December 24, 2016--Merry Christmas At the White House

It is Christmas Eve day and I am sure you are feeling cozy that our nation's First Love Birds are huddled together roasting chestnuts on the White House Yule Log's open fire.

This in spite of the fact that our president painted himself into a political corner only to get rolled by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who once called Trump a "god" but late last week referred to him as a "gutless douchebag." This because he was willing to trade away his Wall to the Dems so they could strike a budget deal and everyone could slip out of town.

So sure was Trump that things would work out that his wife and a few of his sons hopped on the First Lady's plane (why, by the way, do First Ladies have their own taxpayer-paid-for plane?) and lit out for 16 days (16!) of baking in the sun at their gaudy Palm Beach chateau, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump had to stay behind for politically cosmetic reasons--he couldn't be seen in shorts teeing off at one of his golf courses while nearly a million federal workers would not be getting paychecks.

Rush and Ann, these two Grinches spoiled his Christmas. Poor thing. 

So much so that Trump unleashed a series of tweets that suggested he was becoming even more unhinged. Saturday night, for example, he referred to himself as "the most popular hero in America" for withdrawing all our troops from Syria and "your favorite president." He does need to check the most recent polls.

But a funny thing happened on the way to that deal--after Limbaugh and Coulter slammed him for being weak, calling his manhood into question, he had no recourse but to pull the plug on the budget deal and cancel his golfing getaway.

Then, most interesting, a day after arriving, Melania had them gas up her plane and she flew back to Washington so she could spend Christmas with her beleaguered husband.

Unusual loving behavior for a couple where the wife won't hold hands with her husband in public and for a husband and wife who famously do not exchange Christmas gifts, unless Melania's renegotiating their prenup when Trump was exposed, in a manner of speaking, for having affairs with a porn star and a Playboy Playmate might be considered a gift that keeps on giving.

I suspect that daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared were so shaken by Trump's railing after Defense secretary Mattis summarily quit, refusing to endorse Trump's precipitous and dangerous decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Syria and effectively turn the country over to Putin, Iran, Hezbollah, and ISIS that they were so shaken that he was about to completely lose it if he couldn't make a deal to fund his Wall and shut down the encroaching Mueller investigation, that the children thought the situation was approaching 25th Amendment territory and that Melania better get back in DC and try to calm him down.


And so there they are, Donald and Melania snug in the White House which is full of Melania's blood red Christmas trees. 

Perhaps, to get away from reruns of White Christmas Trump can practice his putting on the White House green. The weather is forecast to cooperate.

April 13, 2017--Bromance Kaput

The New York Times lead story on Wednesday said it all--"Trump's Sudden Shift on Russia Leaves Heads Spinning."

It referred to the White House's accusation Tuesday that Russia is engaged in a cover-up of the Syrian government's deployment of Sarin gas on its civilian population. This accusation was based on an alleged declassified National Security Council report on the attack which also included a rebuttal of Moscow's assertion that insurgents were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Trump's people claimed that the Syrians and Russians released "false narratives" to mislead the world community about their own complicitous involvement.

What happened to all the flattering references to Vladimir Putin? What happened to the possibility of a new partnership if Donald Trump were elected? Why does it feel as if the Cold War has been resumed? What are all the accusations and saber rattling about?

As in the past I am looking for the simplest explanation that answers the most seemingly-puzzling questions.

Mainly, what's in it for Putin to allow or encourage its Syrian ally to use poison gas and why is Trump so suddenly accusing Putin of being an international war criminal? What happened to the bromance?

To answer these questions requires us to explore each of their likely motives.

For Trump it is to try once more to deflect and overwhelm the on-going investigations about Russia's hacking the 2016 presidential election to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign in an attempt to help Trump emerge victorious.

Trump's pinprick bombing of a Syrian airfield, his movements on the world stage, especially the recent meeting with the Chinese president Xi and Secretary of State Tillerson's Moscow visit did in fact for a day or two deflect attention from the Trump campaign team's possible collaboration with the Russian hackers.

But Xi is back in China and the focus has shifted again to what did or did not happen during the campaign. Ominous for Trump is the new story that one of his senior foreign policy advisors, Carter Page, with FISA authorization, is being investigated by the F.B.I. to see if he was or is a covert Russian operative. With former NSC director Michael Flynn seeking immunity, the Page investigation is a potential bombshell and it is thus understandable that Trump would want to change the subject. The best way at the moment to change it is to demonologize Putin.

