IT'S THE THE HUMAN FACTOR, STUPID!

Once again, the anti-gun lobby is out to make hay from a tragedy that was preventable.  Incredibly, few questions are being asked about security measures in force at the Washington Navy Yard.  Fewer yet are being asked about why military personnel on site were not armed.  Even more incredible is the reluctance to question how and why the Navy did not see all the warning signs displayed by Aaron Alexis.

Just as in the Ft. Hood massacre, in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism, the right questions go unanswered, while the administration and its lackeys, once again, want to go to the mat in an effort to deprive honest citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Sadly, the human element in America has changed drastically in the last couple of generations.  Many families no longer instill discipline in their offspring. Too many children are not challenged to excel physically and intellectually in taxpayer-supported schools.  Society is fed a constant menu of pabulum masquerading as entertainment, much of it cheapening life through gratuitous  violence and sexually demeaning garbage.  At the same time, government further devalues life by peddling a so-called health program which is heavy on abortion and birth-control.  Not surprisingly, the end result is more and more human beings whose concepts of reality are badly flawed, to the point that actions are no longer associated with consequences.

Remember Ft. Hood?  Muslim terrorist Nidal Hassan's shooting spree was officially labeled "work place violence" by the multiculturally-imbued high brass.  What will be the verdict for the Washington Navy Yard?  No doubt finely-tweaked "bureaucratese" will manufacture a label that will avoid a forthright effort at coming to grips with reality.  And we will never know why those who are trained in the use of firearms go unarmed on military installations.

For individuals like myself who took the time and made the effort to become licensed to carry a handgun, such action was not taken lightly.  To be perfectly honest, it was a step that I would wish had not been necessary.  However, given the nature of the society in which I live, the odds of having to defend oneself have risen drastically in a relatively short period of time.  As one who lives in Texas, I am proud to say that the more than 500,000 individuals who carry concealed handgun licenses make up the most law-abiding group in the state.  And virtually every one of us would question the wisdom of curtailing the rights of citizens who adhere to the law because of society's failure to enforce current laws and to deal with those elements that threaten us all.

 Those who wish to disarm this country will not relent in using  tragedy to the advantage of their cause.  In doing so, they will not and cannot answer why it is that cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C., with the toughest anti-gun laws in the country, have the highest rates of gun violence in America.  But the answer is there, and it is all too apparent.  The societal sickness that has, in part, been spawned by the policies of dependence of our federal government and the lax morals of institutions that once were relied upon for imparting stability have unleashed too many individuals who are not accountable for their actions.  No amount of gun banning can reverse that tide, for the virus has imbedded itself deeply in the organism that we call American culture.  Until such time as we rid ourselves of the twin evils of political correctness and multiculturalism, the human factor will continue to deteriorate, and those who are law-abiding will continue to feel the need to protect their families and themselves.

THIS PRESIDENT IS TRULY EXCEPTIONAL!

As exceptionalism has been a hot topic for some time, I thought it might be well to grade the present occupant of the White House. All things considered, I find him to be a truly exceptional president.

Very early in 2009, it was apparent that this was going to be an exceptional presidency.  In public orations in which the new president pontificated on foreign policy, he exceptionally confused Middle Eastern languages and cultures with those of Central Asia.  For example, I thought it was very exceptional to state that Arabic was the language of Iran, not Farsi, and that Arabic was the mother tongue of Afghanistan.  Also, it was exceptionally gratifying to learn that our president did not speak the "Austrian language."

There is no doubt about it that the ACA (Obamacare) is an exceptional piece of work.  For sure, it is exceptional in as much as it is shot full of exceptions, dispensations and waivers of one sort or another.  As legislation fairly conceived, fairly executed and fairly delivered, it is an exceptional abomination, or, perhaps, better put, an "Obamanation."  Even the Congress, which passed it, cannot live under its terms. Exceptional also were the promises of of openness and transparency in the drafting of the legislation; but, in the final analysis, it was even more exceptional that the law had to be passed so that we would know what was in it. With nearly 60% of Americans opposing its implementation, it is shaping up to be a disaster for the Republic.

