Libertarian Leanings

Elephants All Over The Living Room

Nicholas Kristof has decided that the Arab world is ready for democracy.  Now, it's not that I disagree, but I do wonder why he says the Arabs are ready now, at this particular moment, when history is replete with revolutions that only swapped one dictator for another.  Kristof:

“Before the revolution, we were slaves, and now we are the slaves of former slaves,” Lu Xun, the great Chinese writer, declared after the toppling of the Qing dynasty. Is that the future of the Middle East?

I don’t think so. Moreover, this line of thinking seems to me insulting to the unfree world. In Egypt and Bahrain in recent weeks, I’ve been humbled by the lionhearted men and women I’ve seen defying tear gas or bullets for freedom that we take for granted. How can we say that these people are unready for a democracy that they are prepared to die for?

Heaven forbid we should think insulting thoughts about the unfree world.  But the Egytian people are brave, therefore they are ready for democracy?  That's his reasoning?  It seems ludicrous, especially when Kristof barely mentions the only functioning Arab democracy anywhere -- Iraq -- and then only to lump it in with other revolutions that ended in failure.

Many around the world fret that “people power” will likely result in Somalia-style chaos, Iraq-style civil war or Iran-style oppression.

And this:

This concern is the subtext for much anxiety today, from Washington to Riyadh. And there’s no question that there are perils: the overthrow of the shah in Iran, of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, of Tito in Yugoslavia, all led to new oppression and bloodshed. Congolese celebrated the eviction of their longtime dictator in 1997, but the civil war since has been the most lethal conflict since World War II.

But the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has not saddled the Iraqis with a new dictator.  It's true that people are protesting in the streets in Iraq.  Iraqis are very unhappy with corruption in their government and its failure to deliver basic services.  But this Iraqi government isn't out there with tanks putting down an insurrection.  There's been a different response in Iraq, the kind you might expect from a real democracy.

"Mr. Maliki specified a 100-day period after which an assessment of the work of the government and ministries will be carried out to find out the level of their individual success or failure in performing their jobs," a statement from his office said, specifying that the 100-day period began on Sunday.

"Changes will be made based on the assessments."

The statement also specified new measures would be taken to combat corruption, such as forcing ministries to advertise all job openings publicly to fight cronyism.

Al Jazeera's Jane Arraf, reporting from Baghdad, said that al-Nujaifi's comments are a sign that politicians in the country are taking notice of protests.

Kristof resolutely ignores all that.  So I wonder.  Without the Iraqi democracy staring him straight in the eye, would Kristof be so confident that another Arab democracy will spring up in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, or anywhere else?  Sorry, but it's hard for me to imagine. 

But I can think of a reason Mr. Kristof would rather not say much about Iraq.  He was one who had a fairly prominent role in the efforts to undermine the liberation of Iraq.  Try as as they might, lefties were unable to prevent it, so Kristof and the left had to settle for the next best thing, which was to discredit it. 

Kristof was the first to promote the fiction concocted by Joseph C. Wilson, when he accused the Bush administration of twisting the intelligence in order to justify the invasion.  Wilson's story was BS.

This was at a time when the realists said democracy would never take hold in the Arab world, particularly in Iraq.  But now Kristof confidently proclaims Abrab democracy is all but a done deal.  Everywhere but Iraq. 

Which brings me to another of those elephants in Kristof's living room.  The left is always poised to disregard inconvenient historical facts, and judging by this column of his Kristof is no exception.  The fact is, revolutions rarely lead to democratic self government without help from the outside, and again, Iraq provides the lesson.  The year was 1991.

The noose was closing around Saddam's neck when a fateful decision was made in Washington. Prompted by foreign policy "realists" in his administration—such as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and National Security Council Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs Richard Haass—Mr. Bush allowed Saddam to fly military aircraft to put down the uprising.

What followed was a massacre. Up to 330,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by Saddam's brutal tactics, which included using helicopter gunships to strafe neighborhoods and tanks to blast schools, hospitals and places of worship. While thousands of U.S. troops were still on Iraqi soil and in some cases were close enough to watch, the tyrant unleashed the power of modern weaponry against men, women and children.