Putin has a much more complex agenda. He is seeking nothing less than the destabilization of the Western world and the resulting return of Russia to its prior Soviet glory. This process is greatly assisted by direct Russian interference in democratic elections from France to Germany to of course the United States.

This process of Sovietization is also facilitated by helping to bring about chaos in Western societies. So it should be no surprise that Putin's Russia would ally itself directly and indirectly with murderous dictators such as Bashar al-Assad, rogue states such as Iran, and terrorist groups including Hezbollah.

Trump wants to survive; Putin wants to dominate. Their tangled relationship serves both of their purposes--Putin having the goods on Trump effectively neutralizes him and Trump as intentional disruptor thrives in a roiled world.

Here, though, is what to worry about--

We do not want to see either of them become desperate. In addition to historical forces we are talking about two very fragile people. Individuals with fragile egos can be particularly dangerous if they have powerful tools or wield catastrophic weapon systems. Obviously, both Putin and Trump do.

Which brings me again to North Korea--

If Trump's survival strategy, his desperate and increasing need to deflect the search for the truth about his possible involvement with the hackers, if that strategy includes looking for opportunities to have the tail wag the dog, the most  fearsome example of that is not more targeted raids on Syria but a nuclear encounter with North Korea. If that were to occur, and I fear we may be headed in that direction, who any longer would be asking what Paul Manafort knew-and-when-did-he-know-it or on which Russia payroll Michael Flynn or Carter Page are to be found.

We would have our eyes on other matters. Mushroom clouds, for example.

April 6, 2015--The Iran Deal

I just heard this on Face the Nation.

Without blinking Senator Lindsay Graham said that the deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program is not acceptable because it was negotiated by Barack Obama. He didn't cite one specific disagreement with the outline of the agreement (he didn't appear to have read it), rather he said that if Obama had anything to do with it by definition it is flawed and that we should not do anything regarding Iran until we have a new president. He mentioned that Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates except Rand Paul could do a better job.

Not do anything, I assume, means that before president-elect Cruz is inaugurated it would be OK if Obama decided we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. That is, if Graham's favorite chief executive, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now running the Republican Party, offers his approval. And of course his bromantic pal John McCain gets out his bomb, bomb, bomb Iran dancing shoes.

Netanyahu, also, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to attack the agreement, revealing that he as well hasn't read it since everything specific he mentioned was either not true or, in true demagogue fashion, totally made up by Bibi.

Republicans led by Graham are foaming at the mouth that Obama may very well have pulled off something historic. First the historic Obamacare, then a substantially restored economy, and now this. Something no one thought possible. What if half-African Barack Hussein Obama were to go down in history as a near-great president. Not just the first President of color. What will Lindsay and all the over-50-year old white boys think about that? Nothing good.

We used to be closely allied with Iran. It was one of Jackie Kennedy's favorite places to visit and all Republicans until Ronald Reagan couldn't say enough nice things about the Shah and his dictatorial leadership--just what was needed to keep those Wahhabi extremists in line. And recall, Reagan almost got himself impeached when his administration got caught playing footsie with the Ayatollahs in order to get arms sent illegally to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Whatever one thinks of the Shah and the current leadership, Iran is a real country (not created by colonial powers after the Second World War) with a proud history as Persia. Persia which back in the day dominated much of what we now refer to as the Middle East or the Islamic world. And, not so between the lines in the agreement just negotiated are allusions to that remarkable history and the unexpressed hope that if Iran behaves itself in regard to ratcheting back its nuclear program, and thereby is once again welcomed back into the community of nations, maybe, just maybe they will begin to step back from funding al Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah.

Hidden in the details of the proposed agreement between Iran and the group of nations that negotiated it is a note about what is to become of the centrifuges in Fordo, Iran's most secret, best protected nuclear fuel concentration facility. Most of the centrifuges will be deactivated (and inspected regularly to avoid cheating) but some 1,000 will continue to spin.

Here's what's revealing--though they will remain on line they will not contain any fissile material. They will continue to spin and spin impotently but, for the sake of Iranian pride will not produce anything but continue to fuel Iran's image of itself as a great and powerful nation. Which it was and is.

