The people of Egypt took to the streets and Hosni Mubarak left in haste together with his offspring who threatened to carry on a dynasty. Maybe not royalty, but what’s the difference? The problem is, as it will be for Libya and everywhere else where people are expressing their wish for freedom and democracy, what’s next? What will the next establishment look like. The Guardian article by Nawal El Saadhawi poses that question and concludes that the new are “still the President’s men”.
Mubarak had kept close to the US leadership which, as with other “dear leaders”, had groomed the despots, giving them dollars to prop up the corrupt state to do the US (and NATO) bidding. In that respect what has changed?
The US and allies are having problems with consistency. Afghanistan still appears to be unravelling as billions spent makes little difference. The resentment caused of interfering in other nation’s affairs is regarded as the best recruiting sergeant for the “terrorist”. Arguably the more you kill and waste the more opposition you build. So bombing Libya is an answer but in Syria it is not. Appeasement is the watchword here, even though civilians, supposedly the main concern in Libya, has little currency there, and even less if any in Palestinian territories.