The news from Libya is an all-too-chilling reminder of those dark days in Iraq. It is no coincidence that Gadhafi often mentions Iraq in his tirades. He knows how Saddam clung to power by sheer brute force while playing on the West's fear of instability.

Without American help in 1991, the Iraqi revolution failed.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered.  But the overthrow in 2003 did not fail.  It was a long hard battle, but it was a battle that was won which, as it turns out, was a defeat for the left.  Kristof seems to resist the painful memory of it.  Instead he looks for redemption in other Middle Eastern Arab nations where, magically, democracies will rise, he thinks, untainted by any connection to America. 

It would be great if we could have happy endings in Tripoli and Tehran, but the chances are slim without western help.  And there is really only one nation that can provide the kind of help they'd need to pull it off.  That would be America.  But America's leader isn't planning to make it happen. 

The capital of Libya was on fire, Egypt was still smoldering and Somali pirates killed four American hostages.

But at the time, last Tuesday morning, President Obama was on his way to Cleveland for a “winning the future” forum about small business.

Aides kept Obama abreast of the violent world events, but that morning’s focus was 9 percent national unemployment and a domestic economic recovery that had slowed or even stalled.

That is a smart strategy, said presidential expert Ross Baker, because while revolutionaries in the streets of foreign capitals make for more dramatic news leads, they rarely win elections.

Which brings us to yet another elephant.  By ignoring the lessons of Iraq, Kristof misses the crucial point that Obama is not interested in helping to liberate the people of Iran, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, or anywhere else.  Obama is staying with his strong suit, which is winning elections, and foreign policy imposes upon that goal.  What happens in Egypt, Libya, or Bahrain?  Not his problem. 

Update:  Apparently Obama recognizes there some are things we can do to help the Libyan people after all.

The Pentagon is deploying naval and air forces around Libya as the US and UK governments consider tougher measures to force Muammer Gaddafi from power, including the possible establishment of a no-fly zone.

“We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people,” David Cameron, UK prime minister, said. “In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.”

Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, at a UN meeting in Geneva, said: “Nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan government continues to threaten and kill Libyans.” She added she had discussed a no-fly zone with other foreign ministers.

She insisted the naval deployments did not signal pending military action, emphasising instead that refugees might need to be rescued at sea amid a worsening humanitarian crisis.

Humanitarian assistance is better than nothing, but once again Iraq provides an instructive example.  The U.S. maintained a no-fly zone over Iraq for nearly a decade, but by itself that produced no incentive for change to a more liberal form of government.

Further Update:  Thomas Sowell isn't so optimistic about democracy taking hold in the Arab world.

If there was ever a time when people in Western democracies might be excused for thinking that Western institutions could simply be exported to other nations to create new free democracies, that time has long passed.

It is easy to export the outward symbols of democracy-- constitutions, elections, parliaments and the like-- but you cannot export the centuries of experience and development that made those institutions work. All too often, exported democratic institutions have meant "one man, one vote-- one time."

Richard Fernandez Asks...

"Where are the carriers?"  His post strikes me as a particularly damning indictment of the Obama administration's complete abdication of responsibility for the safety of American civilians in Libya.

In a previous thread, Belmont Club Commenters, thinking on the crisis in Libya and the possible need to cover an evacuation there asked, “where are the carriers”?

103. Cowboy — Here’s where they are:

CVN Enterprise: North Arabian Sea
CVN Vinson: North Arabian Sea
CVN Lincoln: Singapore
CVN Washington: Japan
CVN Stennis: San Diego
CVN Truman: Norfolk
CVN Reagan: Eastern Pacific
CVN Bush: Western Atlantic

No carrier group in the Med. … 105. Blast From the Past — Cowboy, That means that 3, the Nimitz, Roosevelt and Eisenhower, are in overhaul and can’t get underway. Another 4, the Stennis, Truman, Reagan and Bush are either undergoing training and preparing to deploy or are recently returned and awaiting an overhaul.

