And because under the Shah, with explicit US help, anyone to the left of the Islamic fundamentalists were ruthlessly exterminated. By eliminating democratic elements, the Shah and the US set the stage for the fundamentalist revival.

Egypt is in slightly better situation; though Mubarak outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, it had more legitimacy and was always composed of both non-fundamentalists as well as fundamentalists.

Well, landmark, that statement is completely false. The Shah did not eliminate his opposition, in fact they were still around when Dhimmi Carter gave them the green light to topple his regime. It was Khomeini and his gang (whom the New Duranty Times and the rest of the American liberal intelligentsia claimed were moderates who were going to create a truly humane regime) who did that. The American left is indulging in the same sort of fantasies about the Ikhwan, because to leftists, anybody who wants to destroy their own country and their own culture must be, at heart, a good guy. Lefties imagine that everyone else who is opposed to capitalism and opposed to the United States must be motivated by the same sort of thoughts and feelings that motivate them. But they aren't. And eventually the lefties will sip their lattes and read about it in the pages of the New Duranty Times, and move on to their next fantasy. But the people of Egypt will pay a heavy price - as the Iranians have paid a heavy price.

To return, however, to the topic - for the Libyans, almost anything would be better than daffy Qadhdhafi.

Woland

I know this will hurt a lot of feelings but there are some countries where clearly a strong hand was needed to keep people from behaving like barbarians in the year 938 AD. There are millions of people out there just chomping at the bit to murder millions of other people because they followed a different mullah four hundred years ago or because their tribe considered themselves better than another tribe. In the countries in question even after these turn overs of control the group with the most ability to dominate everyone else will take over. It is hard to have a democracy in a place where the losing side is always pondering how to kill off the winning side.

All things considered, I think it works pretty well in the USA.

I heard Conor Cruise O'Brien make the case that the Achilles heel of democracy is that it relies on a series of short-term popularity contests, with large disincentives for long-term planning. As he noted, the West has been very fortunate for 200 years with almost all of the elected governments playing nicely. It's sobering. But what alternative is there?

John

Worst form of government except for all the others?

Actually, I think the Italians had the right idea for many years. Don't allow a government to remain in power for more than a year or so, and that limits the damage they can do . . . .

W.

A day is a long time in politics.

"An immediate consequence of the coup d'état was the repression of all political dissent, specially the liberal and nationalist opposition umbrella group National Front as well as the (Communist) Tudeh party, and concentration of political power in the Shah and his courtiers.[102] . . .

As part of the post-coup d'état political repression between 1953–1958, the Shah outlawed the National Front, and arrested most of its leaders.[105] The Tudeh, however, bore the main brunt of the repression.[106] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

I reallllly don't think communist have any highground when it comes to complaining about oppression, murder, or anything else of that nature.

Well, landmark, there's no doubt that the Shah had a heavy hand. But the actions of the Shah, as harsh as they might have seemed to the students who used to have a protest table demanding action on the Washington mall, were nothing compared to the cruelties of the Khomeini regime. Just as the Tsar's repressions were child's play compared to the crimes of the Bolsheviks.

Oh, and those same students were back a year after the fall of the Shah, with an almost identical table, protesting Khomeini and demanding action against him.

Woland

I was responding to your statement that the Shah did not eliminate his leftist opposition. He did for the most part. And that was important because it left the field wide open for the fundamentalists to become the major opposition to the Shah. So in a sense, the anti-leftism of the Shah and the US were directly responsible for the Khomeni regime. I am assuming that the Egyptian Army and the US will not repeat the same mistake, but we'll see.

I wonder why Gadhafi didn't promote himself to general when he took power.

Just wondering....they are banning travel to Libya to teach 'em a lesson. How many of you had Libya on your vacation list and more importantly how many added it to your bucket list since the riots started?

Well, landmark, the Egyptian military high command took control of Egypt in 1952, when they exiled King Farouk. The military have ruled Egypt ever since, first through the figurehead General Naguib, then through the megalomaniac dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser, then through the military dictatorships of Anwar Al Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Nothing in Egypt has changed. There has been no revolution. The military high command is still in charge of the country. Tahrir Square has been cleared. There is no constitution. There is no parliament. There will be elections . . . that will be as open and honest as the elections that have been held since 1952. The only danger to the military is that the apparent upheaval will create a breathing-space in which the Ikhwan can grow powerful enough to prevent themselves from being crushed, again, and this time come to dominate the country. Right now, doesn't look like that will happen, but time will tell.

As for your arguments about the Shah, I am reminded of Robespierre's defense against the Montagne when he was accused of using the Terror to eliminate his opposition; had he done that, how could they be opposing him now?

(And yes, the first use of the term "the Terror" to describe a political institution was during the French Revolution.)

Woland

Perhaps because the title President comes with the title of commander-inichief of all armed forces ?

How can you not love this Woland fellow?

Thanks, MagicSanta . . . by the way, that question about Colonel Qadhdhafi is interesting. There have been many coups staged by Colonels, one by a Master Sergeant . . . most of them retain their rank . . . something about young men with a mission . . . or something.

W.

More jealous, like Iago?

Good analogy. I think it has something to do with the fact that 1) in most of these countries there are probably a lot more colonels than there are generals, and 2) the generals are probably OK with the way things are, that's why they were picked to be generals. The colonels are likely to have the moxie and enough direct contact with the troops to pull it off.

W.