In a time when jobs are simply not there for many formerly middle class Americans, Obamination is a job-killer.  Many companies simply cannot afford increased costs for insurance and are cutting back on employee hours.  Monies that could have gone into business expansion and job creation will ultimately go to fund Obamanation.  Surely our representatives in Congress will do all in their power to save us from this exceptional brainchild of an exceptional president.

In the field of international affairs and diplomacy we have also been served by an exceptional president.  If Benghazi were not enough, the dithering, indecisiveness and faltering of our president on Syria  has earned him a special place in the hagiography of American presidents.  In recent memory, the only predecessor who could perhaps match him would be Jimmy Carter, but, in tallying up the score card, the laurel leaves must go to Barack H. Obama, for the status of America has never declined to such a low point during any other presidency within the last 65 years.

Exceptional thinking would have us believe that we must be dependent on Middle East oil, rather than to develop our own domestic energy sources.  It has been an exceptional move to forward our treasure to countries which are not fond of us and to shed the  blood of our young people in places like Iraq, whose people will always despise us in spite of our sacrifice.  And, by the way, whatever became of the dividends that were to accrue from the exceptionally large sums that were invested in failed green energy enterprises?

Also, our borders have been exceptionally porous, open to any and all comers, some of whom might have it within their heart of hearts to do us ill.  Now, that's really exceptional!  No wonder we are sitting targets for terrorists.

It has been exceptional, too, that this administration has made it possible for us to be governed more and more by a plethora of bureaucrats, who know very well that Congress passes the laws but that they write the rules and regulations.  Only an exceptional president would have been able to unleash the Internal Revenue Service in an unmatched vendetta against ordinary Americans who happen to disagree with him.  This one for sure tops Nixon.  Lois Lerner should also garner rave reviews for her supporting role in making this administration exceptional.

Presidential interest and involvement on the local level in the adjudication of justice has been characterized by a high degree of exceptionalism.  That the chief executive might have looked like Treyvon Martin 40 years ago is an exceptional issue of the utmost importance to this country, one in which we are all exceptionally united in our concern. And the exceptional "beer summit" was right up there with presidential successes at  G-20 get-togethers.

 Eric the Holder, our exceptional president's man at the Department of Justice, has done an exceptional job of obfuscating what's really going on over there in his ball park.  It was really exceptional how "fast and furious" put American weapons in the hands of the bad fellows in Mexico.  And even more exceptional was that those plans of great genius were responsible for the deaths of Americans.  Too, it has been exceptional how the DOJ has done everything in its power to thwart legitimate efforts on the part of states wishing to insure clean elections by way of photo-IDs.  Of all the exceptional people in the president's cabinet, Eric the Holder is, without doubt, the most exceptional of all.

This litany of exceptionalism could continue indefinitely; however, it has probably sufficiently demonstrated the high degree of exceptionalism that characterizes the Obama presidency.  In the 40 months that remain of this administration's existence, it appears likely that even more exceptional developments await us.  But, in looking back over the past 4 years, it may very well be that we just can't afford any more exceptionalism.

Deo vindice!

LEADERSHIP

THOMAS CARLYLE

Leadership is an intangible quality that we recognize when we see it in others; but, most of the time, we would be hard-pressed to define it.  We can all think of good leaders, and we can also call to mind others who were in positions of authority who failed miserably.  Perhaps comparisons of successful and failed leaders would be helpful in arriving at a possible definition.

As for myself, I was always a much better teacher than a manager.  My skill-set was more appropriate for the classroom than for the boardroom.  Nevertheless, I served as a dean and a provost in collegiate settings, perhaps as  good an  example as  there was of the theory that those in organizations tend to rise to the level of their incompetence.

Looking back over a career of more than 40 years in higher education,  I served a myriad of  college presidents.  Some were wonderful examples of inspirational leadership who led their administrative teams to the heights of success, creating environments of innovation that provided opportunities for students to excel in many ways.  There were others, though, whose tenures were marked by bitter political games, perhaps reflective of their own tortured personalities.

