...the work being done - in society and the human soul - may require much longer than fits within our normal time horizons and conventional economic measurements, and is often accompanied and validated by confrontations with violence, even war and terror, yet still must be done, and, when it's ready to be done, can't be stopped.

What history suggests, I submit, is that regime change can have a positive, negative, or indifferent impact on a society. Was the American revolution a disaster? What about the Velvet revolution? Or the original Egyptian revolution in 1952 (when Nasser took power).

The horrific scenario occurs when a revolution is accompanied by a very big war: WW1 and Germany begat Lenin and Bolshevism; WW2 and Japan begat Mao and his radicalism; we'll never know what would have happened in France and Iran if they weren't invaded by neighbors who thought they saw an opportunity and took it.

Egypt, fortunately, probably won't face this problem. If a new regime only had to contend with external enemies, truth be told, it could probably pension off 90% of its military (Libya, Sudan, and Israel constitute zero threat).

Even with the US picking up so many of its bills, how could Egypt become a modern and responsive society when so much of its polity and economy is chained to a military dictatorship? Such regimes don't evolve--they stagnate until they get replaced.

History also shows that nothing good or stable has been achieved by just sitting stagnantly...

I would like to share a popular saying by Einstein here, which I believe sums up the whole scenario: The World is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil. But because of the people who won't do anything about it...

It was Louis XVI not XIV. And Taleyyrand dis not serve the king per se.

It was Louis XVI not XIV. And Talleyrand did not serve the king per se.

The lure of romanticized Revolutions and its hidden intrinsic Barbarity

Revolutions more often than not unleash the Darkest forces entrapped in the most extremist fringes of a society, no matter how advanced and prosperous the latter might have been, as was the case in France (1789 succeded by the Terror era instituted by Robespierre, whose followers proudly called themselves "Terrorists", a word THEY coined), in Russia (1917) hostage to a totalitarian murderous communist Orwellian police state, and in Iran (1979) where the greatest degree of institutionalized Barbarity, Terror and cultural alienation & acculturation was foisted upon the Iranian royal nation by the Revolutionaries ( = once allied Marxist and Islamist perfectly trained terrorists and barbarians duely "repressed" under the Shah by the so outrageously and grotesquely defamated Savak, the salutary royal counter-Terrorist and counter-intelligence service of the antitotalitarian monarchic regime).

Why has then the misleading lure of romanticized Revolutions lingered on so long and persisted to this very day?
Because History has been written by the victors to the utmost detriment of the systematically slandered vanquished (France's King Louis XVI, Russia's Czar Nicholas II, Iran's magnanimous Shah).
Vae Victis! as the Romans used to say...

Shahpour, 78, exiled Persian royalist, Paris, FRANCE
founder of Memorial of Kings
cofounder of I.C.A.S.T. (International Committee Against State Terrorism)

Before the present tense situation can end up in a relatively smooth transition to a democratically elected government in Egypt, the concerns raised by Mr. Mack are valid. However, modern times have seen dozens and dozens of oppressive military regimes being toppled by either popular uprisings or continued civil resistance, leading to what is called new or restored democracies. The upheaval in East Europe, change in Latin America (Chile and Argentina) Asia (the Philippines and Indonesia) are just a few samples. Yes, in several cases resistance has led to wars, chaos or a more oppressive regime, such the cases of Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and a number of African countries.

Yet, what is characteristic about the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is that they have been initiated and fueled by this young generation of the internet. It is the same generation that helped to bring Mr. Obama to the white House in 2008. We can hardly compare our times to those of the French, Bolshevik or Maoist revolutions. This new generation, as if accomplishing an evolutionary leap in terms of awareness of its rights, has left behind the traditional forces of society – the political parties with the Muslim Brotherhood included – which are trying to catch up with the events.