Meanwhile, Elliott Abrams notes the contrast between the Obama administration's reactive apprehension to China's show of power.

In recent days, the White House has been saying that the United States had to watch its words and actions because American citizens were at risk in Libya.  So instead of acting, we are building a diplomatic coalition. China has taken a different tack: to use power.  Instead of biting their tongue, the Chinese appear to be making it clear to the Qadhafi regime that no danger to Chinese workers will be tolerated.

That’s the path the United States should follow as well.  As I’ve said elsewhere, we should be making it clear to Qadhafi and his remaining henchmen that the safety of Americans in Libya is their safety; if Americans are attacked or held hostage, they will end up the way Saddam Hussein did.  But the use of power will do more than ensure the safety of Americans; it will also help bring Libya’s civil war to a better end.

The problem with the strategy offered by Mr Abrams is this.  If Obama were to assume a more forceful posture toward Qadhafi and what's left of his regime, who would believe him?  Is there anyone who thinks there's even the tiniest chance that he would ever back it up with the actual use of force?

In fact I would speculate that Obama's leftist ideology forbids any action on his part that might bring about "a better end" to Libya's civil war.  Any action towards Libya that is perceived to benefit the United States would be "cultural imperialism" in his book.  Better to let the cards fall where they may, even if the Libyan people are forced to suffer another 42 years of poverty, tyranny, and torture under a new dictator.  Obama will keep his hands clean.

Progressive Logic

David Harsanyi offers some entertaining examples of twisted progressive logic today on Real Clear Politics.

Though Walker -- who won office using obnoxious Third World oligarchic tactics, e.g., getting more votes than the other candidate -- is a cancer in the heart of democracy, union-funded Democrats evading their constitutional obligation to cast votes are only protecting the integrity of representative government by completely avoiding democracy.

You're getting it now, right?

In this world, when you tax a citizen a bit less to try to generate economic growth, you are not taking less from the taxpayer, but "stealing" from a third party who, at some point in his life, was told he had an indelible right to your wallet, no matter the cost. And if you don't hand it over? Well, even though Wisconsin is home to some of the nation's highest taxes and even though the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that tax cuts are "not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem," you can't stop unionists from blaming "giveaways" to the rich.

And isn't it always the rich?

It's always about the money, for sure.  Progessives want it, believe they're entitled to it, and will stop at almost nothing to get it.  The pipeline for tax payer dollars, through union paychecks to union dues and on to the Democratic party, is a revenue stream that progressives hope to salvage at all costs.

Obama Strong And True

Perhaps the silence of President Obama is its own statement of his devotion to ideology.  By speaking not a word, once again Obama aligns himself with the autocrat. 

During an appearance in Cleveland on Tuesday, Obama kept his comments focused on the economy and did not mention the events in North Africa, which appear to threaten the regime of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, who has ruled that country since 1969.

On Monday, Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) released a joint statement calling on Obama to take a firmer public line.

"The United States should not remain silent in the face of Gadhafi's egregious violations of human rights," the Republican senators wrote. "We urge the President to speak out clearly in support of the Libyan people in their struggle against the Gadhafi dictatorship."

Obama has a penchant for sucking up to anti-American governments and their thuggish dictators.  Protesters shot down in the streets of Tehran and Tripoli get nothing from Obama when they should be getting material support.  Sacrifice and death might get them a UN resolution.

So what does the Obama Administration mean to do at this moment of crisis and decision? It's talking things over at the U.N. Security Council. Maybe Russia and China—whose authoritarian political systems have much in common with Gadhafi's—will agree to a resolution condemning the regime's use of force. But suspending Libya from its seat on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council is probably a bridge too far.

We suspect this isn't the kind of international assistance the Libyan people desperately want right now. Wounded civilians in the country's liberated cities need access to medical supplies only the West can provide. Opposition forces need to be able to communicate with each other and the outside world without having their signals jammed, and here too the U.S. can help. And while the U.S. and its allies may not be prepared to intervene militarily, merely the threat of destroying the Libyan air force if it continues to bombard civilians might persuade its airmen to defect to the opposition, thereby hastening the regime's demise and bringing the killing to a halt.