Hopefully over the decade, in other ways, Persia will act more and more that way.

So it's time for the big boys, the few adults in Congress to step up, swallow their hatred of President Obama and grab a bit of history for themselves. Our security and future may depend on it.

Fordo

February 18, 2015--Bibi, the Fanatic

"Eli, the Fanatic," one of Philip Roth's wonderful short stories, is also one of his most overlooked. Perhaps because of the direct way in which it deals with and excoriates secularized, seemingly-assimilated Jews.

Set in suburban America, the story concerns a non-observant Jew, Eli Peck, who is hired by his Jewish neighbors to convince a recently-arirved group of orthodox Jews to close the yeshiva they established in their midst. The other Jews in town are embarrassed by the visible presence of these Hasids, fearing they will call attention to them and thereby interfere with their desire to blend in among the largely gentile residents of Woodenton.

To make a short story short, Eli fails in his attempts to get the ultra-orthodox to back off, including abandoning their traditional way of dressing, and, after an epiphany of his own, gives up his normal wardrobe and appears before his stunned and outraged Jewish neighbors in Hasid garb. The last thing they want is to be identified as Jews. And, thus, they became what some call self-hating Jews.

It is worth reading these days when throughout the Middle East and the West a fierce new religious war has broken out with people being attacked, tortured, enslaved, and killed just for being who they are--the wrong kind of Muslim, Christian, or Jew. It's a from of back to the Middle Ages.

The latest outrages, just over the past few days, are the shootings in Copenhagen, the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by ISIS in Libya ("We will conquer Rome, by God's permission"), and of course the murder of three Muslin university students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

As evidence that fanaticism is not just confined to ISIS and other Muslim extremists, pay attention to what Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for. As after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, this week following the murders in Denmark, Netanyahu again called for all European Jews, by "mass immigration," to give up their countries and European roots and emigrate to Israel where, he claims without evidence, that they will be safe from religious extremists of all stripes.

He makes no mention of Hezbollah fighters in the north of Israel nor rockets fired into Israel from Gaza. And, of course, the real possibility that Israel, under Netanyahu, will preemptively wage war against Iran.

In Bibi's own words--

Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because they were Jews. Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country, but we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home.

This call is hardwired into the consciousness of many Jews who remember the Holocaust when millions of Jews, on European soil, were slaughtered for just the fact of being Jews. Since then, there has been pressure on Jews living in more than 100 countries to "make Aliya," which literally means to "ascend," to "return" to Israel and for Israel to call for the "in-gathering" of Jews living in the Diaspora, in "exile."

This call for Jews to in-gather is about much more than safety. It has deep religious roots.

For the orthodox, to foster conditions that will call forth the Messiah (for Jews, of course, Jesus is not the Messiah) and lead ultimately to the End Times and Last Judgement, all Jews in the Diaspora must return to what messianic Jews refer to as Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel, which to many means Greater Israel.

There is dispute about what is biblically-defined to be that Land, especially Greater Israel. With the latter it is a geopolitically dangerous view of national boundaries, because to those Jews literally right now awaiting the appearance of the Mashiach, Greater Israel stretches from the Nile River in western Sinai all the way to the shores of the Euphrates. In other words, from land belonging to Egypt to territory that is a large part of current-day Iraq. Settling the West Bank is a part of this strategy.

So these are not just eschatological ideas but political ones. And dangerous ones at that.

Thus, the seemingly empathetic, welcoming call by Prime Minister Netanyahu to Jews in so-called exile to emigrate to Israel resonates much more deeply that a simple reminder and offer to descendants of those who died in the Holocaust. It also serves a larger purpose--to have Jews return to ancestral lands and thereby help flesh out the boundaries of Eretz Israel and to contribute to the circumstances that will lead to messianic times.

As an American of Jewish descent I resent and reject these fanatical notions. I am not Philip Roth's Eli.

Though assimilation is never easy--even in polyglot America--I do not consider myself as living in anything resembling a diaspora. Any more than Americans of Italian descent consider themselves living in an Italian diaspora. Israel is not my home. No matter what might happen here (and there have been waves of dangerous anti-Semitism in America) this is my home, my land, my America.

September 16, 2013--Win-Win-Win-Win-Win?

