Saturday, February 5, 2011

The Slow Suicide of the West - by Matt Patterson


Can a civilization that tore itself apart put itself back together?



February 4, 2011 - by Matt Patterson


Some six centuries ago, Western civilization began to claw its way out of the great wilderness of the Dark and Middle Ages.

In an astonishingly short time, the cultural, technological, and military pre-eminence it once held at the height of the Roman Empire was reclaimed, then surpassed. The Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolutions saw Western peoples conquer the far flung corners of the globe, penetrate previously opaque mysteries of nature, and set foot on an alien celestial body — less than 500 years separated Columbus’ first footsteps in North America from Neil Armstrong’s small step on the Moon.
At the dawn of the second decade of the 21st century, however, the edifice of Western civilization teeters precariously on shaken foundations. The symptoms of cultural decay — plunging birth rates, empty churches, economic instability — rage like an untreated fever. Once-conquered peoples of the Far East are now our creditors. The colonization of space has been abandoned. The global financial system created and underwritten by the West now appears a fragile ecosystem that few can understand and fewer can predict; the prosperity it once seemed to guarantee now appears frighteningly evanescent.
In retrospect, historians will recognize the 20th century as the era in which the West began to consume itself from within. The process was twofold:
1) A nearly century-long intra-civilizational civil war, encompassing both World Wars and the Cold War, which pitted the totalitarian and democratic strains of the West against one another in mortal combat. (Karl Marx, a German who wrote in England, is as much a Westerner as Thomas Jefferson.)
This conflict destroyed the losers and exhausted the victors, exacting a horrific cost in blood and treasure on the entire civilization. How many potential geniuses fell on the battlefields of Europe in the Bloody Century? What great innovations and advancements lay stillborn in the countless military cemeteries of the Continent? The intra-civilizational war was the greatest catastrophe in history — tens of millions of lives and trillions of dollars sacrificed — which left deep and lasting tears on the moral fabric of every Western nation, victor and vanquished alike.
2) Governments of the West began in the 20th century to gather more and more power over their citizens and their economic activities, establishing powerful redistributionist agencies to transfer wealth from producers to non-producers. “Welfare” was born. As the century progressed, even nominally free Western nations began to guarantee ever-greater measures of material comfort to citizens in the form of subsidized retirement and medical care programs.
These programs, however, were based on flawed demographic and economic assumptions — people live longer now than they did in the 1930s, when many such programs were instituted, for example. As a result, the expense of such well-meaning largess has now far exceeded the capacity of governments to pay. Entitlements have become a giant boulder that Western nations are obliged to push, Sisyphus-like, up the hill of economic productivity. And our entitlement boulder becomes larger and heavier with each step.
So vast have the obligations become that Western governments will never be capable of delivering fully on the promises they have foolishly made to their citizens. Borrowing and deficit spending have for decades put off the coming and inevitable reckoning. They have guaranteed that it will be all the more terrible when it finally arrives.
An existential civil war and untenable socio-economic policies combined in the 20th century to exhaust and bankrupt the West economically, creatively, and morally. What this slow civilizational suicide means for the average Western citizen is a future that will be — if present trends continue — less free, less prosperous, and less stable.
But it need not be so. The West has always demonstrated a remarkable capacity for renewal, thanks largely to the astonishing achievements and shining examples at the very dawn of the West. We emerged from the long night of the Dark Ages only when we reclaimed our classical heritage: the rediscovery of Aristotle and Homer put us back on the path to Einstein and Shakespeare; the return of Cleisthenes and Cicero gave us Washington and Churchill.
Will we have the sense to again turn to the minds that birthed our civilization when again we are tasked with the rebuilding of their magnificent creation?
Matt Patterson is senior editor at the Capital Research Center and contributor to Proud to be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation. His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.

NOTE:
Few Americans today, if any, can predict whether or not America can "put itself together again" ...  multiculturalism, seeking a "hope and change" (according to Obama's overused slogan) that included embracing an ideology of the 6th Century ... were not what most Americans had hoped for and yet, within the last few years, our nation has witnessed "change" that allows Islamic flags to fly over Washington, DC; allows those who prefer to see the West and Israel wiped out in exchange for an ideology that pre-dates the Dark Ages to build their mosques upon the very site where they had previously attacked and murdered almost 3,000 Americans; watches our Constitution trashed in exchange for "tolerance" of those who cannot accept and live peacefully in today's civilization; ... all these and more, do little to demonstrate an America that was an example and Beacon of Light to the Nations.
Have we become both numb and blind to the corruptness pouring from those who should be leading this great nation? ... Americans let their voices be heard last November; may 2012 be the return to a more stable form of leadership among those men and women elected to serve our country and its citizens. 



