If every other country and its people look up at America as a land of liberty and follow its elections and stock market, America has carried torch of freedom and liberty over last few centuries. I would not have downsized America's role just because it made devil pacts with dictators. There are more dictators left, and America has a chance to change 'national interest' policy.

There is a key idea, important to America's policy toward the Middle East in the future, missing in Miller's perceptive analysis.

It is that Americans -- and not only Americans -- are prone to think that freedom and democracy are natural conditions. They will exist in all places and at all times unless some force prevents this from happening. Thus the emotive and superficial narrative about Hosni Mubarak's regime existing in Egypt only because successive American Presidents "propped it up."

Reality is almost precisely the other way around. Representative democracy, alone among the major systems of government, makes demands of citizens fully as formidable as those it makes of leaders of governments. It will not exist unless people choose it, and dedicate themselves in perpetuity to sustaining that choice. Nor is the choice itself a simple one, for it requires public consent to principles in areas from speech to property rights that may be very different from the historical experience of any one country.

American policy toward many regions of the world has often manifested the contradiction between what Americans would like to believe is true and what actually is true. Regimes as varied as Chiang's China, Stalin's Russia, any number of Latin American military dictatorships and several Middle Eastern regimes were all publicly described at various times as friends and allies of the United States by American officials who knew full well their shortcomings (and by some Americans who were oblivious to them), because they judged the alternative to be worse. That judgement was correct far more often than not. One could, as Miller does, refer to "devil's bargains" in our relations with many governments besides Mubarak's; the phrase is often appropriate. It is also unavoidable if the United States is to conduct foreign relations at all.

Our challenge now with respect to Egypt is to communicate American values in a way that does not raise hopes on which we cannot make good. Democracy in Egypt would be a good outcome from the American point of view, and a worthy object of American policy. A transition from a government led by Hosni Mubarak to one dominated by the Egyptian military is not a transition to democracy. The Obama administration's public statements must reflect this understanding while maintaining America's ability to engage the government that does emerge from this month's events on the issues of greatest importance to us.

Nobody expected or asked for Obama to "micromanage" or "control" the internal affairs of Egypt. We simply hoped that the guy who made a pledge to restore America's image abroad and went out of his way to give a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo would not continue to support the criminal side in a historical conflict. He lost an incredible opportunity to act on his promise of change and instead proved himself inept and hypocritical at international affairs. He can't be blamed for 30 years of wrong policy, but he is absolutely responsible for continuing those wrong policies even when the conditions changed dramatically.

i agree with the author that obama has played a difficult hand pretty well--so far. i am inclined to a C+, but might go as high as a B on the curve here at mid-term because of the difficulty of the test. obama could be getting an A but for his failure to stand consistently for OUR revolutionary values and insisting upon them in iran last summer as well as egypt today. with a reagan, the entire world would have no doubt where the moral force of the u.s.a. would land; under obama we are forced to wonder to what pragmatic goal freedom might be sacrificed--in the case of iran it was sacrificed to a naive "outreach" to the nuclearizing mullahs.

it is also giving obama too much to say that he could not have anticipated the egyptian uprising. some anticipated this long ago. they are called neo-cons, who said that toppling sadaam hussein would lead to the real chance that liberty principles would take hold in the middle east. a "real chance" has never meant a guaranty, yet here we are less than 8 years from sadaam saying bye-bye after having to hide in a spider hole, and look at how the currents are running towards liberty. true, the tides of darkness are also a force and iran is more powerful, too--and iranian fascism may even prevail--but the chance for freedom IS there.

keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

The way Foxnews was telling it, Obama lost control the minute the Egyptians hit the streets!! But now the US has to keep on top of things!!

diogod:

hey, reagan sent the ayatollahs a cake . . . so what's your problem?

yep, reagan did a terrible job bringing freedom, didn't he. from little grenada to throwing out the little castro daniel ortega and saving el salvador from the bandits trying to control that country, all the way to getting the berlin wall torn down, reagan never did nothin for nobody.