Even before sitting down John said, "What do you think about what's happening in Syria?"

"Let's get that out of the way," Rona said, "so we can turn to more pleasant subjects."

John slid into the booth and ordered Eggs Benedict. "I mean," he said, "Obama's a smart guy, right?" We nodded. "Not perfect. We support him, yes?" We continued to nod. "From our perspective he's made mistakes and is too quick to compromise, but about the big picture, especially anything that has to do with history, he generally gets it right. Wouldn't you agree?"

Yes," I said, "I agree. What's your point?" My eggs were getting cold.

"First he draws red lines, then he threatens to bomb Syria because they used poison gas, but then he asks Congress to authorize military action, and after that goes along with a proposal from Russia of all places to have Syria give up its weapons of mass destruction. I'm all confused." He looked over at me and shrugged.

"Here's what I think may be going on," I said. "For certain Obama is smart, very smart, and has a big picture view of the world, especially where civilization clash as well as where there is clashing within civilizations. No better example of both being the Middle East."

"I knew I could count on you to set this in context." From his tone I wondered if he was having a little fun with  me.

I was on a roll, fully caffeinated, and so undeterred I continued, "With Syria you have a situation where everyone, every interested party is backed into a corner.  Bashar al-Assad is facing a civil war that's two years old and going nowhere. Except that his country is largely destroyed and he is justifiably seen as a mass murderer of his own people. Now by using sarin poison gas.

"The remaining big powers--England, France, Russia, the U.S--are backed into corners of their own. Russia, really Vladimir Putin is Assad's chief backer, supplying him with weapons and protecting him from being sanctioned by the UN. In turn, everyone in the so-called civilized world is looking at Putin as  a new kind of Soviet-style dictator who is proceeding to snuff out all forms of dissent while attempting to contain his own internal Muslim extremists.

"Greater Syria--including Lebanon--for many years has been a part of France's anachronistic sphere of influence; and then southern Syria, including Israel and Palestine were governed in the same way by England. The Brits this time opted out of becoming involved and thus, according to Middle Eastern calculus lost standing; while France egged Obama on in an attempt to reassert their own influence in the region."

No one interrupted me so I rattled on, "The United States appears to be in the most compromised and contradictory position of all. John Kerry and Barack Obama draw red lines and threatened to attack Syria because of their use of sarin gas. They each trumpeted that, 'The United Staes doesn't do pinpricks'; and then almost instantly took back the threat so as not to alienate doves in Congress. Kerry, for example, assured his former colleagues and the world that whatever we do in Syria would be 'unbelievably small.'"

"And then there's Israel," Rona joined in, "They didn't know how to react, right, first deciding not to say anything about America's potential involvement but then feeling isolated when the U.S. seemed to back off. They began to wonder out loud about the U.S.'s red line when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. Would Obama back off from that too?"

"So far I'm with you," John said, well into his Eggs Benedict, "But I'm not seeing how this is evidence of Obama's strategic smarts. It all sounds like quite a mess to me. Half of it his making."

"A mess it is, always has been," I said. "I'm right now toward the end of Lawrence In Arabia, and though I didn't know that much about Arabia during the time of the First World War, minimally, things there were so internally tumultuous as the result of culture, history, and outside interference that there were no easy answers then, much less now."

"And so?" John asked. "I need to leave in a minute so tell me how any of this makes sense and why I should think Obama knows what he's doing."

"I think we agree that he's no hawk. He was elected to end two wars, not to start new ones. He, though, is no pushover when it comes time to approve dangerous missions. Ask Osama bin Laden about that. Or, for that matter, much of al Qaeda's original leadership. So he must be very conflicted about getting involved in Syria, even after they used sarin. Therefore he sends out mixed signals. Some inadvertently, some intentional, and sets in motion a complex set of reactions.

"The Brits look prescient and regained some of their independence and moral standing. They are no longer Bush's or Obama's or any American president's poodle. France gets to look engaged and retains a portion of its traditional role in Greater Syria. All without having to do or risk anything. Very French.

"Putin, who needed rehabilitation in the community of nations gets to look like a statesman and Russia regains some stature and--after the collapse of the Soviet Union--looks again like a version of a superpower. Which, ironically, might help make the world a safer place.

