Crossed wires, close calls but a good result—until the next friend wobbles

No one should really care what Messrs Pawlenty, Bolton and Gingrich say. They are gnats on the President's shoulder and the only way they will enter the White House is if they take the tour with everybody else.

What I am really concerned with (and what shoud get a cover story or at least a leader article) is Niall Ferguson of Newsweek. He epitomizes the Anti-Muslim bigotry and Neo-Con Crusader ideology that is too prevalent in England and that little district on the Potomic in America.

I realize that he and The Economist share two fraternities as Englishmen and journalists; but all the more reason to condemn this obvious bigot.

Am I going to far?

The Economist was brave enough to begin an article about Obama's perception in Kentucky by leading with an anecdote about how the Lexington reporter asked a clerk about the President and got the response "He's a nigger."

You lead with that in your article and bravo for doing so.

Please be so bold when dealing with your countryman, Niall Ferguson.

Reality Check: Classic Neo-Con Ideology, which has been around for decades, is to promote democracy because it will cause democracy to spread to neighbors, by force if need be, but not required. So, from a standpoint of the region, Neo-cons are the worst enemies, because they want democracy to spread (which will cut into the privledged)and neo-cons are willing to remove people who are overly resistant in order to establish it.

The problem with Neo-Cons is failed to understand that Democracy is not suited to everywhere and failed to take appropriate measures to ensure success. Being more of a realist personally, demcracy as it stands in the West currently, will not take root in Egypt and places like Bahrain may simply become part of Iran (keeping in mind the Iranian backed Coup attempt in 1981)

Thus the bashing of Neo-Cons that you are doing with generalizations, that has been overly prevelent since 2003, merely shows you don't understand this group's thought.

This is not really about Mr. Obama in particular. No American president can sing a solo with the Middle Eastern freedom chorus while Israel and the Saudi royals are sitting in the front row.

As a Republican and conservative I give President Obama generally high marks in his handling of the Egyptian Revolution. It is laughable to expect either that the President should have jettisoned Mubarak without some sense of where this was going, or that he should have stood by Mubarak once the clear desires and impressive resolve of the Egyptian people were obvious. It would have been folly to attempt to get out ahead of events on the ground...let the Egyptians lead and support them with behind the scenes work with their military and clear statements that this is their's to decide.

Since 1952, the army has BEEN the regime in Egypt, albeit ruling by preference via a facade of constitutional rule. Also in this case, it was the army that made the crucial decisions, finally abolishing the constitution and reverting to manifest power. Consequently, nothing that Obama did or said had any influence on the outcome of the situation, nor could it have had. Nor could Obama influence the outcome of the protests in Iran.

In such situations, the US should content itself with a carefully crafted statement of general principles without demanding a specific outcome or vainly trying to engineer it behind the scenes, since the latter irritates every party concerned, never mind who comes out on top. By that standard, Obama said too much in the Egyptian case and too little in the Iranian one. Let's hope that he learns that lesson for the future.

As it is, the Egyptian army probably now sees its reliable American partner as the US Defense Department, not the president. Likewise other US allies in the ME.

There is a clear message here..... Why turn to the US when there is a crisis in every corner of the world? Let the politicization and democratization of states occur naturally. It may take longer but will ultimately be more stable.

Now do the same in Cuba, quit the embargo and expose Castro et al for what they really are, monocrat chancers.

The main problem seems to be that yet again the intelligence community seemed to have no advanced notice that the events were unfolding. Given the vast amount of money the US spends on intelligence gathering, one would need to ask just what are they doing with their time? Presidents are meant to be in front of unfolding events, not being required to react to scenarios played out in the street. Obviously the USA still does not have its spooks under control...

The events that unfolded in Egypt was beyond the prodding and anticipation of the USA. Obama and Hillary, having backed the wrong horse seem to be cheering the winning one.
It may not be appropriate to judge Obama on his dealing with Egypt alone. In fact, the US foreign policy is in shambles not reflecting the changed realities and needs a thorough revision which Obama does not seem to be doing.
There has always been too much talking and thinking(?) backed by failed actions. This seems to be on the increase since Obama assumed office.

For all those who promote freedom and democracy, the difference between a hypocrite and a true freedom fighter is that the former always weighs the his own gain and lose, and the later weighs others.

"Mr Obama has won his share of plaudits, including that of John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, who said he had managed the crisis well."

