I question this

Submitted by Peter Herz (United States), Dec 15, 2012 at 21:14

I really demur at this one, even if I am of the mind that the Islamist parties bode ill for the rest of the world and will probably end up as another "one man, one vote, one time" movement. After all, Hosni Mubarak took billions from US taxpayers, yet the state-controlled media in Egypt was notorious for the venom it spewed against the US and Jews on his watch. His government subsidized the publication of the notorious forgery _The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion_ and marketed it as the "inside scoop" on the JOOOOOZ. Sadam Hussein was about as vicious as they come. Qaddafi was a dangerous loon until Reagan bombed Libya, reminding him how dangerously close to America's reach he lived. The worth of Algeria's secular power structure became apparent as soon as Soviet backing was not longer forthcoming. Nasser was every bit as obsessed with wiping out Israel as the MB types who opposed him. Indeed, much as I hope I'm wrong, it seems that one of the "strong suits" the Brotherhood and Qaida have with the Arab street is that they promise to be more seriously anti-Israel as the people they replace.

Please understand that I am not embracing the Muslim Brotherhood and kindred movements, and am appalled that Obama seems to committing American power, prestige, and treasure to helping them take power in Syria. But, it just seems to me that every available choice in the Arab world looks pretty dismal.

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".