"And Israel gets what it wanted all along--the civil war in Syria will continue unabated for years and thereby reduce the threat they feel from Hezbollah and their Syrian sponsors. If the poison gas there actually is eliminated (and I think it will be--it's in everyone's best interest) that's one more thing Israel will not have to worry about."

"And what about us? What about Obama?" John asked, "How does he come out looking good and not wimpy? As someone who has credibility and needs to be taken seriously? Doesn't he feel diminished to you?"

"Yes he does," I said, "And that may be the most brilliant thing of all. And the most courageous. To be diminished."

"You're losing me," Rona interjected. "I thought we'd get to other things by now. About how beautiful the weather is and how Monday is Bristol County tax day.  I wanted to ask John a few things about our real estate taxes."

"One more minute," I said. "What's potentially courageous in what Obama initiated--and I am speculating he initiated most of these moving pieces--is taking the risk to cool a hot situation by making it appear that America is, in Syrian circumstances and perhaps all of that region, to make it appear that we are weak.

"If so, that would be very Middle Eastern. That's one of my takeaways from Lawrence In Arabia--how among tribes and clans there at times to be strong one has to act or appear to be weak. Everyone knows who''s in fact weak or strong; and when it comes to the United States they know no one is more powerful. So a president can use some of that awareness, that political capital to get things done through subtle as opposed to bellicose behavior. At times, maybe as now, a mix of both is best."

"This is not uninteresting," John said.

"Beyond this, maybe this is also a way for Obama to say that during his remaining time, at least, we're disengaging. We and the rest of the West made enough of a mess already and perhaps it's time to try something new. Let others work things out. Locally. It will be messy, but what else is new?"

"And now about the taxes," Rona was doing her best.

John said, "I have to run. One of our granddaughters is having a birthday today. She's five. Let's hope she'll grow up to live in a better world."

"Amen to that," Rona and I said simultaneously.

September 3, 2013: Syria

I don't know how to think about Syria much less what we should or shouldn't do.

On Saturday I listened to President Obama lay out his thinking. I was not impressed. I know he has drawn a red-line, saying that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons he will have us punish them.

I am wondering, though, why killing 100,000 thus far in the civil war there isn't a red line in itself. I suppose it's how you kill innocent people that counts. If Assad kills them with guns and bombs and rockets the U.S. can stay out of it; if he kills 1,400 with nerve gas we feel compelled to intervene militarily and "degrade" Syria's ability to do so again.

But I recognize that when a leader establishes a red line--which for strategic and even tactical reasons is not a good idea--if he doesn't carry out whatever it is he threatened, other bad people will assume he can be rolled by them as well. Iranians might be inclined to assume they can continue their nuclear weapons programs and the U.S. will back off when that red line is breached.

So to maintain credibility Obama has to launch a "limited" attack on Syria, assuming Congress agrees, perhaps more to send a message to Iran than to Syria.

Of one thing I am certain--that whatever we do or don't do will have many unintended consequences.

All bad.

For starters, there is more than a likelihood that various factions in the region who support Assad will attack Israel, our client state, since they can't attack us directly. If they use poison gas against them, with the Holocaust still very much in Jewish people's minds, Israel will respond massively. What will that reap?

Again, nothing good.

And though various groups of Islamists can't easily attack us in the homeland, it seems likely that there will be a step-up in global terrorist activity. I wouldn't want to be an embassy worker anywhere in the world after we send hundreds of cruise and tomahawk missiles toward Damascus.

Isn't it likely that Iran and Hezbollah will send scores of their fighters and Jihadists to Syria to fight off the rebels as well as to demonstrate their prowess to both Israel and the United States? Will Israel live comfortably with that? The last time they fought in Lebanon and Syria they were effectively defeated by Hezbollah. They have been itching for an opportunity, a justification to have a do-over.

So much of what goes on in that part of the world has to do with posturing and displaying manhood. In other words, behavior there (actually, everywhere) is often emotionally-driven and thus unpredictable since when in the throes of passion all bets are off and individuals as well as peoples often act in ways that appear self-destructive. That is until one deciphers the inner logic.

Suicide-bombing, for example, which might seem the ultimate expression of self-destructiveness (literally so), if one believes that it leads to martyrdom and directly to heaven, makes great "sense."