Of the leaders that I admired, all were able to strike a balance between assertiveness and diplomacy. Those who did not have that balance generally failed. There was one president that I recall who was in a state of perpetual warfare with both his college's board and also with the local political leadership.  He was never able to strike a healthy balance; and, the more I think about it, that failing likely  stemmed from a terribly conflicted personality.

One of the most charismatic presidents I served under was always willing to go the distance in whatever there was that needed to be done.  She was a builder, communicator and a leader who expected that her administrators would display the same level of stamina and energy that characterized her leadership style. Under her supervision, the university grew to become the jewel of the community in which it was located. In many ways, she was a female Vince Lombadi; but, alas, over the years, her many successes turned her head, and she became dictatorial and authoritarian.

A perpetual issue for those who study leadership is whether leaders are born or made.  I personally lean toward the view that asserts that leaders are born with certain qualities that, combined with familial nurturing and experience, allow them to emerge and flourish in positions of great responsibility.  Of 3 American presidents within the last 60 or so years whose administrations demonstrated their  capacity to rise to the occasion with innate abilities and skills honed by drive, determination and experience,  Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan come to mind.  All three were accountable and had the strength of character to acknowledge their own failings.  As Truman so eloquently stated, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."  These three individuals also had a certain degree of humility, inasmuch as their greatness would not be recognized until they were out of office. They were not known for "beating their own drums." President Eisenhower's background in organizing the great allied effort that defeated Nazi Germany stood him and his country in good stead. And his genial personality led to 2 terms which are now remembered as a remarkable time of peace and stability.  President Reagan was an unflappable leader whose personality radiated trust and confidence.  He oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Eastern Bloc and was able, in large part,  to accomplish his goals by playing his cards close to his chest. All three of these individuals were products of traditional families which conveyed traditional American values.  In light of what now passes as leadership, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan seem even heroic.

No, leadership is not just about how one parts his hair, creases his pants and phrases his speeches.  It is not about being admired by movie stars and celebrities. It is about making the hard decisions that determine, for example, if a nation declines or thrives, Sometimes decisions must be painful for all concerned.  And, also, it is about being a good judge of human character and surrounding oneself with staff members possessing the dedication and capability to unselfishly serve their country. It is certainly not about passing the buck!

Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881), the Scottish historian, philosopher and essayist, had definite ideas about leadership that might cause us to take pause these days as we contemplate the choices we have made for individuals who supposedly lead us.  Leaders (or, heroes, if you will), in Carlyle's opinion, rise up in a society almost by virtue of a mystical link between themselves and those they lead.  They are individuals who have no fear in believing in themselves and in ideas, but they are realists when it comes to adjusting goals to situations. In common parlance, they are not ideologues. They also possess the sensitivity and depth to establish a "moral culture" for their people. In fact, the very substance of these leaders is a spiritual reflection of the history, character and greatness of the society from which they have sprung. Combined with this is  vision, the ability to see the future and the willingness to sacrifice to make the future reality.  In other words, there would be no doubt in their minds that they themselves are exceptional, as are those whom they lead.

In an age of superficiality and a turning away from traditional mores and values, this may sound more than a little far-fetched to modern day Americans, many of whom seem irredeemably intoxicated by the popular culture.  However, using Carlyle as a base, along with Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, a comparison may enable us to have a better understanding of where we have been and where we are going.

MY RIVERS, MY LIFE

Perhaps I am at a stage of life in which one tends to spend a bit more time contemplating one's mortality. And that might be especially true for me, as I consider the state of my health over the last year and a half.

 Taking liberties with the book and movie of the same name, "A River Runs Through It," I am inclined to claim it as a most appropriate theme on where I've been and maybe even where I'm going. For I cannot in any way give credence to my life without acknowledging that rivers have and still continue to run through it with great force.