None of that will be accomplished through a feckless U.N. resolution. On the contrary, the Administration's resort to diplomacy only compounds the impression in Arab minds that President Obama refuses to take sides against a despot even as Libyans are dying for their freedom. This from the President whose stated aim for U.S. policy in the Middle East is to win over Arab hearts and minds.

Bill Kristol said it best:  Pathetic.

Taking One For The Taliban Team -- Losing Its Appeal

According to the New York Times there is a growing rift between midlevel Taliban leaders who do the fighting and dying in Afghanistan and the higher ups who issue the orders from their sanctuaries in Pakistan. Secure across the border, and tightly controlled by Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies, the top Taliban leadership remains uncompromising. At the urging of their protectors in Pakistan, Taliban members say, they continue to push midlevel Taliban commanders back across the border to carry on the insurgency, which extends Pakistan’s influence in southern Afghanistan. The midlevel commanders have little choice but to comply, as they also depend on sanctuaries in Pakistan, where they maintain their families, say residents in Kandahar who know the Taliban well. The Taliban commander said in his interview that the field commanders would obey their orders to resume the fight, however reluctant they might be. Retired General Jack Keane who recently returned from Afghanistan appeared on Fox News yesterday offering an encouraging assessment of conditions in Kandahar and Helmand provinces.

That Was Some Curveball

In a recent interview to the Guardian an Iraqi by the name of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted that he lied about Iraqi WMDs.  This would not seem like such a big deal since people lie about things all the time, but the Guardian and others on the left would like to give him credit for starting the Iraq war.  Al-Janabi is otherwise know as "Curveball," whose claims about Iraqi mobile weapons labs made it into U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's 2003 speech to the U.N. Security Council that made the case for war.

The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

As it turned out there were no WMDs to speak of, beyond a few leftovers from earlier programs that we already knew about.

Hussein's uranium reaches Canada

July 06, 2008|From the Associated Press

MONTREAL — The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached this Canadian port Saturday, completing a secret U.S. operation that included an airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans.

The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

Well, maybe that particular leftover is something to speak of.  But I digress.  The Guardian is ready to give Curveball all the credit for starting the Iraq War and Curveball is ready to take it.  In fact, he's rather proud of his accomplishment.

The Guardian quoted al-Janabi as saying: "I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that."

[...]

Asked about his feeling's about the deaths and destruction during the war and in the years following, The Guardian said al-Janabi said there was no other way.

"I tell you something when I hear anybody not just in Iraq but in any war (is) killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?" the newspaper quoted him as saying.

"Saddam did not (allow) freedom in our land," the Iraqi said. "There are no other political parties. You have to believe what Saddam says, and do what Saddam wants. And I don't accept that. I have to do something for my country. So I did this and I am satisfied, because there is no dictator in Iraq any more."

And there's plenty of vindication to go around.  The former European CIA chief Tyler Drumheller feels better about himself already.

The former CIA chief in Europe Tyler Drumheller describes Janabi's admission as "fascinating", and said the emergence of the truth "makes me feel better". "I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now," said Drumheller.

It's all good.  A win-win-win situation.  Curveball is proud, the European CIA chief is vindicated, and the left can gloat and say "I told you so."  But the best part is this:  Saddam Hussein is not sitting back in Iraq with sanctions lifted, figuring out the highest and best use of his 550 metric tons of yellowcake.  Works for me.

Update:  John Sexton writing at Hot Air seems a little miffed at the news of Curveball's fibbing.

...we now know who the liar was and he wasn’t part of the administration. We also know why he lied, and it wasn’t to get rich off Iraqi oil, to finish what Bush 41 started or any of the other explanations the left has offered over the years. Curveball wanted to see Saddam toppled for the good of the Iraqi people.

