There is a tremendous difference between the type of dictatorship that Mubarak held over Egypt and the type that Iran has over it's people. Obama's silence on the matter did not help nor hurt the situation, it did absolutely nothing for it. If you read the kind of speeches Mubarak gave you see the man has is a dictator with a mission, to over zealously protect his country from outsiders. Though misguided it may be it's no where near the radical fervor of Sadam Hussein to promote himself and his family and a ruling family over Iraq or the Taliban's religious lunacy over maintaining spiritual and governmental control over Afghanistan. Both countries where also very poor when it came to technology and where never allowed to build their technical infrastructure the way that Mubarak allowed for in Egypt. If Mubarak had been killing people in the streets and proclaiming Jihad against every government leader in the west Obama's quiet and passive approach would have been seen for what it was, impudence. So comparing Obama's "success" of Mubarak stepping down to Bush's "failure" with having to start to wars is a bit disingenuous because you're dealing with two completely different personalities of dictators with different goals in mind. There would have never been the kind of back alley protesting in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to the way, Bush may not have been everyone's favorite president, but he had a much larger threat to deal with then Obama had with Egypt...

Hard to say if Obama (or any other U.S president) had that large a role in all this. In any case I will agree on one thing. This is the time celebrate or (as a certain musical puts it) 'Tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight'.

Great post!

I would also like to point out that Obama's strategy on the super bowl was flawless. We know because the Packers won.

And also, do you see anyone congratulating him on preventing the destruction of the Earth by a comet this week? No. No you don't.

But then life isn't fair and most people don't get understand that when things go the way you'd like, that's proof that your approach to them was not an erratic sleep-walk born of myopia and moral cowardice.

Thanks, Marc.

Somehow Fox News will twist the facts and Glenn Beck will be foaming at the mouth. That guy is in serious need of a Thorazine milkshake.

Didn't Mubarak turn over power to the military? He may have stepped down, and then again, he may still be in the background, but the system remains. I don't think people should be celebrating yet.

So Mubarak is gone. I didn't think it would happen so soon, but it was obvious he was going - after all, he was preparing to quit even before the demonstrations began.

Mubarak was no friend of Israel. He was an important ally, who shared some interests with us, but in some respects he was bad for us. his departure opens up dangers, but also hopes.

So what happens now? Here is my prediction, based on what I see and read.

I believe the Egyptians will eventually (after much haggling and some violence) manage to draft a new constitution, and will have democratic elections. The Muslim Brotherhood will keep a low profile for now, will not run a presidential candidate, will win about 20% of the seats in the Parliament, and sit in the opposition. There will emerge a relatively secular and moderate government, which will obviously have to deal with massive problems.

The peace with Israel will not be annulled, but the relationship will be cold and hostile (not much change there, then), and the discussions will be held on a military level. The Egyptian people don't like Israel, but they will not be happy about going to war with it, so the new government will have an interest to maintain the peace. Same goes for the army, that is dependent on American money.

In Gaza, our situation will change for better and worse. Mubarak played a cynical game, closed the border with Gaza, and lay all responsibility for it on Israel. The new Egyptian government will not be able to do so. They will open up the border (which will take pressure off Israel), and form political and financial ties with Gaza. The Israeli wish of breaking away from Gaza will finally come true.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in the meantime, will be in the opposition, and allow the Egyptian people to get tired of their government. When it suits them, they will use Hamas to provoke Israel, thus creating a wave of anti-Israeli sentiment in the streets, and ride it to gain more popularity. The eventual goal is of course to take over Egypt, and the fundamentalists know that they hold the stronger hand, so they can play it patient.

But we can find answers to that as well. If Egypt develops a stronger connection with Gaza, we can use diplomatic means to get it to restrain Hamas. Israel will have to develop a less aggressive and more diplomatic strategy against Gaza, and that's basically good. We must remember that one of Israel's biggest fears was that if we let Hamas succeed more than the Arab armies did, it will prompt the Egyptian masses to overthrow Mubarak, put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and open war. That is why Israel felt compelled to be over-aggressive against Hamas, to give it absolutely no victories. But if Egypt now has a government that is more acceptable to its people, we don't have to be so anxious about not allowing Hamas any victories.

Like I said, the Muslim Brotherhood holds the stronger hand. The Egyptian people are religious, uneducated (one third of the population is illiterate), economically undeveloped, and have no democratic tradition - not the traits that would enable the rise of a thriving democracy. It is also highly Antisemitic, afraid of Israel and hates the West, other things that the Muslim Brotherhood can exploit. But on the other hand, even the small amount of freedom is a taste that is hard to erase, and if the Egyptian people get to experience it, they can get addicted. When the Brotherhood finally make their grand bid, they might be shocked to find out that they no longer hold the better hand. And if they do manage to take over some years from now, we will be facing an enemy, but we are strong enough to contend, and wait until the Egyptian people rise again, to regain their lost freedom.

