Month: February 2011

 

by Chris Bodenner

Uri Friedman compiles some snap analysis of the president's forthcoming speech (which Al Jazeera says will be delivered live and "shortly" – watch it here):

Mubarak May Have Lost Military Support, suggests Dan Murphy at The Christian Science Monitor. Murphy believes the military doesn't want to risk further violence and harm to its reputation. He notes that the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces met today but Mubarak didn't chair the meeting as he usually does and "didn't get the kind of four-square backing from the military he's relied on during his almost 30 years in power."

Army Is Offering Mubarak As a 'Fig Leaf', claims Middle East analyst Julien Barnes-Dacey, as quoted by Reuters. He says the army elite is trying to preserve the regime and they figure that if Mubarak abdicates power, the protests may ebb, clearing "the way for the army to take a tougher line saying it is in the interests of stability."

Max Boot sounds off:

A change at the top may not change much on the ground unless the regime makes a real commitment to lifting the “emergency laws” that have been used to repress all dissent. It is probably a good thing that the army is moving to make an orderly transition, but the U.S. has to make sure that the transition is to democracy, not to another dictator. If Suleiman now tries to rule as Mubarak did, there will surely be a continuation of popular protest that will create an opening for the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists.

by Conor Friedersdorf

It should be remembered that one reason editors like Rich Lowry don't confront talk radio hosts in the way that I'd like is that they're in a tremendously difficult spot, trying to balance the demands of putting out a magazine with intellectual integrity against an audience that doesn't want their icons questioned. Let's look at some of the comments from the post where Lowry briefly noted that Bill Kristol has a point about Glenn Beck:

– SO GLAD I never renewed my subscriptions to either Weekly Standard OR National Review!! (Circulation depts – look my name up, I had them) Both Kristel and Lowry make claims about Glenn Beck which are not backed up by any facts. Kristel – Lowry – please look at the words of the Islamists and tell us they don't want to dominate world politics and geography. Better yet, spend at least six months in Saudi Arabia as we in the U.S. military did during Desert Storm, and maybe gain a different perspective on the goals of Islam.

– There is no way I can express my disappointment in Lowry!! I had hoped that he has some integrity and would look for truth or at least some substantiation before joining an attack on someone. I do not think Beck would have ever been so small as to attack Lowry and he only mentioned him on his show after Lowry's unfair and uneducated attack on Beck. I am ashamed of any conservative and can never respect one who speaks or writes before learning the facts. Shame on you Rich Lowry! You sould bone up and apologize to Beck!!

– Really Rich? "a well-deserved shot at Glenn Beck’s latest wild theorizing"?
Have you actually watched any of the programs Beck has done on Egypt? Maybe it's because I held exactly the same views, based on my own information and beliefs, before watching Beck echo them, but I do not believe that Kristol's cozy foreign-policy-establishment critique of Beck is in any way "well-deserved" or based on anything more than the same naive view of real-politic that has, in the past, for one example, resulted in the fall of the Iran. What is "wild theorizing" about what Beck has said?

– I think that Kristol, Barnes, Lowry and others should do more investigative journalizing instead of antagonizing those who are on the same side. What's with that anyway? The Democrats don't do it to one another, but some of the "conservatives" seem to take pleasure in the "eat your own" items on the menus. Or maybe, they are not as principled as they pretend to be and just want to sell their weekly readers. These people I call "moderates" which means what's good for me is okay even if it's bad for others and the Country as a whole. No principles, just wanting to fill their wallets. Think "cash for clunkers." Terrible idea for the Country, but how many citizens took advantage of the bribe from Obama and the democrat vote buyers?

Attack Glenn Beck, maybe sell more Weekly Standards? Why don't you attack the policies of this administration? That's what Reagan would advise you to do. Bill Kristol, "tear down this wall" you neo-cons have built for yourselves! Listen to others who are a little more distant from the trees!

That last one sounds familiar. Welcome to the club, Rich and Bill. We are all Conor Friedersdorf now! Another commenter, CK MacLeod, notes:

Last year, NR and TWS thought they could get by with just a little bit of Islamophobic panic-mongering – and so legitimized it. You now have a conservative rank and file that you'll need years to de-program, a public image you'll need a generation to re-create, and a movement always on the verge of tearing itself apart between the embarrassing and the embarrassed. The comments here are typical of the best thing the left has going for it heading into 2012 and beyond. Good job!

