And To Whom Would You Have America Write the Check of Their Deliverance

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 11, 2011 at 12:34

Now that we have seen that Mubarak has finally decided to step out of the main melee of the changes coming to Egypt, what remains next to be observed is which of the political situations looking to absorb the power he leaves will win the day. While the world watches, outside political influences are keenly at work to grab any advantage they can to take the flagging country under control for purposes that have been argued as the best, yet none can be shown to have the people of Egypt in mind for their best interests.

As this is being written, the American Administrative Executive has prepared his administration's position (if it can be called that) on how Egypt can transition away from Mubarak's administration. To be seen and not yet dealt with is the Egyptian Army's post transition position on who will govern next. TO be sure on that point, whichever form of government emerges will require the support of the military in order to 'keep the peace,' or suffer through continued unrest as the new government will not likely have any more resources than Mubarak's government to fix the economic woes that are the culprit of the people's problems. It does not help either that if the Islamists' do not achieve their aims in the outfall of the unrest, they will keep their hands busy trying gain whatever leveraging they can get.

Now an interesting observation by the previous reader asserts that all of the ills of the Egyptian unrest is somehow the fault only of the United States; that in the American interest of keeping peace in the Middle East, the oppression alleged by the United States in assisting Israel to maintain security in the region is the primary cause of the unrest we see. While there is truth in that America can serve itself well by doing whatever is necessary to keep Israel secure, let us not turn a blind eye to the fact that Middle East oil flows to many more nations than the United States. Is it not British Petroleum that has just as much at stake in the flow through Suez as anyone else?

There is a reason the United States is seen at the forefront of many of the places in the world which require political intervention. From the time that World War Two was finished, America emerged as a great power to whom much was acknowledged as the single political entity that would help anyone to 'keep the peace,' but such recognition came with an extreme price; jealousy from other parts of the world that did not have such a rosy view of America. Yet, while remembering America is not the only nuclear government in the global scheme of things, America has demonstrated great restraint compared to autocratic governments throughout the contemporary histories of, say Great Britain, Germany, Russia and the former Soviet Union. And let us not forget China, which still holds the most puzzling part of the global picture, yet which is not so mysterious when one examines the shifting global economy.

Now the big question……what if America returned to a political isolationist policy after assisting in the defeat of Germany, Japan and the other Axis powers in the Middle East? Would Great Britain have done anything different, say in preventing Israel its rebirth? The evidence shows that they tried just exactly that. Or what if the Soviet Union had successfully blockaded the Iron Curtain and all of Germany went under the spell of Stalin, Kruschev and the others, forming an alliance that choked off all of the Middle East because America did not maintain a military alliance in Turkey that kept the Soviets from too much meddling south of Armenia.

So America did spend billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars (did you see any of the billionaire interests coughing up even fraction of that in Britain?), and maybe sixty or seventy percent of that did not get used for the purposes for which they were intended. But when we hear of the money sent to the 'Palestinian' cause being spent to acquire weapons for attacking Israel, would it not be expected that the American taxpayer might get jaded for the bad use of our resources? And really, the America people are not the ones who are forcing the economic issues that places like Egypt face. We give them the money; what they do with it falls to them on how it is spent. We (the United States of America), have never, NEVER, been able to completely control that, not even with sanctions or guns.

Now it is spoken here of evil policies being used to repress the people of Muslim nations. Which America policy has the people of Iran repressed? Or which American policy did Mubarak use to keep the people of Egypt under his own variety of oppression? While there may be the argument that American money is spent to keep people like Mubarak flush with funded power, it is Mubarak's own personal corruption (and whoever his successor might be will be fettered with his own aspirations of power) that provides the influence of whether he is fit to be responsible for ensuring the welfare and wellbeing of the people under his charge, just as the American Administrative Executive is responsible for his. And we can see how well that is working for us here.

So, there may be the curse you wish to express for the assertion of oppressive American policies: just tell us when we do not have to spend billions of dollars for the waste that seems to plague all the places the greedily take all they can get; and maybe you can ask them who do take the money to fend for themselves: and leave America and Israel alone.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".