The game in the Middle East has changed. It is now an inner struggle in the Muslim world, between the forces of democracy and the forces of fundamentalism. It is already going on in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Egypt, and it will spread further. In the other countries there are still dictators who are holding these two forces down, but they are going to fall as well. Looks like Algeria might be next.

All of this demands of Israel to change its strategy. No longer to try to reach peace deals with Arab dictatorships, but to think in longer terms. Our goal should be strengthening the forces of democracy, and weakening the forces of fundamentalism. In the long run, this is our only chance to have a normal existence.

I think you gloss over the absurdity of backing Suleiman, and exaggerate the extent of US influence, which was marginal. You can read my detailed analysis here http://jnthnwrght.blogspot.com/

The people of Egypt are standing at an historic crossroad. But to hear other people tell it, Egyptians are travelling down the highway to democracy. They’ve been stalled for decades but now their engines are revving and they are all but on their way to western style democracy. First stop: free and fair elections.

To all those who died and sacrificed, it would be a disservice to commence this trip without fully examining the destination and any and all alternatives. Required reading before you embark on this journey is Animal Farm by George Orwell. Moral: If new people are put into any version of the same system, no matter how reformed, you will eventually end up with the same results. The problems may be to a lesser degree, more benign, but you will not have the freedom for which people died.

As an American who dabbled in local politics, consider this my postcard from Destination: Democracy. I don’t wish you were here. Sure, I have a vote; I have a voice, but it is not heard. If you have a voice which you can’t use, are you in a worse position than one who can use their voice, unheard? What is the difference?

"Although Bahrain has a parliamentary system, many Shias feel elections have only served to co-opt them into the political system and did not improve their access to government jobs and services." (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201121251854857192.html - 2-12-11)

So, apparently, no difference. Free elections only encourage those who would, to achieve power, do and say anything, those with no scruples, the lowest of our low. Anyone who says they want to run for a political office should be immediately disqualified from politics. The process of running for office does not appeal to anyone who is, at heart, a good honest person. Isn’t that who we need now, good honest people?

There should never be a political class, a group of people who make their living as politicians. The political class is insulated, protected from the very people whom they are supposed to represent. How then, can politicians represent people?

Is there another way, a different road to take? First, decide what your destination is. For the voices of the people to be heard. For the will of the people to be enacted. To be free; to rule ourselves.

Well, it’s clear that free democratic elections won’t get you there. I suggest the direct route. Fill all political offices by lottery. It works for jury duty. I haven’t heard of that system being corrupt, beyond people trying to get undeserved exemptions. It works for military duty except, again, people trying to get exempted.

The people of Egypt could vote on the framework of the system. Who is included in the pool? How often can people from the same family be eligible for duty? Should eligibility for national positions rotate geographically?

During a term officers should receive a stipend equal to %200 of their salary from the previous year. They should continue to live in their house amongst their neighbors. It should be seen as a simple matter of changing jobs . Then after they have served a term or two they will go back to their old job.

Enough! of political intrigue and manipulation. Enough! of corporate interests before those of the people. Enough! of rule by the rich for the rich. Politicians are a scourge and they do not represent people. We the people should start to begin to represent and rule ourselves. In this age of crowdsourcing we know that we can create, we can collaborate. Yes, WE can. Not ‘we can get him elected to change things’; WE can make change.

If you don’t take this opportunity to now try something new you will regret it. For the highway to democracy is actually a ring road. Eventually you will end up where you started and you will see your grandchildren in Tahrir Square. But, they will go home unsuccessful, unheard. Because, they will live in a democracy and they will have a vote.

Following Egyptian protesters victory, it will be great if they can be asked now to come out in solidarity to support their Libyan counterparts. Gadhaffy has only been good at two things - displaying his false flamboyance and ruthless suppression of his people. He adores his own image as saviour of the Arab world.

It is this image that needs to be attacked by masses of protesters in the Arab world - Egyptian's bearing posters in Tahir Sqare condemning Gadahaffy.
Tarnish his image which he adores. Show solidarity to the Libyan people.

He has hired cut throat paid African mercenaries to ruthlessly attack his own people. Cut off water and electricity supplies to his own people. To maintain his own false power base - he is prepared to let his people die of thirst.

Rise up in Middle East and show solidarity to Libyan protesters.