Of course that doesn’t mean American soldiers and taxpayers should have had to go along for the ride. Conspiracies aside, there’s plenty to be upset about here.  Numerous intelligence agencies failed, starting with the German BND which interviewed Curveball over a period of six months. British and American intelligence agencies failed to detect the fraud as well. The result is that we were led to war, in part, by a lie. Even if you believe the US is better off without Saddam in Iraq, you can’t be pleased about taking such a big swing on a curveball.

Well.  Sorry if people are upset, but Saddam in power with sanctions off and 550 tons of yellowcake at his disposal are a not better option.

 

Rumsfeld's Revisionism?

Dan Senor and Roman Martinez took to the Washington Post claiming to correct former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's revisionist history of the Iraq War.  "Rumsfeld's basic theme is that the CPA erred by failing to grant Iraqis 'the right to govern themselves' early in the U.S.-led occupation," they write.  They go on to dispute this by cherry picking quotes from a de-classified secret document Principles for Iraq - Policy Guidelines dated May 13, 2003.  They write:

To the contrary, Rumsfeld's instructions endorsed the top-down approach his book condemns. The CPA should "assert authority over the country," he wrote, and should "not accept or tolerate self-appointed [Iraqi] 'leaders.' "

There should be "clarity that the Coalition is in charge, with no conflicting signals to the Iraqi people," Rumsfeld wrote. He directed Bremer to take a "hands-on" approach to Iraq's "political reconstruction," noting that "the Coalition will consistently steer the process to achieve the stated objectives" and should "not 'let a thousand flowers bloom.' " The "transition from despotism to a democracy will not happen easily or fast," he concluded, noting that "[r]ushing elections could lead to tyranny of the majority."

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Principals for Iraq - Policy Guidelines that they were forced to leave out of their article in order not to blow their entire argument.

8.  Improve Conditions: Involve Iraqis.  The Coalition will work energetically to improve the circumstances of the Iraqi people.  It will work to achieve rapid and visible accomplishments in vital public services for the Iraqi people, and create an environment that encourages the involvement of the Iraqi people, for it is their responsibility to build the future of their country.

9.  Promote Iraqis who share Coalition's goals.  In staffing ministries and positioning Iraqis in ways that will increase their influence, the Coalition will work to have acceptable Iraqis involved as early as possible, so Iraqi voices can explain the goals and direction to the Iraqi people. Only if Iraqis are seen as being engaged in, responsible for, and explaining and leading their fellow citizens will broad public support develop that is essential for security.  Regardless of what the Coalition does, however, Iraqi Interim Authority will be viewed generally as the Coalition's creation. Therefore, we will accept that fact, get on with the task and work to help make sure it succeeds.

If the phrases I emphasized above are any indication, the Bush administration wanted Iraqis involved and in leadership roles as early as possible, which would tend to support Rumsfeld's version of events. 

And so does Douglas Feith in his book War and Decision.  Unfortunately I can't find my copy of it for a pertinent quotation, but I found something else that's nearly as good.  Citations for Chapter 14: "From Liberation to Occupation" include reference to a 2006 Washington Post column by none other than Dan Senor entitled The Realities Of Trying to Rebuild Iraq.  Here's one of Mr. Senor's realities: 

Speaking of policy, Chandrasekaran argues that the CPA should have listened more to professional civil servants and State Department Arabists. Yet his book concludes that the formal occupation of Iraq was itself America's biggest mistake. Instead of creating the CPA, he argues, the Bush administration should have moved quickly after Saddam Hussein's fall to empower a fully sovereign Iraqi government.

But that is precisely the policy that was vociferously opposed by the State Department's Middle East experts in the months leading up to the war. As Chandrasekaran himself points out earlier in the book, the State Department had, before the invasion, favored an extended occupation, in which the United States would retain power for a long period while gradually organizing elections and facilitating an Iraqi constitutional convention. Indeed, the approach Chandrasekaran now claims to prefer has much more in common with the rapid political transition plan backed by the very Pentagon neoconservatives he disparages throughout his account.

Senor's 2006 column lends support to a point made by Douglas Feith in his book:  The State Department and the Pentagon were in disagreement over the transition policy for Iraq.  State was envisioned an extended occupation while the Pentagon favored a rapid political transition to Iraqi control. 

