not virgins. take all the cattle, gold, etc. give god his cut of the loot. no islamonazi made this up. it is in the holy scriptures. the problem is, I suppose, that I am taking it “out of context”. undoubtedly, the scripture is “corrupted”. that’s it. out of context. and corrupted. where do we hear crap like that? hint: that is the excuse our dear friends, the peaceful muslims, use when challenged about the pure evil found in the qor’an. Nazis did not invent genocide. muslims did not invent genocide either, but they have perfected it. when islam genocides someone, they stay genocided. the jews survived hitler. they will not survive islam, unless they wise up and join forces with their hated enemies who are also threatened with Islamic genocide, but first they will have to start living in the present, not the past. instead, they helped elect their mortal enemy, a muslim, to occupy the white house. nose, face, spite.

          • truebearing

            You have a point, but your bedside manner is as palatable as that of an Old Testament prophet….and no one listened to them.
            You assume God will allow the Muslims to win. It seems to me that they are the evil he promised to crush. Islam certainly is evil.

          • knowshistory

            just tellin it like it is. allah is an evil sob, but he knows whose side he is on. allah is 100% in favor of islam, and is unmistakable in his instructions to his heroes to kill all of us unbelievers. the god of Abraham, on the other hand, repeatedly punished his people, sending plagues, famines, enemies, etc to correct the transgressions of his people. in 14 centuries, allah has never sent a plague , flood, or other misfortune (these are all caused by those evil infidels) to chastise his people, who, by living perfect lives of crime, vice, cruelty, and sin are behaving precisely as they are ordered. the Christian god, on the other hand, would not even send aid to save his only begotten son, and through him instructed his followers to turn the other cheek. yes, if it is god that decides the outcome of the struggle, islam will definitely win. their god in on their side. ours is on vacation.

          • moneekwa

            “first the saturday people, then the sunday people” as the imams say


    Liberals pushing world wide liberalism is the reason that millions of people have died going after false hope just like in the United States. Minorities have been given false hope for over a hundred years and look where they are, they knew their place and were happier when they had a purpose in life. They were fed and clothed and had free medical etc. as slaves and they had children like normal human beings not abortions because they acted like animals etc….

  • JVictor

    As long as the majority of people in the Arab world are held captive by the neo-Babylonian moon “god,” currently known as Allah, not a single Arab nation will never be a true ally of the west.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Look it’s simple; democracy in the Islamic world is impossible because Islam isn’t a religion. Instead, it’s a very rabid form of totalitarianism, as Sharia is Islamic totalitarian law. Of course, to Muslims Islam is a religion. However, just because Islam is a religion to Muslims doesn’t mean we non-Muslim infidels have to accept Islam as being a religion, especially since Islam alone relative to all other true religions in the world compels faith under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy and that makes Islam a cult and a very totalitarian cult. By the way, that is why there are no true democracies in the Islamic world, as every Islamic state is either an Islamic totalitarian hellhole or is in the process of being transformed into one.

    • defcon 4

      I sometimes get the feeling there are muslimes who think they can have a free, democratic country — but only for muslimes.

  • seewithyourowneyes

    What good is a democracy without human rights?
    What good is a woman’s right to vote if her husband has the right to beat her and to confine her to the house on election day?
    What good is a Copt’s right to vote if he will find his house burned down when he returns from the polling stations?
    So long as Islamic countries define human rights according to Sharia principles, their “democracies” will be frauds.

    • defcon 4

      Maybe islam0nazis figure they can have freedom, democracy and liberty for the select group of muslimes who have a penis, and universal persecution for everyone else.

  • William Ashton

    Encouraging Middle East countries to be democracies should be forgotten. The majority of the voters are in the countryside, and are brainwashed to only think of Allah, and mostly they are illiterate. The tribes are to be considered also, and overall most votes will go to a religious party. They have a different mindset to us and can’t we accept this fact.

    • moneekwa

      debate it all day, but in the length of an amusing and heart-warming feature film you’ll see why western-style democracy can’t work in the middle east. watch “secret ballot”, a film from iran. it has subtitles. i strongly recommend it to anyone who still thinks there’s any chance of democracy (as we understand it) over there.

  • antioli

    We need Egypt to be democratic. Morsi wasn’t. The army over threw him at the request of the democratic majority of Egypt. With drawing military aid now is to reinstall anti democracy.

    • knowshistory

      you seemed to have somehow missed the salient point of the article. the fact is that we don’t need Egypt to be democratic. we need Egypt to not behave like the holy Islamic scriptures tell them to behave. that would mean stop being muslim. that isn’t going to happen, so the only thing realistic that we need from Egypt is for them to stay in Egypt. doesn’t look like that is going to happen either.

      • Drakken

        A middle eastern country is either ruled by a mullah who is anti-western, or a General who is a least partial to the west. There is no in between.

        • defcon 4

          I’d almost rather have a general ruling the USA at this point. I can smell the corruption from D.C. all the way from Oregon.

          • knowshistory

            like general “greater tragedy” casey? I share your contempt for the dc cesspool, but not your optimism about the military. to make it to the top of the military brass, one must be just as politically correct (corrupt) as in the political sewer.

          • defcon 4

            I think the US federal government is rotten and corrupt beyond the point of any possibility of reform. I believe most elections are rigged at this point — at least at the federal level.

          • truebearing

            History is the record of what God has done, not what He will do.

      • truebearing

        Egypt can be Muslim, but not devout Muslim. There is a huge difference. A Muslim who doesn’t commit to jihad isn’t really a Muslim,at least according to the Quran.
        The Quran establishes who is devout, but most aren’t. Destroy the jihadists and you destroy the spread and threat of Islam….at least for awhile.
        The harder task is waking up Americans to the nature of the threat from Islam, or the Left, for that matter.

        • knowshistory

          in my observation, it is a lot easier for an undevout muslim (aka nonviolent jihadi) to become a devout muslim (aka violent jihadi) than it is for a western liberal fool to see through the haze of politically correct thought. the violent jihadis (aka terrorists) are our friends. they are only ones who might possibly penetrate the dense fog of liberal thinking and educate the intentionally ignorant western public about islam and its plan to enslave, then genocide the fools who have welcomed muslims into their countries. unfortunately, they also plan to kill those of us who do not welcome the invaders.

          • moneekwa

            I used to think that the mobots over-playing their hand was our best hope, but it seems like every time they give us a wake-up call the West just hits the snooze button again

  • http://www.facebook.com/melvin.polatnick Melvin Polatnick

    Democracy is just an abstract ideal and it never existed in any nation. Voters in the US just choose the guys who are selected for them by the movers and shakers.

  • rebaaron

    I believed that every man naturally wanted to be free, but the people of Iraq showed me I was wrong. At great cost to us, they were given it all, just as the US army once gave it to the Germans and the Japanese. They didn’t want it. From now on I support the Muslem dictator who is best for the civilized world. In Egypt it’s clearly the army, which is authoritarian but not totalitarian