Some would consider that my life has been a meaningful and interesting one. I've managed to travel to various ends of the earth, have encountered some interesting people along the way and, in the process, have managed to keep my head above water, both figuratively and literally.  For some reason, there are those who indulge my vanity by still enjoying  my lectures, and that cheers my soul.

As far as my heritage is concerned, I have two very diverse elements in the mix, one side coming from  low-landers and the other from hill people; or, if you prefer, "swamp angels" and "hillbillies."  Of the two, my inclination has always been for the hills, and especially for clear, fast-flowing, spring-fed rivers that, unimpeded by dams, course their way through the Ozarks, join with sluggish streams which wend their way through the Arkansas delta and eventually reach the Mississippi.

From the age of eight, I never wanted to be far from the Ozarks; and, early on, I was fascinated by the seasonal stages of my rivers and how, in my young mind, they came to mirror the stages of life.  Every season brings with it different facets of a river's personality, just as infancy, childhood, maturity, and decline mark us in distinctive ways as we move toward our ultimate destiny.

After the heavy rains of spring, the rivers are not as they were, and for the avid canoeist, this means learning all over again the the most expeditious ways to navigate shoals, rapids and snags.  If life is a constant learning process, so, too, it is with rivers.

From the moment I first saw old river hands expertly maneuver their canoes and jon-boats down streams that ran deep in my family's historical memory, I was determined to somehow join them; and, through my emulation of their skill, to forge a union with them and  the rivers that would bind us into what, for me, was a sacred fraternity.

Each season on my rivers had its attractions.  Winter saw giant-sized icicles hanging on the cliffs.  Fall was aglow with a brilliant display of colors.  The heat of summer made the cold waters even more refreshing. Spring was a reawakening, with dogwood and redbud heralding the continuation of the primeval forces that had created and sustained my rivers. And there were always the memories of animal life that would indelibly be fixed in my mind.

Now it is enough to paddle to a gravel-bar, unfold a camp chair, sit and contemplate the union of rocks, trees and water that graces the beautiful mistresses of my youth, the Current and the Eleven Point. In many ways, I have failed my mistress Clio (the muse of history), for whom time and distractions have had a way of not allowing me to do for her what I should have. But, despite my own sense of failure in that dimension of life, Clio could never have competed with the depth of emotion that has perpetually resided in my being for the soul-mates of my youth, the wild and untrammeled rivers of the Ozarks

At night, while looking at the heavens from a vantage point beside my rivers, I can hear them sing. Yes, rivers do sing, and their voices are at one and the same harmonically interdependent and rhythmically discordant.  The waters glide over the rocks, strike the gravel-bars and scamper on their way.  Sometimes, I feel compelled to answer their notes with a hymn I recall from early in my life:

Oh, mighty God, when I behold the wonder

Of nature's beauty, wrought by words of thine,

And how thou leadest all from realms up yonder,

Sustaining earthly life with love benign,

And when at last the mists of time have vanished,

And I in truth my faith confirmed shall see,

Upon the shores where earthly ills are banished,

I'll enter, Lord, to dwell in peace with thee.

And, so, I am reminded of what counts in my life:  My God, my family, my country -  and my rivers!

!

,

.

BUT, HONORABLE JUSTICES, WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

NEW MEXICO'S SUPREMES

AMENDMENT I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In an end of August decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Elane Photography, a photography shop owned by a Christian couple (husband and wife), had violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the "commitment ceremony" of a same-sex couple.  The husband-wife team owning the shop was reluctant to provide their services for a lesbian ceremony, owing to their religious convictions.

And, in Gresham, Oregon, another Christian-owned business, a bakery, has closed after enduring gay rights activists carrying out a campaign of threats and intimidation, after the bakery refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding ceremony.

An earlier decision by the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights attracted much attention when it ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group, had violated the civil rights of Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, when it refused the request of the two women to have a lesbian wedding at the Methodist church camp.

These developments are pointing toward some serious questions pertaining to the First Amendment and religious liberty that will, undoubtedly, have to be resolved at the level of our highest court.