Call it the Andy McCarthy effect. Once you give conservatism's premier platform to a man who argues that President Obama is allied with our radical Islamist enemy in a Grand Jihad against America, it tends to undermine your ability to cultivate a reality-based audience that won't turn on you at the first sign of criticizing Glenn Beck. Obviously, the comments section on one post is not a fair representation of the NRO readership. But it is a useful look at the perils of going along with conspiratorial nonsense – and an indication that to his credit, Lowry risked more than one might expect by posting that item, sad as that is. (Does Jonah Goldberg still think Beck is a harmless "libertarian populist"?)

Incidentally, Glenn Beck's ratings are way down, so despite the commenter uprising in that NRO post, it seems to me that the Lowry/Kristol/Friedersdorf/Continetti position on Beck is increasingly common among rank-and-file conservatives.

by Patrick Appel

Now, Iraq:

(Hat tip: Joel Wing)

by Zoe Pollock

Liz Dwyer summarizes a new Brookings report:

Back in 1964, American 13-year-olds took the First International Math Study and ended up ranking in 11th place. Considering that only 12 nations participated, including Australia, Finland, and Japan, our next-to-last performance was pretty abysmal. Other international tests American students have taken over the years have also never showed that we were in the top spot. It's a myth that we've fallen from our glory days.

But there's a bright side:

Between the 2006 and 2009 PISA tests, our scores "increased 5 points in reading, 13 points in math, and 13 points in science." [Author of the report Tom] Loveless says in his report that this improvement was strangely ignored by the media, politicians, and the education reform chattering class, but it's a notable increase because, according to a researcher from Stanford University, Eric Hanushek,

"an increase of 25 points on PISA over the next 20 years would boost United States GDP by $41 trillion. If the gains from 2006 to 2009 are duplicated when the PISA is next given in 2012, the goal of making 25-point gains in math and science will be met far ahead of schedule."

by Patrick Appel

Reacting to reports of arrest and torture by the Egyptian army, Issandr El Amrani takes a closer look at the uneasy relationship between the protesters and military:

Word of this is going to spread and will begin to counter the dominant narrative in Egyptian media about the people and the army being one. The longer this crisis persists, the more difficult for the army to continue either playing a double game or sitting on the fence. With Omar Suleiman's threats of coups and the protests spreading to work stoppages across the country, decision time will be coming for the protestors to make up their minds about the army (or launch a more pronounced campaign to persuade commanders), for the army's leadership to decide how it will proceed in a context where it is losing control, and for rank-and-file in the military to decide where they stand in all this.

(Photo: An Egyptian army soldier watches as doctors, medical workers and students march through Cairo to join anti-government protests in Tahrir Square on February 10, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. Thousands of workers from different unions across Egypt, including many medical workers, have gone on strike, adding pressure on the government in the face of more than two weeks of protests calling for the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. By John Moore/Getty Images)

by Conor Friedersdorf

Here's David Horowitz:

Bill Kristol is entitled to his optimism about democratic revolutions in the Islamic world. Perhaps the elections in Egypt will turn out better than those in Gaza where Hamas now rules a terrorist state; Iraq, which has instituted an Islamic Republic; Lebanon, where Hezbollah now rules a terrorist state; and Afghanistan, which is a kleptocracy wooing the terrorist theocracy in Iran. What he should not be doing as a conservative leader is demonizing Glenn Beck, who has done more to educate Americans about the unholy alliance between the secular left and the Islamic jihadists than anyone else. Kristol needs to  apologize to Beck for comparing him — outrageously — to the conspiracist Robert Welch, and should be embarrassed by his own ignorance of the agendas of both American radicals and their jihadist allies. At this point in time, such ignorance is not only inexcusable but dangerous.

Surely he's smarter than this. The problem with Glenn Beck's take on Egypt isn't that he is skeptical of the people's uprising. Plenty of perfectly sane pundits have made arguments to that effect. What's objectionable is the batshit insanity of Beck's specific narrative, complete with flames spreading via cartographic proximity and the whole Mediterranean Sea on fire. Amusingly, Horowitz goes on to recommend a book that he regards as a vindication of the Beck/Horowitz view: Andy McCarthy's "The Grand Jihad."