i agree that nobody's perfect and that the u.s. did some unsavory things under reagan, albeit all presidents have to get cut some slack in that area. roosevelt allied with stalin to defeat hitler; clinton and gore made big use of rendition; obama sends planes over international borders to kill terrorists just like nixon invaded "the parrott's beak" in neutral cambodia. good liberal democrats like the harrimans started their fortunes as robber barons as did the rockefellers. other liberal heroes like jack kennedy "offed" diem, which is why diem's wife smiled at kennedy's own assassination.

today, a favorite liberal taunt of bush is that by getting rid of sadaam, he pulled the safety plug against iranian power. hey,that also was the nixon/rumsfeld line. interesting what shifts politicians make in attacking one another.

which is why, in the end, the only proper position for a u.s. president is that we are a revolutionary country, our revolution is one of inalienable human rights, and it is our duty to support and spread our universal ideals wherever possible. obama failed that test in iran, he is ok but no great shakes so far on egypt with a ways to go, and overall reagan brought more freedom to hundreds of millions and gets a solid A.

keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

Egypt have exposed the increasing conflicts between the "American values" and America's interests, throughout the crisis da Us gov had struggled to stay in the gray area , waiting for a clear winner to jump in his ship. All of that because of Israel.

Soon after he was elected, Pres Obama went to Egypt and gave a widely covered speech encouraging Muslims to embrace democracy, modernity and moderation. It wasn't exactly "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" but it may have been as effective.

With all deu respect, the story you wrote is not rich enouch to fool a man with even a little bit understanding of politics. You say Iraq is much better, REALLY? is that how you define better? The US administration had its full support to Mubarak at the initaill days of the uprising but when they realized people are getting heavy on him they suddenly changed parties, which is a very rational political move, but the release of so called, now fashion in US, the secret documents stating that US was supporting the egyptian youth for freedom from past one year. I see that a lose but we all do agree masses have very short memory.
US taking the freedom and human rights seriously, depends solely upon its interests and extension plans, I dont hear Obama or Hillary saying anything about Saudi Arabia and very little about Afghanistan.

Dear writer, a junior school student might believe your story but it was a god try on your side for a good campaign of yours.

Miller, who knows better or at least should know better, seriously minimizes the US's and his own complicity in this regime. All the military aid, the renditions, the complicity in torture, the huge and secret involvement of the CIA in that country, which any expert on Egypt can recount tons of juicy stories about, the way in which the Egypt was never dealt with as Egypt but only insofar as it gave a free hand to Israel to continue ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and bomb Lebanon at will, the way in which the US loved Mubarak precisely because he did not reflect the will of his people, the way in which they loved the fact that Mubarak was willing to put under the cruelest siege the terribly suffering people of Gaza.

The thing is that despite Miller's obfuscation and its effects on naive American readers, the people of the Middle East are not fooled by this charade that old State Dept. hands like Miller are throwing before your eyes.

No matter how Obama or whoever else spins this, this will go down as one of the biggest defeats for US foreign policy in 40 years, even though it does not threaten the US whatsoever-- it only threatens its darling satelite state Israel.

The main effect, the one that will be with us for decades to come, is that it confirms the old saying about the US, which the Italian and Portuguese communist parties used to say about why they didn't want the US as an ally, and how they never would wanted the US as an ally:

"It is indeed terrible to be an enemy of the US, but it is even more terrible to be their friend."

This is something that Mubarak, who wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, has just learned, and a lot of other leaders are going to learn it in the coming months and years.

When that sinks in to the leaders of SA, of Jordan, of Bahrain, and elsewhere, we will see one of two things-- either those countries will become democratic, through reform or revolution, or they will radically alter their own foreign policies to reflect the people's will. WHen that happens, the US empire of bases is finished.

All of this promises to be good for US citizens, by the way, who have never profited from the overseas monstrosity that has been created in our name.