If I recall, Boehner came out and approved of what Obama was doing, even before Mubarak stepped down and the outcome was uncertain. If I recall correctly, that's a promising sign that Boehner and Obama will be able to work together; Boehner could not have had as much info as Obama about what was going down. It would have been the old, out-of-fashion "politics end at the water's edge" or whatever the line is.

I fully support President Obama's handling of the situation. Situations like these are very complicated, and thus, very difficult for any president to handle. There will never be a perfect response.

These "experts", some of them the very same fools who led us into the Iraq debacle, are simply trying to save established U.S. foreign policy. They want the status quo - support of an autocrat, appeasement of Israel, and - very possibly - the safeguarding of their investments in the Carlyle Group.

But, despite the inherent instability of this process, it needs to happen across the Arab world. We'll all be better off for it in the long run. The alternative of letting GOP chicken-hawks coddle dictators and bow to Israeli pressure will eventually lead to disaster. It's just like vulcanology - the longer the pressure builds, the bigger the eruption. So - do we want Mt. ST. Helens or Krakatoa?

I think it is similar to, how do you Brits say? Stay calm carry on. And pragmatism. Good article, cheers

Lafiel:

You can wax on academic about NeoCon theory all you want. What you are missing (and what this newspaper has not missed) is that the application, pactice and execution of NeoCon theory has been an unmitigated failure and disaster. Communism looked good on paper too at one point in time (as did Da Vinci's flying devices).

As an American otherwise embarrassed by the past decade of US folly in the Middle East, I can think of nothing that could undermine the popular support for pro-democracy risings than tying them, rightly or wrongly, to an American neo-con agenda.

Over the gate leading into the Indian presidential palace designed by the English architect Edward Lutyens there is an inscription carved into the sandstone. Before Indian Independence it was considered smug and imperialist by the Indian people but it is now prized by all. It says... "freedom will not descend to a people...a people must raise itself to freedom".

The youth of Egypt have earned a similar inscription carved in sandstone on one of their monuments.

This why Bush was wrong and Obama was right. The neocons are now confused, but intelligent people understand...

It would be nice for Lexington to write an article on the fundamentals of popular empowerment and public perceptions(Pew research type) in the muslim world. If we knew more we would not be caught off-balance by the next non US-engineered regime change in the region.

River Lord wrote:

The events that unfolded in Egypt was beyond the prodding and anticipation of the USA. Obama and Hillary, having backed the wrong horse seem to be cheering the winning one.
It may not be appropriate to judge Obama on his dealing with Egypt alone. In fact, the US foreign policy is in shambles not reflecting the changed realities and needs a thorough revision which Obama does not seem to be doing.
There has always been too much talking and thinking(?) backed by failed actions. This seems to be on the increase since Obama assumed office.

My Response: Obama, didn't immediately come out on any side. And when you're dealing with such an important and fluid situation, isn't that the prudent thing to do when President? If anything, he was consistently in support of the demonstrators and their rights. And US foreign policy is in shambles? They don't reflect the new realities? You don't like your president to think too much?

Tell us then, how should US foreign policy reflect realities that are not yet fully evident?

By fundamentals I mean: income distribution by quintiles and its evolution in the las 30 yrs, m2/person urban dwellings, youth unemployment, social mobility(income children/income their parents when they were of the same age), fertility, housing prices, real wage evolution,education levels... and compare the facts with arabs´ and muslims´ perceptions of them (happiness index, political expectations, and so on measured by surveys). Only knowing these facts could we judge whether Mubarak could play a Tianamen or had to retire. The man is 82 and dying of cancer and still the bulk of the USG foreign policy establishment thought he could pull it off till the last three days. More analysis and less soup opera!; but then I guess the will is missing.

I'm more inclined to believe that the result would have been basically the same regardless of what Obama did. That said I think the way Obama reacted was still important, and I can't see how anyone could find that he didn't do the right thing here. The right thing is to acknowledge the legitimacy of the people's desire for change, and to promote non-violence on both sides of the conflict. That's exactly what Obama did.

People who think the future of Israel and American interests are superior to the right of a people to govern themselves are imperialistic hypocrites.

Another embarrassment to the USA. Goes to show, he doesn't have the experience to run a village in Kenya let alone a country.

As it is, Egypt found a solution. Whether it is a better one or not, time will tell.