Let's look at some hypothetical situations.One wonders, for example, about Muslims who might want to rent synagogue facilities for a wedding, or about Jews looking to utilize properties associated with mosques for the same purpose.  Then, what about a company engaged principally in the business of providing pork products demanding that an Orthodox Jewish photographer participate in a photo-shoot for the marketing of ham?  As for birth control, what is to be done if a sincerely convinced Roman Catholic is not keen about his public relations firm undertaking a contract for the promotion of prophylactics.

The Elane Photography case has raised some points that will resonate through similar cases. Certainly, these points are unlikely to disappear, as Willock v. Elane Photography wends its way through the appeals process.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA law faculty pointed out in his amicus brief  that the photographer, Elane Huguenin, in effect was being forced into a situation of "compelled speech,"  which would cause her discomfort in the expressions that are her works of photography.  However, in its ruling, the New Mexico court was of the opinion that individuals of faith must compromise their behavior as "the price of citizenship."  In other words, the court decreed that the photographer's conduct resulting from her faith was a violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act. Thus, people of faith - at least in this instance - are expected to separate conduct from faith.  Furthermore, the photographer was not allowed an exception under New Mexico's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sounds like the old reverse double-standard, doesn't it?

One might ask whatever happened to plain old "live and let live?"  Ms. Willock, one of the lesbians who brought suit, could just as easily have found a photographer who was comfortable with a lesbian commitment ceremony.  Instead, she determined upon a course of action that, come Hell or high water, would make her point. After decades of moving toward acceptance for same-sex relationships, why is it that those who once fought for recognition of the legitimacy of their relationships, now wish to force others to violate their beliefs?

There was once a time when individuals of differing persuasions would not bother each other when it was obvious that their convictions were far apart.  But that time is no more.  We must all have our rights now, and those rights must be acknowledged by all, regardless of faith, regardless of conviction. And, so, full speed ahead, damn those torpedoes, and it's all or nothing for political correctness!

Columnist George Will made an extremely strong point when he noted that we have moved into a strange era of bizarre regulation, to the extent that regulation is now affecting personal liberties that were once thought to be enshrined and protected in the Constitution. How ironic that those who once were pleading for respect for their beliefs and lifestyles are more recently becoming tyrannical in their lack of tolerance of those whose religious beliefs they refuse to honor or respect.  How terribly tangled our politically correct world has become!






.

VLADIMIR CONTINUES TO GET THE BEST OF BARACK! BUT BOTH ARE A BIT DUBIOUS ABOUT EXCEPTIONALISM!

THIS PRESIDENT LOOKS LIKE HE KNOWS
WHAT HE'S DOING!

Yesterday's op-ed piece in the New York Times by the president of Russia was a real eye-opener.  Looking back to the 60s, 70s and 80s, no Soviet leader would have dared do such a thing.  The American public would have been in an uproar, and U.S./Soviet relations would have taken a major setback. However, we must keep reminding ourselves that, for most of the Obama voters who reelected our Nobel Peace Prize president, history prior to 1990 is simply too ancient to bother with.

AS FOR THIS PRESIDENT, NOT SO MUCH!  LOOKS LIKE
HE WOULD PREFER 18 HOLES AT THE VINEYARD!

At least there seems one area on which the American and Russian presidents might have a meeting of the minds, and that is the subject of American exceptionalism.  One recalls that early in his first term, our much heralded president, when asked about the U.S. being an exceptional nation stated that he was convinced that it was, but no more so than a Brit looking at the U.K. or a Greek surveying the historical development of Greece.  So, if Vladimir feels that attitudes of exceptionalism are a bit dangerous, then Barack doesn't appear to be too far from agreement with him, at least on that score.

"Realpolitik" is a rough game, certainly not meant for those who are hesitant and fumbling.  And those who play it masterfully would never join the game by coloring their international moves with domestic pabulum, such as Barack Obama has done. For example, it stretches the imagination to think of a strong national leader beginning his tenure by apologizing to the world for the supposed sins of his country.