Yes, Islamists Are Coming Through Mexico


[Tunisian Said Jaziri, a Montreal imam who was sent back by Canada to Tunisia, calls in front of his parents' home in Tunis 24 October 2007. Jaziri was arrested 15 October 2007 under Canadian immigration law after having lost his refugee status for having ommitted to declare upon his arrival in Canada that he had a record in France. Jaziri had said that he had been physically and mentally tortured during the 13-hour flight repatriating him to Tunisia, but Canadian authorities denied 23 October 2007 any mistreatment. AFP PHOTO/FETHI BELAID




Said Jaziri was seen getting in the trunk of a smuggler's car by bystanders, captured only by luck and their patriotism.
February 2, 2011 - by Alberto de la Cruz



When chaos reigns supreme in a nation that shares an almost two-thousand mile border with the United States, and that border is not protected to the extent it should be, undesirable elements sneaking their way from Mexico into the U.S. becomes the rule instead of the exception. We have all been made aware of the drug shipments that come into the U.S. through the porous and undermanned Mexican border, and we all know of the steady stream of Mexicans that for decades have snuck through looking for a better life in the U.S. for themselves and their families back in Mexico. However, it is next to impossible to tell who else comes across the U.S./Mexico border until they are apprehended, or worse.
On January 11, U.S. Border Patrol agents pulled over a BMW near the Golden Acorn Casino, 50 miles east of San Diego, California. The vehicle was driven by Kenneth R. Lawler. Border Patrol agents found Lawler had tucked away in the trunk of his car a souvenir of sorts from Mexico: a radical Muslim cleric by the name of Said Jaziri.
Lawler was arrested and is being held on charges of alien smuggling, while Jaziri is being held for illegally entering the country as well as being a material witness to the crime.
The capture of Jaziri reopens the book on this radical Muslim cleric who fought his eventual deportation from Canada in 2007, when he applied for refugee status but failed to disclose a criminal conviction in France during the 1990s. While in Quebec, he advocated for Sharia law in Canada while demanding the government fund the construction of a $20-million mosque. He organized and led protests in Canada against the Danish cartoons that depicted Mohammad, and boasted of converting one Canadian woman a week to Islam while proclaiming homosexuality to be a disease.
During his deportation hearings, the Tunisian native argued he would be tortured back home if deported, yet he found a way to survive in Tunisia after he was sent back there. It took him a few years to make his way back to North America on a journey that took him from Africa to Europe, and then to Central America and Mexico, where he paid Tijuana smugglers $5,000 to sneak him across the border.
Like so many other immigrants that make their way across our southern frontier, Jaziri took advantage of the huge holes that currently exist at the border. The difference, however, is that Jaziri is a radical Muslim extremist and not the typical immigrant looking for a better life in America. If it were not for the watchful eyes of firefighters who witnessed Jaziri get into the trunk of the car and alerted the Border Patrol, he most likely would still be wandering free in this country.
The 9/11 Commission Report warned of terrorists entering the U.S. clandestinely through the Mexican border as well as the Canadian border, and called for heightened border security to combat that threat. But efforts by conservatives to secure our borders have been met with much resistance, with opponents calling the threats overblown and in many cases racist. To put that warning into context: just recently an Iranian book celebrating suicide bombers was found in the Arizona desert by Border Patrol agents patrolling known smuggling routes near the Mexican border.
For years now, there has been an increase in OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) penetrating our border to the south, with sizable increases happening every year. FBI director Robert Mueller warned of this during his testimony to the House Appropriations Committee back in 2005:
There are individuals from countries with known al-Qaeda connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish, and pretending to be Hispanic.
The Mexican government is struggling to survive the chaos and anarchy that is sweeping the nation because of vast corruption and the drug cartels. The government has no interest in curbing the flow of illegal immigration north, since remittances from Mexicans in the U.S. to their family members back home total $25 billion a year and account for 3% of Mexico’s GDP. Neither do they have the time nor the resources to make any effective effort to control who is crossing their border with the U.S., which makes it a prime area for terrorists looking to enter this country unnoticed.
We have to congratulate the dedicated men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol for capturing Said Jaziri. But considering the situation in Mexico and our unaddressed border issues, we have to wonder: how many Said Jaziris have made it into the U.S. undetected?
Alberto de la Cruz blogs at Babalu Blog