But wait!  Wasn't Donald Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon?  Weren't those neocons who favored rapid political transition part of his Pentagon team?  Mr. Senor seems to be one revising history, and today he revised some of the history he wrote back in 2006.

The End of Fannie and Freddie?

According to the Wall Street Journal a U.S. Treasury report to congress recommends that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be phased out in the interest of mortgage market reform.

Under the Administration's proposals, Fan and Fred wind down over five to seven years. The two mortgage giants would, in effect, gradually price themselves out of the mortgage finance market by raising guarantee prices and down payment requirements, while lowering the size of the mortgages they could securitize and guarantee. This sounds like a plausible set of first steps to lure private capital back into the mortgage market, where some 92% of all new mortgages are currently underwritten or guaranteed by the government.

The $5 trillion question, however, is what would replace Fan and Fred. And here the Obama Administration has punted, offering the "pros and cons" of three broad proposals without endorsing any one of them.

Under the option favored at the Journal, federal mortgage guarantees would be offered only by the Federal Housing Administration for lower-income home buyers, veterans, and farm programs, and would affect only 10% to 15% of the mortgage market. 

Option three strikes me as the one most likely to be popular at the White House.

But the greatest danger lies behind Door No. 3, which looks like Fannie in a new suit. Under this last option, the Administration envisages a group of tightly regulated, well-capitalized private mortgage insurers whose policies would be backstopped by government reinsurance. The government would charge premiums for this insurance, "which would be used to cover future claims and recoup losses to protect taxpayers." This reintroduces the lethal mix of private profit and public risk by other means.

Option three would also provide more opportunities for corruption and political payoffs.  The Obama has been doling out taxpayer funds to friendly labor unions and favored industries from the moment he came into office.  Look how many of those exemptions from the onerous health care reform regulations went to unions.  The Obama administration seems to think that regulations are for helping friends and punishing enemies.  One can hardly expect it to stop now.

Mubarak Steps Down

Egypt‘s President Hosni Mubarak stepped down after 29 years in power, handing control to the Egyptian military.  Egyptians were overjoyed at the news.

Several hundred thousand protesters massed in Cairo’s central Tahrir Square exploded into joy, cheering and waving Egyptian flags. Fireworks, car horns and celebratory shots in the air were heard around the city of 18 million in joy after Vice President Omar Suleiman made the announcement on national TV just after nightfall.

In a nationally televised speech last week, Mubarak reneged on a promise to relinquish power, offering instead not to run for re-election.  That didn't go over well with opposition protesters.  Hundreds of thousands went back into the streets in cities throughout Egypt marching in protest until finally, the military took over.

It was the biggest day of protests yet in the upheaval that began Jan. 25, growing from youth activists working on the Internet into a mass movement that tapped into widespread discontent with Mubarak‘s authoritarian lock on power, corruption, economic woes and widespread disparities between rich and poor.

“In these grave circumstances that the country is passing through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to leave his position as president of the republic,” a grim-looking Suleiman said. “He has mandated the Armed Forces Supreme Council to run the state. God is our protector and succor.”

The great fear is that Egypt becomes another hostile Islamic state in the image of Iran should Mubarak's departure result in a power vacuum.  However, with the army taking control, we have reason to be hopeful that it won't.  In fact, there's room for optimism that a true functioning democracy will be able to take root.  Egyptian military leaders have demonstrated admirable restraint over the course of the protests, encouraging the hope that the army will continue in the role of guardians as protest shifts to negotiation on the formation of a new government. 

Buttressing this hope is the close relationship between the U.S. military and the Egyptian military.  Since 1981 the Egypt and the U.S. have conducted joint training operations known as Operation Bright Star.  It's quite possible that exposure of Egyptian and U.S. troops to each other over the years may have given them all a better sense of appreciation for freedom.  And it doesn't hurt that the Egyptian military receives an estimated $1.5 billion in aid annually from the United States.

There is a third and perhaps most important reason for optimism.  The protesters aren't going away. 

