It is possible that Egypt ends up a theocracy but as I said earlier it is too early to tell and there are many things about Egypt that could keep it from becoming a theocracy. That said a secular dictatorship though is something that ironically makes the possibility of a theocracy stemming from a revolution more likely because the more the a secular dictatorship oppresses the religion the more the religion will become identified with both the opposition movement while also increasing the possibility of radicalizing the the religion. The other problem with a dictatorship, secular or religious, is that it stunts the growth of civil discourse that is essential to creating a successful democracy.
US policy in the Middle East and North Africa = Failure. You're delusional if you don't believe that.
A major focus of the US Policy in the middle east is to maintain the ability of energy companies to get their product to the US market for a reasonable cost. Oil exploration and acquisition is a capital intensive process, and you need a stable government structure to make this even feasible let alone affordable. The US is succeeding in securing affordable oil, so the policy is a success.
Lol, oil is approaching $90 a barrel. You have no idea what you're talking about if you think US foreign policy in the Middle East has been or is a "success." US overthrow of democracy and support for dictatorship in Iran, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, unquestioned support for Israel, the support for oppressive autocrats in the Arab world, etc... have all been failures and have done more harm than good for the US and its interests in the region. If you don't wanna believe this, go look at all the pictures from Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon (where another pro-western government recently collapsed), and Yemen. The people of the region disagree with your simplistic and facile "analysis."
In regard to US Policy, it does not matter what the people in the region think. US Policy by definition is to serve the national interests of the US government. I don't support most of the policies, but they are succeeding in what they set out to achieve.
More than worrying about America's thoughts on this, the bigger issue is what Israel will do. Regime change in Egypt would absolutely rock Israel in terms of the future of its security and diplomatic relations with Egypt so I'm curious as to what they think and more importantly what they might do.
Tell that to Carthage. Modern democracies don't fight each other because they're democracies, they don't fight each other because a general democratic spheres was not established until after the Second World War (democracies before the war were more or less the US and Britain which hid behind the waves, France who was fighting Germany for reasons having nothing to do with democracy, and the Benelux countries which were too small to fight a war) and all other democracies resulting from that incident are more or less heavily influenced, if not somewhat controlled by the overwhelming might of America. American power and its decision to be the world police, combined with the threat of atomic weaponry, are the reason there are no wars between DEVELOPED nations, most today of whom happen to be democratic. You'll have peace when there's a balance of power or when there is a general hegemony, and the American military hegemony is the latter. That's the result.
I'll also add the Italian republics of the Renaissance, and the fact that Britain and America did fight one war, and came damn close to fighting each other quite a few times in the 19th century.
I can understand your position too. But you realize what you are sayng here is that 60 million Egyptians should have a government that makes Americans live comfortably. Do you think that's fair? Would an American citizen accept that the comfort of Egypt should factor into their choice (or lack thereof) of leader? Obama's statement is very strong, I don't think I said it's weak. He's essentially thrown his weight behind Mubarak. He could have said something meaningless, as he has often done, or kept quiet longer, as he has done before. It is clear that the US wants a corrupt dictator in place to secure its own interests, which is not news to most, but at this point it seems the Middle East is fed up with it. Any negative feelings towards the US from the Middle East should not come as a surprise IMO. The now long-time and active intervention in the politics and sovereignty of another nation creates legitimate grievances for a country and its people. This model works far better in countries where the people are well-fed. It's IMO a huge error in strategy even for US interests. You can't cut off the the last string of trust from a 60 million population on the border of Israel. Mubarak can't stay. Even if he creates the most equitable and stable democracy in the world right now, he can't stay. Watch the news, Egyptians are not even listening to him because they don't care what he has to say or what he can/will do. They just want him out that's the only goal of these protests, everything else is secondary.
None of the scenarios you mentioned are any wose IMO. Mubarak is an army guy btw, and that's almost exactly how he came into power IIRC. No one in Egypt wants reform. They want removal. They are not trying to treat this problem, they are trying to remove the tumor. Chemotherapy to follow.
That's none of your or my business. Even if the Egyptian people vote Mubarak back into the seat, I don't care. As long as they choose what they want. Do you think the rest of the world is thrilled to see the amount of extremist Christianity being influential in the US government? No. But it's the US, and it's upto the people. If it is a democracy, there will be terms and there will be accountability and independence. These kinds of statements give me the feeling that you feel some populations are smart enough to choose the right guy but Egypt is not. Strikes are underway, they've been holding them back to get the timing right.
Those policies are meant to achieve stability in the region. People pouring out into the streets in unprecedented fashion all over the Arab world and protesting against western supported and sponsored autocrats is indicative of instability. That is the exact opposite of American policy objectives in the region. If you think that is a successful policy, I would really hate to see what you believe failure looks like.
I would hope so. But in the reality of things, if 50% of the country gets a say, it's better than one human in 60 million having a say.
Al Jazeera office shut down, license revoked. Some saying credit cards of employees cancelled? I don't know how that would work. Also, rumor is that women are leading the protest today to support the men who are tired and/or have to work. For the bigots: muslims protected chrisitians, christians protected muslims, women taking charge of protest, muslim brotherhood and baradei not leading or starting the protests, neighbouring countries aiding Egyptians with internet and mobile connectivity, police gave up, army neutral. Take note please.