Egypt: Western Blindness on the Muslim Brotherhood's Extremism is Beyond Ridiculous


SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2011

THE RUBIN REPORT

By Barry Rubin

Ladies and gentlemen, we now live in a world where those who think the Muslim Brotherhood--an organization that has daily made clear its goals and hatred of both the West and Jews for decades--is radical are considered to be hawkish, alarmist nut-cases.

We live in a world where, without citing any real evidence, policymakers, experts, and journalists can make claims that may end up killing huge numbers of people.

Doug Saunders
, chief foreign affairs writer for Canada's Globe and Mail, considered the country's best newspaper, writes an article, "Who's Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Answer: I am and so is every sensible person.
But I'm also afraid of the Doug Saunders of the world whose blindness is likely to produce disaster. Here's the key section:

"Would the Muslim Brotherhood participate in a government that recognizes Israel and works with Western governments? Their leaders, and informed observers, say yes."

So far I have seen virtually no evidence of any journalist for a major newspaper actually reading (through translation) a single speech of Muslim Brotherhood leaders over the last decade, the Muslim Brotherhood's platform, the proposals that Muslim Brotherhood members of parliament have made, or just about any other documentation.

But what makes this even more crazy is that Saunders piece appeared AFTER the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood PUBLICLY said the group favored abrogating the peace treaty with Israel as one of its main priorities.

This is far worse than even the coverage of the Iranian revolution when many (though proportionately fewer) experts and journalists told us that everything would be just fine.

What's the problem here? Ideology, ignorance, a naive belief that nobody can be radical, wishful thinking, and methodology.

In terms of methodology, anything a Muslim Brotherhood leader or "expert" says to a journalist orally is more important than mountains of articles, speeches, and policy statements made in Arabic.

Journalist: "Are you moderate?"

Muslim Brotherhood leader: "Yes."

Journalist: "That's all I need to know!"

That's not much of an exaggeration. Consider the actual sentence Saunders wrote:

"Would the Muslim Brotherhood participate in a government that recognizes Israel and works with Western governments? Their leaders, and informed observers, say yes."

Yes, and they'd also participate in a government that throws away the peace treaty (even if subtly), opens the door to massive weapons' shipments into the Gaza Strip, and bashes Western interests all over the region. In fact, they will do everything possible to get the government to do that.

There are two other Brotherhood groups in the neighborhood they are likely to support. One is called Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and the other is called the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, which they will assist (not necessarily successfully, of course) to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy.

Don't get me wrong, the Brotherhood is cautious and clever. They will not do everything on the first day but proceed carefully and subtly. 

Consider this passage from the (anti-Western, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel) Guardian, which calls the Brotherhood a "weary confused organization."

"The most fundamental such decision was to abandon violence, both in practice and in theory, at least on Egyptian soil. Distancing itself from violent means was, quite apart from the question of morality, the right thing to do if the Brotherhood was to have standing among Egyptians, who have consistently shown that they find such means abhorrent."

I think the Brotherhood abandoned violence in the 1950s and 1960s because the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser was throwing its leaders into concentration camps, torturing them, and hanging them. The Brotherhood thus decided that it was wiser not to wage a losing battle.

And of course in the 1970s, when Anwar al-Sadat relaxed the repression it was on condition that they didn't start blowing things up.

But the basic strategy of the Brotherhood has always rested on a two-stage program. The first stage was "da'wa," that is the phase of organization and base-building. Only when this was complete could it move on to the revolutionary stage. 

Last October 7, I identified a major speech by the Brotherhood's leader, Muhammad Badi, as signalling the long-awaited change to revolutionary action. Read it and tell me that this is a moderate organization.

Why the escalation? Badi and the Brotherhood considered Husni Mubarak weak and vulnerable given his age and the unpopular plan to put his son into power as successor.

Whether this has anything to do with the current uprising or it is coincidental--which is quite possible--and inspired by Tunisia isn't clear. But to say the Brotherhood is weak and confused is the fantasy of a newspaper that--let's face it--would like to see an Islamist revolution in Egypt, Hamas destroy the Palestinian Authority and Israel wiped off the map.