But here's what really does make sense, though it has no chance whatsoever of happening--

Redraw the map of the region. Actually, redraw the maps of all former-colonial regions. 

The maps we currently live with, which are the cause of much of the religious, nationalistic, and sectarian fighting we are seeing, were drawn up by the victorious big powers (mainly Britain, the United States, and France) at the end of the First World War.

Thus, countries such as Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Palestine (to name just some) are all artificial constructs that ignore tribal and cultural borders as well as deep history.

Syria, for example, a forced  amalgam of 140 tribes and clans, some that traverse borders with Egypt and Tunisia, could easily be divided into three to 10 tribal regions. Ditto for Iraq.

Where is Kurdistan? Nowhere. It doesn't exist on any map but it is a large cultural region that spans parts of 1919-created countries Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

If we could see redrawn the national borders to create Kurdistan, tensions in that region would ebb significantly.

And if we could see that happen for the rest of the Middle East and, for that matter, all of Africa and portions of Asia, the world be a much more peaceful place.

So, maybe, here's the solution--

Big powers back off. Let the various factions fight it out. Let them exhaust themselves and eventually hope they come to their senses and agree, without the necessity of discussing it that much, to redraw their own borders so that a Kurdistan emerges as well as a few countries for Sunnis and more for the Shia.

Libya, as another example, would disappear and in its place we would have, at a minimum, Barqa, Ubaidat, Mughariba, and Awejeer. Others clans there would undoubtedly demand their own delineated territory and they would have to be accommodated. But being aggregated into a place called "Libya" isn't working, won't work, and eventually will no longer be sustained.

This fantasy of mine would take at least 100 years to be realized. But since this is where we're inevitably headed, we might as well let it start.

That process, among other things, means allowing and encouraging the current simmering and boiling conflicts to stutter to a stalemate. It also means that the U.S. not attack Syria.

Stalemate makes sense since there is no possible way for anyone, any country (us included) to "win."

Things just have to work out. This means waiting for things to revert to their cultural and historical roots--people are by DNA tribal and thus happiest, most satisfied if they are able to live with their own "kind."

For people who wish to live otherwise, there is always Western Europe and the United States.

August 16, 2013--Arab Winter

Fridays in August should be times for languor and light spiritedness. Pass by this then if you want to protect your tranquility, but I cannot resist saying a few words about the escalating crises in the Middle East.

With a state of emergency declared in Egypt--after hundreds there were slaughtered by the military in an attempt to take the country back from the democratically-elected leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood--with continued unrest in Bahrain; democracy under threat in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and possibly even Turkey; and an all-out civil war raging in Syria, what ever became of the hope engendered by the Arab Spring that commenced in Tunisia more than two years ago?  The hope that authoritarian leaders from Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would topple one-by-one and liberal democracies would take their places?

Isn't this what Barack Obama early in his presidency in a speech in Cairo saw to be the strategic opportunity in the region? And wasn't it for this that he was awarded a preemptive Nobel Peace Prize?

But now we have this--a tectonic nightmare of old authoritarian regimes overthrown and supplanted by radical leaders, many of whom either have ties to al Qaeda or tolerate their presence. Who foresaw that this would be the last gasp of 19th century colonialism and the dawn of a complicated new day in the Muslim world? 

Actually, many did who knew anything about the history of the Arab lands and the contesting forces active in every country throughout the region.

Does anyone doubt that events in Egypt will lead to a civil war there at least as ugly as the one underway in Syria? With the military government so casual about murdering hundreds of protesters isn't it inevitable that this will not suppress the opponents of military rule but motivate and inspire them to become more aggressive, ultimately take up arms, and prevail?

Is there any doubt that at some point in the not distant future we will see similar situations in Jordan and even Saudi Arabia where corrupt monarchies currently rule?

Then what we will have? A region in full turmoil with access to oil severely restricted. What will then be the consequences for the global economy? 

The ideals espoused by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama in historical perspective look naive. 

Not everyone wants a government similar to ours (in fact, a majority of Americans themselves aren't too happy with the state of our own current government), not every country (especially those with arbitrary borders drawn up by the West after the First World War) is culturally set up to embrace democracy. And when they do fight for and achieve the right to vote--with our endorsement--they elect leaders from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. 

This is just another sad example of unintended consequences, of the danger of getting what one wishes for.