If we could resurrect Metternich, Bismarck, Cavour and Napoleon III, they would have more than a few lessons to share with the American president.  But, if Obama missed those lectures in Western Civilization 101, he could look back only so far as the administration of John F. Kennedy and the events of October 1962.

During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK went head to head with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader.  It was obvious that Kennedy had the strength of his conviction that Soviet missiles should not be aimed at American cities from sites located a mere 90 miles off our shores, hence a naval blockade was put into place.  As an Eastern Bloc ship loaded with the materiel of war steamed for Cuba, the clock seemed to be ticking down to a nuclear exchange between the two countries.  Fortunately, the Russian strong man flinched, the ship turned back, and JFK had prevailed.

Somehow, one simply can't envision a similar scenario playing out in the current situation in the Middle East. If anything, it would seem a much more plausible outcome to assume that the bold deportment of Vladimir Putin would carry the day.   The "B"-team in charge of American foreign policy has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that those who have suited up for the game are not capable of sustaining any strategy that would serve to enhance our strength and insure our security.  John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and James Clapper are plainly not up to the challenge.

As leaders go, one is left wondering about an electorate that would, in perilous times, choose to return to power an ideologue who wishes to unilaterally disarm their armed forces.  Far, far better it would be to have a realist in place  at the White House, one who could stand the heat of Harry Truman's kitchen, maintain his nation's strength and go the distance with the petty tyrants of this world.

Going further, Russia's strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean is now at its highest point in recent memory.  It can only be imagined, but I feel certain that our Israeli allies must be shaking their heads and drawing deep breaths, wondering what has possessed the current American administration to paint itself into a corner of  diplomatic foolhardiness and folly.

If the math is correct, we have about 40 more months of enduring the Obama presidency.  This president is going to be faced with not only more challenges on the international scene but with potentially explosive domestic political matters as well.  Let's not forget the IRS, Benghazi, the ACA ("Obamacare") and assorted DOJ matters, such as "Fast and Furious." Sometimes it appears that a parliamentary system might have its attractions, especially when faced with what seems to be a collapsing presidency.

Each Sunday, during divine services and just prior to the Eucharist at the church I attend, we pray for "Barack, our president; Rick, our governor; Tony, our mayor; Katherine, our bishop, et. al."  Without a doubt, this Sunday I'll  really be imploring  divine intervention for the first guy on the list.  It is obvious that he needs all the celestial support he can muster.

LESSONS LEARNED IN EGYPT : WHY CAN'T OBAMA & HIS "B" TEAM LEARN THEM, TOO?

HASSAN AL-BANNA

During the early spring of 2011, as the "Arab Spring" in Egypt got underway and crowds began pouring into Tahrir Square in Cairo, my thoughts turned to a long-ago squash game in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  I had just begun a quest to learn the game while I was at King Saud University.  On one occasion, I was challenged by a rotund individual wearing  typical Egyptian garb.  Thinking I might be faster on my feet, I accepted his challenge for a game. In short order, he exposed me for what I was - a squash rookie - and totally devastated my hopes of ever reaching squash stardom.

I was informed by a Pakistani friend that my squash opponent was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who taught Islamic studies at the university.  Furthermore, I was to learn that the fellow was in exile from Egypt, because of his political views.  The encounter raised my curiosity, and I began to bone up on the topic of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Later, when I visited Egypt, I was to learn much more.

My research revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood had its origins in Egypt in 1928, when a young teacher, Hassan al-Banna, began speaking out against Western imperialism, proclaiming that the best way to counter European influence in Egypt - and, specifically British influence - was by adhering to traditional Sunni Islam and to reject all foreign ways that might tempt Muslims to stray from the fold.  Within ten years time, there were more than 500,000 Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

TAHRIR SQUARE, CAIRO, 2011

After Banna was assassinated in 1949, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood passed to Syed al-Qutb, a scholar who had pursued graduate studies in the U.S. at Colorado State and Stanford. Qutub's matriculation  in America had the effect of reinforcing his view that Islam was the only hope for the redemption of Egypt from European colonialism and what he considered the loose lifestyles and "race imperialism" he had observed in the U.S.