Of course, the Guardian has bad intentions. What's the excuse of the rest of the media, experts, and governments?

As I've said repeatedly, what most worries me is the lack of worry on the part of others. It isn't just that there is a potential calamity but by refusing to recognize that danger these people are making it more likely to happen.

Badi said: The United States is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise." Judging from the handling and coverage of this crisis, Badi might be on to something.
Now, excuse me because I have to go write an article commissioned for me to explain why a revolution in Egypt likely to bring to power a pro-Hamas government is beneficial to the Israel-Palestinian peace process! I will try to explain that the opposite is true.

No, I'm not kidding.

Egypt's foreign minister to Iran: Mind your own business




THE JERUSALEM POST



Aboul Gheit: Khamenei should stop "distracting Iranian people, hiding behind what's happening in Egypt," waiting for Iran's "critical moment."

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.CAIR0 — Egypt's foreign minister has told Teheran to mind its own business after Iran's top leader praised the Egyptian uprising as an appropriate response to dictatorial rule.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit told reporters Saturday that Iran's Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seems to have forgotten about the crushing of widespread protests in Iran two years ago.
Aboul Gheit said Khamenei should be more attentive to calls for freedom in Iran rather than "distracting the Iranian people's attention by hiding behind what is happening in Egypt."

The Egyptian foreign minister said that "Iran's critical moment has not come yet, but we will watch that moment with great anticipation and interest."

Egypt has been rocked by two weeks of protests seeking the ouster of its president, Hosni Mubarak.

During Friday prayers, Irans top leader said that Mubarak betrayed his people and the uprising against his rule is the appropriate response. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also told worshippers that widening unrest in the Arab world is a sign of "Islamic awareness" in the region.

Iran has portrayed the unrest in Egypt, which erupted Jan. 25, as a replay of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the pro-US Shah and brought Islamic militants to power.

In his speech, Khamenei accused Mubarak of doing America's bidding, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "America's control over Egypt's leaders has ... turned Egypt into the biggest enemy of Palestine and turned it into the greatest refuge for Zionists," he said.

"This explosion we see among the people of Egypt is the appropriate response to this great betrayal that the traitor dictator committed against his people," Khamenei said, without mentioning Mubarak by name.

JPost.com staff contributed to this report.

*****BREAKING NEWS FROM ISRAEL*****:Report: Saboteurs attack Egypt-Israel gas pipeline

© 3.bp.blogspot.com




ISRAEL:  State TV says 'terrorists took advantage of security situation to blow up gas pipeline that runs through north Sinai'; armed forces trying to control fires.

Saboteurs blew up a pipeline that runs through Egypt's North Sinai and supplies gas to Israel, state television and other sources reported on Saturday. State TV quoted an official as saying that the "situation is very dangerous and explosions were continuing from one spot to another" along the pipeline."  It is a big terrorist operation", a state TV reporter said.

A security source said the Egyptian army closed the main source of gas supplying the pipeline. "The armed forces and the authorities managed to close the main source of flow and are trying to control the fires," the source said. Israel's National Infrastructure Ministry said it was looking into the incident. Egypt is a modest gas exporter, using pipelines to export gas to Israel and also to Jordan and other regional states. It also exports via liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on its north coast, but those are not in the Sinai region. State television said the pipeline that was attacked supplied both the Israeli and Jordanian gas lines. Israel imports 40% of its natural gas from Egypt, in a deal built on their 1979 peace accord. 'Strike with an iron fist'


The SITE intelligence group, which monitors al Qaeda and other Islamist websites, said some groups had been urging Islamic militants to attack the pipeline to Israel. 


"Saboteurs took advantage of the security situation and blew up the gas pipeline," a state television correspondent reported, saying there was a big explosion. Residents in the area also reported a huge explosion and said flames were raging in an area near the pipeline in the El-Arish area of north Sinai. "Jihadists suggested that Muslims in Sinai take advantage of Egyptian unrest and strike the Arish-Ashkelon gas pipeline, arguing that it would have a major impact on Israel," SITE said. Site quoted one Islamist website author as saying: "To our brothers, the Bedouins of Sinai, the heroes of Islam, strike with an iron fist, because this is a chance to stop the supply to the Israelites." Sinai Bedouins have long grumbled about being neglected and have often sporadically clashed with Egyptian security forces. Many Bedouin were rounded up after a series of explosions in Sinai tourists resorts between 2004 and 2006.