Abdel-Rahman Samir, one of the youth organizers of the protests, said the protest movement would now open negotiations with the military over democratic reform but vowed protests would continue to ensure change is carried out.

“We still don’t have any guarantees yet — if we end the whole situation now the it’s like we haven’t done anything,” he said. “So we need to keep sitting in Tahrir until we get all our demands.”

It strikes me that the protests have gone on far too long for the army to resort to violent suppression at this point.  Islamic thugs may be waiting in the wings, but the army has been able to keep the peace this long.  There's little to suggest that they can't, or won't, continue.  Egypt may actually turn democratic.  Wouldn't that be huge!

Muscular Liberalism

The phrase "muscular liberalism" came into the news when British Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech last Saturday in Munich on the failure of multiculturalism.  According to Cameron multiculturalism has enabled the rise in Islamic extremism among British-born Muslims, and further, that Islamic extremism breeds terrorism. 

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.  We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.  We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them.  But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them.  The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point.  This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless.  And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology.  Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation.

We're just not accustomed to world leaders speaking in such blunt terms.  At least not since George Bush, and he was roundly vilified for it.  The progressive ideology demands that we all refrain from saying anything that might remotely be construed as defamatory of some minority group -- which was how they construed anything Bush said as soon as he said it. 

So it's a big surprise to hear David Cameron proposes a form of "muscular liberalism" intended to build stronger national identities as a way of countering the failed policies of multiculturalism.  He was speaking, of course, of the British identity.  

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism.  A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone.  It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them.  Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

Of course, whenever anyone talks about a strong national identity here in America, they are immediately branded as a racist, or a tea bagger, or a racist tea bagger.  How dare we suggest that our values are in any way superior to anyone else's?  Why that's jingoism at its worst. 

But the Prime Minister was in Germany, and he was speaking of Europe.  Progressives on this side of the ocean ignored him.  A quick search through some dependably lefty blogs found nary a mention of David Cameron.  Not on TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, Matthew Ygliesias, or Empty Wheel.   I gave it up after that.

Our progressives have a much different view of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, and equal rights from David Cameron's.  Those phrases are popular among our own muscular liberals here in the States, but they don't mean what Cameron meant, and they don't mean what was originally intended when men conceived the idea that has become America.

Freedom of speech was always intended to protect political speech, and to guarantee that ideas are not suppressed -- that they are to stand or fall in the marketplace of ideas according to their own merits.  As we know, progressives don't care much for ideas that compete with their own.  Progressive media engage in a practice of self censorship as a way of hindering the transfer of "inappropriate" ideas.  Our liberal bloggers provide the example.  Campaign finance reform, a progressive favorite, has always been about preventing certain political speech from reaching an audience.   

Freedom of worship has come to mean freedom from worship.  Religion has no place in the progressive scheme of things, except for those moments on the campaign trail when it's advantageous for a progressive politician to appear devout.  For the multiculturalists, freedom of worship means freeing people, especially children, from exposure to Christianity wherever possible.  Prayers have no place in progressive schools, not Christian prayers anyway.  In the interest of full disclosure let me confess that I am not even slightly religious, but I hold no grudge against people who truly are.

Over recent years progressives have demonstrated that they see democracy as a tool for gaining power.  Their support for Card Check shows that they are not in favor of secret ballots for union membership drives.  Secret ballots don't reveal exactly who needs to be pressured into making the right vote.  And then there's the issue of voter fraud.  Over there on the left there is no appetite anything that might reduce voter fraud. Think of ACORN.

Equal rights has come to stand for equality of outcomes.  Most commonly equal rights has come to mean that government has a right to the money you earn so that it may distribute it among those it deems to be disadvantaged or more deserving. 

Our muscular liberals are not at all in sync with David Cameron with regard to muscular liberalism.  Progressives here in America are not about to abandon multiculturalism.  They don't want anybody to be ingrained with a strong national identity, especially a strong American identity that embodies a belief in freedom in its original meaning.  We can expect our muscular liberals to oppose Prime Minister Cameron's brand of muscular liberalism with all of their might.