By the 1960s, the Muslim Brotherhood had several million members in Egypt and had become so strong that the secular government of Gamal Abdul-Nasser had banned it, and hundreds of its members had been banished from Egypt, just like my squash opponent in Riyadh. By 1966, Syed al-Qutub had been tried by Nasser's government and subsequently hanged.

SADAT IN MIDDLE, WITH MUBARAK ON HIS RIGHT

My first visit to Egypt occurred in 1980, which was, perhaps, the high point of the international attention which was being given to Egypt's president at that time, Awar al-Sadat.  Sadat had become quite popular in Egypt when that country's armed forces acquitted themselves courageously against the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1973 war.  His popularity at home, however, would eventually wane, when he shook hands with Prime Minister Begin of Israel in 1979, thus cementing a peace of sorts during the mediation of President Carter at Camp David.

THE ASSASSINATION OF SADAT

After Camp David, Sadat was the darling of the media in America and throughout Europe.  However, during my stay in Cairo in 1980, one thing stood out:  On almost every street corner throughout the city there were enormous banners with Sadat's image emblazoned on them.  Having seen displays of the sort throughout the world, I quickly got the idea that, contrary to what was being said in the U.S, Sadat was an out and out dictator, a feeling which was confirmed by conversations with Egyptians.  Consequently, when Sadat was gunned down by elements in Egypt tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, I was not surprised.

A former air force general, Hosni Mubarak, followed Sadat and managed to extend his rule for more than 30 years, finally falling victim to the Arab spring movement, when the the long-suffering patience of the Egyptian people came to the breaking point after decades of corruption, cronyism, poverty and human rights abuses.

At long last, in what were called "democratic" elections in 2012, the Brotherhood finally came to power, with Mohammed Morsi assuming the presidency of Egypt.  Those elections, by the way, were characterized by intimidation, particularly against the 10 million Egyptian Christians.  The Morsi government lasted a couple of weeks over a year; and, owing to incompetence and widespread violence directed against non-Islamic enthusiasts, was toppled in July of this year. And so, once again in Egypt, events have come full circle and back to a military government.

TOPPLED ISLAMIST PRESIDENT MORSI

Crane Brinton's classic work, ANATOMY OF REVOLUTION, offers some meaningful insight into what is now playing out in the societal upheaval through which Egypt is passing.  The failure of the Sadat and Mubarak regimes to adjust to the demands of a long-beleaguered population, of which 60% now are less than 30 years of age, obviously led to insupportable pressures that could not be restrained by traditional means of repression.  In the succeeding phases of the upheaval, there are predictable developments, viz. various elements of moderate, radical and military orientation will in turn exercise power.  In due course and leading to a final synthesis, hopefully, there will emerge a regime based on expediency and level-headedness.  However, there is a wild-card ingredient in all of this, and that, of course, is Islam.  Again, hopefully, Islam will not return to power in any way to impose an Islamic state on Egypt.  If it does return to power, the result will be disastrous.  Not only will the Egyptian people continue to suffer, the American position in the Middle East will be outflanked by forces dedicated to the destruction of Israel, resulting in turmoil and economic disruption for years to come.

Less than 2 years ago, Barack Obama's director of national intelligence, General James Clapper, was raving about how the Muslim Brotherhood was a moderate, secular force.  And, now, just where are we?  Apparently, that view was not only Clapper's but reflected the wider thinking of the president's foreign policy "experts," who either were engaging in politically correct wishful thinking or just plain did not do their homework.  Whatever the reason, we now have a Middle East situation, compounded by what is happening in both Egypt and Syria, that points to one of the greatest disasters in all the diplomatic history of the U.S. As Americans, we should be embarrassed that we reelected a  rank amateur to the presidency in 2012.