AND, more:





Video: Jihad: excerpt from "Farewell Israel"


FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2011


Jihad: excerpt from "Farewell Israel"



Please see the whole of this excellent film here: http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=10953




"If Obama was Smart .... " By Daled Amos


FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2011

If Obama Was Smart, He'd Give His Allies "A Piece Of The Action"--Just Like Captain Kirk

The problem with Obama's foreign policy is that it is nothing more than Chicago politics writ large: you negotiate with your enemies when you have no choice, but your allies--whenever their interests get in your way, they are expected to do what you want anyway: even if it requires them to fall on their sword.

What Obama needs to do is to stop following the example of Chicago politics, and take one step back to the days of Chicago mob politics--and follow the example of Captain Kirk.

Remember the classic episode "A Piece of the Action," when the Enterprise visits a planet that has modeled itself after a book entitled Chicago Mobs of the Twenties.

Resolving the problem they find themselves in requires Kirk and the crew to stop the mob war between the various bosses by giving each of them "a piece of the action" rather than giving power to one of them and then "rubbing out" the rest as they prefer.


This is a lesson that Obama would do well to learn, especially when dealing with Mubarak.
Just consider the similarity between the head mob boss, Bela Oxmyx, and Mubarak:






Obama's willingness to abandon his allies--at least he doesn't rub'em out--is just not good diplomacy, nor good politics.

Allies who get dumped on tend to desert you and then join forces with their own allies--against you.

They know they can get a piece of the action without you if need be.

Don't believe me? Just look at the Muslim world today.
#   #    #

Note:  A little theme song to Obama's style foreign policies, as he makes  President Mubarak an offer he can't refuse:


Why Egypt Will Not Soon Become Democratic


by Daniel Pipes
The Economist
February 4, 2011
The Economist asked Anoush Ehteshami of Durham University and Daniel Pipes to address the motion: "Egypt will become a democracy within a year." Ehteshami's response in favor can be readhere. Mr. Pipes's response follows below.
Two reasons lead me to assert that the Arab Republic of Egypt will not boast a democratic political system at this time next year.

First, democracy is more than holding elections; it requires the development of civil society, meaning such complex and counterintuitive institutions as the rule of law, an independent judiciary, multiple political parties, minority rights, voluntary associations, freedom of expression, movement, and assembly. Democracy is a learned habit, not an instinctive one, that requires deep attitudinal changes such as a culture of restraint, a commonality of values, a respect for differences of view, the concept of loyal opposition, and a sense of civic responsibility.

Further, elections need to be practiced to be made perfect. Ideally, a country starts electing at the municipal level and moves to the national, it begins with the legislative branch and moves to the executive. Simultaneously, the press needs to acquire full freedoms, political parties should mature, parliament should gain authority at the expense of the executive, and judges should adjudicate between them.

Such a transformation of society cannot take place within months or even years; the historical record shows that it takes decades fully to implement. It is out of the question that an Egypt with minor experience in democracy can put together enough of these components in twelve months to establish a fully democratic order.

Second, whichever scenario one plays out, democracy is not in the offing.
  • If Hosni Mubarak stays in power, unlikely but possible, he will be more of a tyrant than ever. As shown by his actions in recent days, he will not go quietly.
  • If the military asserts more directly the power that it has wielded behind the scenes since its coup d'état of 1952, Omar Suleiman, the newly-appointed vice president, would presumably become president. He would make changes to the system, eliminating the most obvious abuses under Mubarak, but not fundamentally offering Egyptians a say in the regime that rules them. Algeria 1992, where a military-backed government repressed Islamists, provides a precedent.
  • As its logo suggests, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is not exactly a democratic organization.
    If Islamists come to power, they will foment a revolution along the lines of Iran in 1979, in which their belief in God's sovereignty trumps political participation by the masses. The inherently anti-democratic nature of the Islamist movementmust not be obscured by the Islamists' willingness to use elections to reach power. In the prescient words of anAmerican official in 1992, the Islamists forward a program of "one person, one vote, one time."
However looked at – abstractly or specifically – Egyptians are in for a rough ride ahead, without imminent prospect of choosing their leaders.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He has lived for three years in Egypt.
Related Topics:  Democracy and IslamEgyptreceive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.http://www.danielpipes.org/9420/democratic-egypt
Note:  Let's look at something other than the riots in Cairo:

