You can support democracy in which the risk of Islamists gaining power and influence is present or you can support secular autocratic regimes that reduce the influence of Islamist groups through repressive means, but you can’t do both.

Adam Serwer, hitting the nail squarely on its head. This is why Obama’s administration is using words like “reviewing our assistance posture.” That’s meant very clearly as a warning to Mubarak in advance of any heavy-handed crackdowns.
By the same token, revolution is vastly more likely to end with a more Islamic regime in charge, destabilization of the Egypt/Israel axis, and a lot more complicated Middle East than it is to end with some magical democratic flowering and instant equality amongst all peoples of Egypt.
Status quo, on the other hand, means either living with a weakened Mubarak (and trying to fix that with some kind of real elections in 2011), accepting some type of military takeover (Pakistan light), or ending up with some other “strongman” style government that emerges in the aftermath.
I’d say neither option makes Obama or HRC sleep more easily. This is the essence of these big jobs and why they inevitably eat you up. Well, they eat you up unless you’re an idiot man-child like George W. Bush.

Leave a comment