George F. Will: Egyptians will decide how the crisis ends; America has very little leverage

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 11, 2011 3:16 p.m.

    I'm really glad we're done with this thread. There's no point in writing if you're not going to read what I said. But I'll give it one last shot just the same because I love talking to walls.

    I'm not afraid of an election! Bring it on! And I KNOW that Mubarak isn't running! I DON'T CARE who wins! Why? Because it doesn't matter! The military will make sure their guy "wins," just like they always have. And you bet, they consult with us (U.S.) to make sure we're ok with it. They are deeply dependent on the U.S. for military hardware and food, among other things. They don't dare cross us.

    You honestly think that Iraq is a model of democracy in the area? I give up. It's hopeless. I'm done.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 11, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    Earl | 11:21 a.m.

    How is the US determining who replaces Mubarak????

    Have you seen ANY indication that the US is picking his replacement?

    Obama HIMSELF said we are not going to influence the election and just want to make sure EVERYBODY is heard (all 80 Million Egyptians... not just the 100K radicals protesting in the square).

    You are right that it's going to be hard to have an honest election there. But if they can do it in war torn Iraq... they can certainly do it in Egypt.

    You may not LIKE the outcome of the election... but that does not automatically mean it was rigged.

    FYI... There are some people in Egypt who think Mubarak and his hard line was all that was keeping Islamic Fundamentalists and Socialist Labor Union Bosses from taking over. And they didn't want that... so they supported Mubarak.

    The same rational people in Iraq gave for supporting Saddam Hussain even thought they knew he was a bad guy... he was keeping Islamic Fundamentalist from taking power.

    Mubarak is not an option! He's NOT EVEN RUNNING!!! What are you so afraid will happen IF Egypt votes???

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 11, 2011 11:21 a.m.

    Fine. Have an election. But the outcome is predetermined. Give the people of Egypt and the rest of the world the appearance of democracy just to placate them. But it's just more of the same.

    Again, this is not my concern. What is my concern, and I'll say it again, is that the U.S. stay out of making that determination of who replaces Mubarak. The whole thing that brought this concern on was last Sunday's op ed by Charles Krauthammer. He encouraged the U.S. to "work behind the scenes" to ensure a smooth transition to a U.S.-friendly regime. That has to stop.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 11, 2011 9:30 a.m.


    No... You said, "Why would waiting for an election be any kind of solution".

    If you don't hold an election... and let the minority_in_the_MOB decide... Isn't that letting the MOB rule?


    I agree Egypt will not become a real_democracy from this. But an election instead of a coup would be a step_in_the_right_direction, right?

    I'm by no means a Mubarak_supporter. I agree he must go... but he HAS already resigned! Google "Mubarak resigns". There are DOZENS of articles about it.

    He already resigned, and is just trying to keep social_order until the election can be held! What's so bad about that???

    Here's a quote from one of the articles if you missed it... "Update at 11:08 a.m. ET: Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators erupted in jubilation in Tahrir Square as vice president Omar Suleiman announces that President Mubarak has resigned and called on the army to "run the affairs of the country." (USA TODAY, by Douglas Stanglin)

    He told the people he would resign, but not leave the government to mob rule, in the FIRST DAYS of the protests!

    Why the problem with waiting for an election???

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 5:36 p.m.

    Ok, let's slow down a bit. I don't think I said or implied that it was a choice of mob rule or democracy. I'm saying that democracy just ain't gonna happen in Egypt. The military has been in charge for decades there. Mubarak is a military guy, and so is most of his administration.

    Mubarak has been kept in place these many years with strong U.S. support. He has been compliant with our request to accept "enemy combatants" via "extraordinary rendition" for "enhanced interrogations" (overload of euphamisms here).

    The military is not about to relinquish their hold to any mere democracy. But they get the message that Mubarak has outlived his usefulness. They'll need to find someone who will seduce those who are tired of life there as they've known it into believing they will address the real concerns of incredible poverty (40% of the nation lives on less than $2 per day) and police-state conditions.

    My main point, though, is that the U.S. needs to keep its distance rather than "ensuring" democratic elections or putting another flunky in Mubarak's place. Our fingerprints will only incriminate us in their minds.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 1:02 p.m.


    Why waiting for an electdion instead of letting the mobs decide...

    #1. Because the bad_guy's cabinet and parliament will already have been dissolved... so they can't influence the election.

    #2. Because the bad_guy isn't even in the running.

    #3. Because there will be much better light shed on the election this time (with the international attention Egypt is now getting).

    #4. Because it's completely possible the elections have not been as rigged as the disgruntled Muslim_supremacists and labor_union_leaders say they have been (Hint... there will ALWAYS be a group that CLAIMS the election was rigged.. ask any Democrat in 2001).

    Questions for you...
    -Name a time when letting the MOB decide turned out to be a "GOOD" thing.

    -Name a time when the MILITARY taking over turned out well (for the people).

    I still think disbanding the CURRENT government (as they have) and waiting for an ELECTION as soon as it can possibly be organized (where all of Egyptians get a voice... not just the Mob)... is the best course.

    Patience and a LEGAL election process IS needed. Not capitulating to the rioters and letting the radicals decide the nation's fate.

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    Why would waiting for an election be any kind of solution? The last one was totally rigged. In fact, don't "fair" elections seem to be the exception and not the rule in the Greater Middle East? It's power that will win out, and it looks like the military is stepping in to do just that as I write. The cultures in so many of the nations there can't successfully support democratic governments, so the best they can hope for is a benevolent dictator. Let's just hope the U.S. doesn't get involved in the selection process this time.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 10, 2011 10:30 a.m.

    I can only HOPE Egyptians will decide how the crisis ends.

    It is looking more and more like the Muslim Brotherhood and the International Socialist movement (the people organizing the protests) think THEY will be deciding on their own.

    People in Egypt are pointing out that the Muslim_Brotherhood only makes up about 20% or their population, just like Marxists only account for less than 20% of the population. But it's looking more and more like they aren't interested in waiting for an election where ALL Egyptians can voice their will... they just want the change THEY (The 20%_protesting) want... and they want it THEIR way... And the want it NOW.... NO WAITING FOR AN ELECTION.

    I watch the news as I'm getting ready for work each day and one morning it struck me as they reported "Up to 100,000 protesters are expected in the square today". Another day they reported "250K protesters". But... there are 80_MILLION_Egyptians!

    Are the 80_Million_Egyptians going to let the 100/200K protesters decide the outcome of the crisis THEY caused???

    I hope not. I HOPE they wait for the promised election... Not let a violent extrajudicial coup decide.