Soccer Dad

Insta-pudding on Egypt, liberal hawks and the Eastern Province

via Glenn Reynolds.com MediaShift reports

One female blogger (pictured here), who is a friend of Alaa’s and blogs anonymously at Freedom for Egyptians , told me the reforms of the past year would be hard to turn back.

“On the ground in Egypt, change is on the march,” she told me. “An Egyptian told me a very nice expression when I was there last April: ‘The train of change has left the platform and there is no way that it will go back to where it was.’ There is a strong momentum for change that will happen eventually. There is a point when suffering reaches its highest point, when fear becomes no issue. I do expect lots of violence from the government because it has no will or wish for taking Egypt towards the path of democracy and freedom. It wants to maintain the status quo which means resisting the will of the Egyptian people by all means.”

What's interesting is that Jay Nordlinger expressed similar sentiments after meeting the Egyptian Prime Minister at a World Economic Forum meeting

And, it is true, the way he acts. Nazif is both the symbol and the driver of Egypt’s reform. Acknowledged as a major brain, he holds a Ph.D. in “computer vision” from McGill. He’s big on artificial intelligence—that sort of thing. And he is presiding over what everyone sees as Egypt’s economic opening: Tariffs, taxes, regulations, and other barriers are falling. Foreign investment is pouring in, and the economy is growing at 6 percent.

Nazif boasts of all this, and you can’t blame him. As we say in America—was it Casey, Yogi, or someone else?—“It’s not bragging if it’s true.”

The prime minister meets with some journalists over breakfast. He says that there is “no turning back” for Egypt—politically, economically, or socially. Reform has begun, and, though it will take time, it is unstoppable. “Some people are scared,” says Nazif. “I’m not.” And “we have time—we’re not in a hurry.” Egypt is an old and important country, and it will not be transformed over night; but it will be; and transformation is visible even now.

Nazif talks at length about last year’s presidential election, pronouncing it a success. It was a clean, First World operation, he says. And Egypt had never experienced anything like that before.

Yet the democrat Ayman Nour is in jail.

Both seem to be saying that despite the problems there is some real movement (both at the grass roots level and at the government level) toward more openness. I remain skeptical; just noting the similarities in these views.

Instapundit also has an item on hawkish Democrats (or is it liberal hawks?)

I don't think that there are enough liberal hawks left in the Democratic Party -- which is currently trying to purge Joe Lieberman -- to matter, but I'd love to be wrong.

Jackson Diehl thinks otherwise

Though you'd never know it from surfing the Internet, there exists in the Democratic Party a substantial body of politicians and policymakers who believe the U.S. mission in Iraq must be sustained until it succeeds; who want to intensify American attempts to spread democracy in the greater Middle East; and who think that the Army needs to be expanded to fight a long war against Islamic extremism.

I'm with Instapundit on this. Diehl may be able to rustle up liberal hawks, but they are mostly policy people not politicians. And it would be hard to imagine even those more moderate Democrats mentioned by Diehl associating with the likes of Kenneth Pollack before he wins the nomination.

Like a number of other bloggers, Instapundit linked to a Washington Post story about Saudi textbooks and concludes

The Saudis are not our friends. They are, in fact, at the root of global Islamist intolerance and violence to a degree at least as great as that of Iran. They must change peacefully, or be changed.

How might that change be effected, if it came to that? A few years ago, Max Singer suggested Free the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia

It is well within the power of the U.S. to make it possible for the EP [Eastern Province s.d.] to become independent from the Wahhabis, a new Muslim Republic of East Arabia. Especially if the independence of the people of the EP were gained in part by a promise to give half of the oil revenue to non-political Muslim charities throughout the world, instead of to the al Saud family, there would be no objection among Muslims around the world to ending the al Saud family’s obscene wealth and to relieve themselves of the Wahhabi preaching to their children that all other Muslims are infidels. The U.S. would neither seek nor gain control of oil policy or any oil profits. Its help to Muslims in the EP, like its help to Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, would be a result of U.S. resistance to oppression and pursuit of a safer world.

(Read the whole thing, of course.)

Other editions of Insta-pudding in Soccer Dad.

Technorati tags: Instapundit, Egypt, liberal hawks, Saudi Arabia.

Posted by SoccerDad at May 24, 2006 5:19 PM