One more thing: here Horowitz is calling Iraq an Islamic Republic. But if you follow his link about how Beck "has done more to educate Americans" than anyone else – is there, by the way, any more ludicrous claim in the history of punditry? – you're taken to another Horowitz post, where he writes:

Those of you who have been watching Glenn Beck, and particularly those who watched last night’s show will see that he is bringing before an audience of millions the message we have been sending from these sites for nearly a decade — that the global Islamic jihad against the West has formed a working alliance with the secular socialist left both at home and abroad. This “unholy alliance” as we called it was first clearly visible in the anti-American demonstrations opposing the Iraq War. These were mislabled “anti-war” demonstrations by the general media.

Got that? The Iraq War led to what Horowitz regards as an Islamic Republic in Iraq… and the secular liberals who opposed the Iraq War were doing so as part of an alliance with a global Islamic jihad against the west. (By the way, to all those who months ago were saying, "Look at how many Hayek books Glenn Beck is selling – how bad could he be?" Now you have your answer.)

by Patrick Appel

Andrew Exum ponders Egypt's immediate future:

If the rumors are true, and if Hosni Mubarak steps down today, the most interesting "Friedman Unit" will be the six months starting now. We will see what kind of order replaces — or doesn't replace — the current regime, and we will see how the disorganized opposition groups fracture and fight among themselves about the way forward. The true meaning of this uprising will be found not in what happens today or what has taken place in Tahrir Square over the past three weeks but in the weeks and months ahead.

(Photo: Anti-government protesters stamp on a poster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as they pose for a photo, outside the Egyptian Parliament in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011. By Tara Todras-Whitehill/AP)

by Patrick Appel

Anna Larson and Oliver Lough's research team interviewed Afghans about their attitudes towards freedom:

A central theme that emerged from the responses was that many Afghans have negative associations attached to the word "democracy" itself. In the view of many Afghans we spoke to, the idea of democracy extends far beyond elections and parliamentary politics to encompass an entire package of Western liberal values, where freedom is equated with an absence of rules, immorality, and secularism. As one interviewee put it: "some people think that democracy is unlimited freedom, or doing anything you want to do, or wearing any type of clothing." Or another: "for the youth in the cities, the word ‘democracy' just means having a good life and watching TV."

This is not to say that these Afghans have a problem with representative government-they'd just prefer to do it on their own terms. Even as people expressed deep concern over the encroachment of western-style "freedom" on Afghanistan's moral and social landscape, they expressed strong support for the kind of "freedom" that allows them to elect their rulers and hold them to account.  Many of our interviewees sought to reconcile this tension by arguing for a democracy placed within an "Islamic framework"-one that protects their strongly-held values and ideals from erosion. While the boundaries of this framework fell in different places for different people, it emerged repeatedly as a reference point for judging the successes or failures of Afghanistan's democratization process as a whole.  

by Patrick Appel

Al Jazeera summarizes the mixed reports:

Hassam Badrawi, the secretary general of the ruling National Democratic Party, told the BBC and Channel 4 News on that he expected Mubarak to hand over his powers to Omar Suleiman, the vice-president.

Ahmed Shafiq, the country's prime minister, also told the BBC that the president may step down on Thursday evening, and that the situation would be "clarified soon". He told the Reuters news agency, however, that Mubarak remained in control, and that "everything is still in the hands of the president".

Reuters also quoted Leon Panetta, the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, as saying there was a "strong likelihood" that Mubarak would resign on Thursday night.

However, Anas el-Fekky, Egypt's information minister, denied all reports of Mubarak resigning.

by Zoe Pollock

Erica Grieder compares popular bears in English and American culture:

A. A. Milne's creation is perhaps the world's most well-loved bear. Sadly, however, Pooh struggles to love himself. I blame Christopher Robin for this. The boy is occasionally kind to the bear; when Pooh gets stuck a tunnel, Christopher Robin reads him a comforting book until Pooh loses enough weight that he can be pulled out. More often, however, Christopher Robin undermines Pooh in a way that is nearly abusive.

Alex Balk seems to be taunting Andrew:

"American bears are, for the most part, more assertive and autonomous than English bears." She's talking about bears in popular culture, but this comparison between our bears and those of our former colonial overlords will be of interest to anyone who has an obsession with bears, books and Britain. Surely I'm not the only one.