Pyramids of Egypt travel wonder at Giza


Giza - the magical Prymaids

Giza 



Turmoil in Egypt - By Daniel Pipes


Pyramids of Egypt travel wonder at Giza

by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
February 1, 2011
As Egypt's much-anticipated moment of crisis arrived and popular rebellions shook governments across the Middle East, Iran stands as never before at the center of the region. Its Islamist rulers are within sight of dominating the region. But revolutions are hard to pull off and I predict that Islamists will not achieve a Middle East-wide breakthrough and Tehran will not emerge as the key powerbroker. Some thoughts behind this conclusion:


Cairo's Tahrir Square on January 25, 2011.
An echo of the Iranian revolution: On reaching power in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sought to spread Islamist insurrection to other countries but failed almost everywhere. Three decades had to go by, it appears, before the self-immolation of a vendor in an obscure Tunisia town could light the conflagration that Khomeini aspired to and Iranian authorities still seek.
Part of a Middle Eastern cold war: The Middle East has for years been divided into two large blocs engaged in a regional cold war for influence. The Iranian-led resistance bloc includes Turkey, Syria, Gaza, and Qatar. The Saudi-led status quo bloc includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, the West BankJordanYemen, and the Persian Gulf emirates. Note that Lebanon these very days is moving to resistance from status quo and that unrest is taking place only in status quo places.

Israel's peculiar situation: Israeli leaders are staying mum and its near-irrelevance underlines Iranian centrality. While Israel has much to fear from Iranian gains, these simultaneously highlight the Jewish state as an island of stability and the West's only reliable ally in the Middle East.

Lack of ideology: The sloganeering and conspiracy theories that dominate Middle Eastern discourse are largely absent from crowds gathered outside of government installations demanding an end to stagnation, arbitrariness, corruption, tyranny, and torture.

Military vs. mosque: Recent events confirm that the same two powers, the armed forces and the Islamists, dominate some 20 Middle Eastern countries: the military deploys raw power and Islamists offer a vision. Exceptions exist – a vibrant Left in Turkey, ethnic factions in Lebanon and Iraq, democracy in Israel, Islamist control in Iran – but this pattern widely holds.

Iraq: The most volatile country of the region, Iraq, has been conspicuously absent from the demonstrations because its population is not facing a decades-old autocracy.

A military putsch? Islamists wish to repeat their success in Iran by exploiting popular unrest to take power. Tunisia's experience bears close examination for a pattern that may be repeated elsewhere. The military leadership there apparently concluded that its strongman, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, had become too high maintenance – especially with his wife's family's flamboyant corruption – to maintain in power, so it ousted him and, for good measure, put out an international arrest warrant for his and his family's arrest.


Gen. Omar Suleiman – Egypt's fourth military ruler since 1952?
That done, nearly the entire remaining old guard remains in power, with the top military man, Chief of Staff Rachid Ammar, apparently having replaced Ben Ali as the country's powerbroker. The old guard hopes that tweaking the system, granting more civil and political rights, will suffice for it to hold on to power. If this gambit succeeds, the seeming revolution of mid-January will end up as a mere coup d'état.
This scenario could be repeated elsewhere, especially in Egypt, where soldiers have dominated the government since 1952 andintend to maintain their power against the Muslim Brethren they have suppressed since 1954. Strongman Hosni Mubarak's appointment of Omar Suleiman terminates the Mubarak family's dynastic pretensions and raises the prospect of Mr. Mubarak resigning in favor of direct military rule.

More broadly, I bet on the more-continuity-than-change model that has emerged so far in Tunisia. Heavy-handed rule will lighten somewhat in Egypt and elsewhere but the militaries will remain the ultimate power brokers.

U.S. policy: The U.S. government has a vital role helping Middle Eastern states transit from tyranny to political participation without Islamists hijacking the process. George W. Bush had the right idea in 2003 in calling for democracy but he ruined this effort by demanding instant results. Barack Obama initially reverted to the failed old policy of making nice with tyrants; now he is myopically siding with the Islamists against Mr. Mubarak. He should emulate Bush but do a better job, understanding that democratization is a decades-long process that requires the inculcation of counter-intuitive ideas about elections, freedom of speech, and the rule of law.
Mr. Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, lived in Egypt for three years.