Although they seem abrupt, the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions are results of a decade or rather decades of internal resistance and external pressures. In Egypt there have been series of strikes by trade unions, demonstrations of youth and protests of civil society and human rights organizations. During the past decade the Mubarak regime, aiming to attract foreign investment and yielding to some extent to external and internal pressures has relaxed, to a little degree, its oppressive grip on power.

The dynamics of the revolution have already created a new atmosphere in relations between secularists and Islamists; Muslims and Christians; and people from different social strata. Although the Islamists have the most organized and powerful political party among the opposition, they have not been the leaders of events. The secular segments of the society are far more numerous, though not united or well organized. A transitional period will give secular forces a chance for better organization. The army will have a stabilizing role in any tensional or future government.

Even if the Islamists come to power through election, they cannot follow in the steps of Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah. The complex situation inside Egypt, which is too different, and the sensitive strategic location of Egypt make any attempt to establish a regime similar to those ones will amount to political suicide. The Islamists in Egypt, who after decades of violent clashes with the Government, have renounced violence and accepted to play by the rules of democracy. If they have a change of heart in the future and try to what their brethren in Algeria tried to do in 1991, they will not be allowed by the Egyptian people and the army.

No rulers in Egypt, within their minds, will try to abrogate the Peace Treaty with Israel. They may use harsh rhetoric and try to exert political pressure on Israel in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. Just like what Turkey is trying to do. Egypt is more like Turkey than anything else.

(Reposted after corrction of typo errors)

Before the present tense situation can end up in a relatively smooth transition to a democratically elected government in Egypt, the concerns raised by Mr. Mack are valid. However, modern times have seen dozens and dozens of oppressive military regimes being toppled by either popular uprisings or continued civil resistance, leading to what is called new or restored democracies. The upheaval in East Europe, change in Latin America (Chile and Argentina) Asia (the Philippines and Indonesia) are just a few samples. Yes, in several cases resistance has led to wars, chaos or a more oppressive regime, such as the cases of Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and a number of African countries.

Yet, what is characteristic about the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is that they have been initiated and fueled by this young generation of the internet. It is the same generation that helped to bring Mr. Obama to the white House in 2008. We can hardly compare our times to those of the French, Bolshevik or Maoist revolutions. This new generation, as if accomplishing an evolutionary leap in terms of awareness of its rights, has left behind the traditional forces of society – the political parties with the Muslim Brotherhood included – which are trying to catch up with the events.

Although they seem abrupt, the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions are results of a decade or rather decades of internal resistance and external pressures. In Egypt there have been series of strikes by trade unions, demonstrations of youth and protests of civil society and human rights organizations. During the past decade the Mubarak regime, aiming to attract foreign investment and yielding to some extent to external and internal pressures has relaxed, to a little degree, its oppressive grip on power.

The dynamics of the revolution have already created a new atmosphere in relations between secularists and Islamists; Muslims and Christians; and people from different social strata. Although the Islamists have the most organized and powerful political party among the opposition, they have not been the leaders of events. The secular segments of the society are far numerous, though not united or well organized. A transitional period will give secular forces a chance for better organization. The army will have a stabilizing role in any transitional or future government.

Even if the Islamists come to power through election, they cannot follow in the steps of Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah. The complex situation inside Egypt, which is too different, and the sensitive strategic location of Egypt make any attempt to establish a regime similar to those ones will amount to political suicide. The Islamists in Egypt, who after decades of violent clashes with the Government, have renounced violence and accepted to play by the rules of democracy. If they have a change of heart in the future and try to do what their brethren in Algeria tried to do in 1991, they will not be allowed by the Egyptian people and the army.

No rulers in Egypt, within their minds, will try to abrogate the Peace Treaty with Israel. They may use harsh rhetoric and try to exert political pressure on Israel in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. Just like what Turkey is trying to do. Egypt is more like Turkey than anything else.

The Western nations' whole message about Democracy, freedom, and all that fizzled when Hamas won the Palestinian election. The same will happen to Egypt if Egyptians want an anti-Western/Israel government.