Whilst the premise that Bush truly wished to spread democracy to the Arab Muslim world might be true, not only is your statement that Obama now has 2 and Bush 0, a bit premature, the premise itself might not only be false, but if true, dangerous. For when is it in America's interests, no its actual reason for existence ever been to establish democracy?

Democracy is not a spiritual movement. It is not a religion. It is not a philosophy. It isn't even a form of art. Franklin said the Union wasn't a Democracy but was a Republic. That Union was established by Native Americans (The real ones, not the ones Trotskeyites decided to start calling Indians in the late 60's). They based that Union under the fundamental laws with which they had established their colonies, and before that their realms in Britain and Ireland, and before that, to their tribal kindgoms on those mighty isles, and before that into the dawn of history, their former homelands across Northern Europe. Those laws, make it clear, Democracy was not what they established.

And if you say that whatever it was called, its still democracy, what makes one think after thousands of years of trying to imperfectly govern themselves, the lineal descendents of these people can successfully bring it to people who never had it? And if they do bring, what are they bringing?

One man, one vote? Well that worked out well for the minorities in South Africa and Rhodesia once we forced "Democracy on those countries". Even where minorities are negligible to non-existent, is one man, one vote something to be worshiped? We brought it to Germany and Russia after World War I. If you think it worked well go ask several million Christians, Jews, Gypsies, and several millions more other civilians and several millions more soldiers who lay dead as a result of the one man, one vote which got Hitler and Stalin elected. So, is this something Obama whats to be remembered by? And if he is, how is Democracy spread, like a religion? Perhaps a pestilance?

Additionally, if somehow, behind closed doors, Obama and his administration as well as other unknown actors have created a religion called Democracy, when does such a religion gain legitimacy by the the use of force, even if it is peaceful. After all, seizing control of a square, surrounding officers of the state, shutting down traffic, taking control of roads, etc, even if done without bloodshed is still done with force. I thought Democracy was about peace? Maybe Community Action? When does Community Action become Community Destruction? Maybe some still living Nazi knows and has pointed it out to Obama?

When was it decided that it was in America's best interest to overthrow Arab dictators? Are we going to stop with Arab dictators? What about Chinese Dictators? There's a Muslim Dictator in Malaysia that could qualify for one man, one vote community action. How about in Pakistan. They have a regime there complete with various Dictators throughout the ages. And lets not forget Africa....Wow, think about all the Iphones, pagers, and computers corporations could sell to Africa for the purposes of using Social Media for community action in one man one vote? Using a form of low grade violence there, how quickly will one Hutu kills seven Tutus? (I actually have an answer for that one).

Besides, with Obama having now used force, even if with low intensity violence, to overthrow two U.S. allies, what gains the U.S.? Did Bush want to overthrow only enemy Arab Dictators? Or was he merely willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. boys and girls for establishing one man, one vote in enemy Arab regimes, but not against allies? How successfull will these non-military uses of violence be and what will hapen with one man one vote? Could it be two new Islamic dictatorships? Do we even expect low grade violence to some how establish a democracy, where no democracy has EVER existed better than using actual bayonets in Iraq? Besides I thought we went into Iraq looking for WMD's, killing some mean Arabs like Saddam, or at least oil? When did it become giving one man, one vote? And by the way, which corporation gets to make the machines for tabulating One man one vote? What about chads?

As to Egypt, what makes us think, that Egypt, with centuries of history of rule by conquest, rape, and pillage, will somewho magically create overnight the laws, rights, courts, and assumptions of legitimacy which makes Democracy a fleeting possibility? Besides, when did we presume that Democracy was the be all end all of society? When History Ended back in the 90's as Fukuyama wrote? Where is he lately anyways?

If in fact, Obama, pushed a button which started revolution in Tunisia, Egypt, now Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, etc. etc. and pushed the button because he and his secret priests devised a new religion called Democracy, with which to spread across the world, how did he know he wasn't pressing a reset button all the way back to 1979 Iran? And when did Congress debate this? Should Congress debate this? Or should any President use whatever means secretly at their disposal to exercise power by overthrowing regimes will-nilly all in the name for Democracy?

Isn't that was called benevolent despotism? How did Democracy become an objective of despotism? Is this reality? Who are you kidding?

In my opinion it is time, that he finally left. I have some good friends in egypt that told me about the situations on the streets and according to them it was really extreme. On of my friends was for example working for a lampen company in egypt and said that there were many riots on the streets and that he actually feared for his live. Now that Mubarak is gone, the situation appears to be more stable and people are returning back to their jobs. Lets see how it works out there.