What do you think ? is US loosing or gaing ground

Unless Egypt contitution be fully changed, specially article 1&2, to secure a free democratic and liberal political life in Egypt. The Egyptian revolution will be the mother of new Hamas baby in the region.
So we hope the US be alert, soon a new IB dectatorship will be in the region

Ordinary Americans are manipulated easily by language. Win or lose Egypt or Vietnam (1973) or China (1949) is the speech of our imperial government. The US government does not represent and seldom has represented the "national interest" , if that means the interest of the vast majority of its citizens. The use of the little word "we" or "our" in so much political writing is another insidious tool that hides the separation of our government and leaders from the citizens. It also hides the unholy wedding of mjaor US corporations and the political leaders they install through the sham election system that is our Potemkin democracy.

During the McCarthy period (Joe not Eugene), an expression was common among the rabid right: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Similarly, if a country supports tyrants and consorts with tyrants, it's a tyranny; and that's what we are! We are not a democracy, only a sham democracy that uses media to narcotize our people; poor folks on the way down!

All of the tyrants of the past, were they alive, would be envious of our ruling elite. They dominate without using black-shirts or brown shirts. The thugs are held in reserve for dealing with unusual protests, as occurred in Seattle, for example. They are local police forces, aided by private "security" firms when necessary, less and less often.

Our former republic is a thing of the past; our Bill of Rights, a piece of paper; our separation of powers Constitution, shredded in part by a Harvard Law graduate of dubious academic and legal credentials, mostly sealed. I mean the President, Barack Obama.

We have been interfering in Egypt and the Middle East for decades, funding and arming the worst dictators. And suddenly when the population rebels, our unwillingness to unequivocally stand by them (while continuing the material support to the regime) is to be explained by our decision that the world had enough of American manipulation? C'mon!

Of course the Arabs had enough of American support for dictatorships, but Obama never stopped manipulating and interfering. It's just that now the people are neutralizing that manipulation to a certain extent and are fighting for their rights against Obama's agenda. Obama supports democracy in the region only in principle, but he himself is not willing to back it up. His support for democracy and change is just like his support for single payer health care system - it may really be his personal preference, but as long as the people don't force his hand, he will not spend political capital by withdrawing support for the the status quo until it is inevitable.

If we are really willing to stop interfering, why not cut all military aid to undemocratic regimes?

According to Miller, "And let's be clear here, Hosni Mubarak isn't Saddam Hussein: He's not a sociopath or a mass murderer. Indeed, until last month, I guarantee you, any number of U.S. officials, including the president and the secretary of state, chummed it up with him in Washington and Cairo."

Well, until the invasion of Kuwait and directly threatening U.S. interests, a number of U.S. officials "chummed it up" with Saddam Hussein. The issue was never that he was a psychopath, it was that he ceased being the U.S.'s psychopath.

The arrogance of U.S. foreign policy is implicit in Miller's piece. I am shocked to hear Miller anoint himself, like others anoint themselves, fit to decide what kind of authoritarianism is unacceptable and what kind of authoritarianism is acceptable given that in in both cases the people living under such regimes are categorical in their preferences.

Rather than taking what happened in Egypt as a lesson for why supporting authoritarianism (irrespective of the "kind") is both morally and strategically bankrupt, Miller seems more interested in defending the foreign policy establishment of the United States. Has what happened caused no retrospection, no second thoughts, no pause for contemplating a different future? At issue, with respect to U.S. policy, is not whether it is able to micromanage regional and domestic politics in the Middle East. The issue is that its "support" for reform/democratization was always conditioned on maintaining its interests. While that might be the fact of great power politics, pretending as Miller does that that is not always the case only serves to legitimate this fact. There is no tight rope being walked. U.S. interests trump all else.

Its not that the Obama Administration wanted to support the ouster of Mubarak on altruistic or democratic principles. Come on! Its that they wanted to be on the winning side when all was said and done. They were hedging their bets both in Egypt and the region. The reason they were doing so was not because they were walking some thin line. It was and is because their concern for the region is purely instrumental and is never about democracy. So can we please stop with the devil's bargain and thin line and tight rope speak.

Democratic presidents have a way of taking totalitarian pro-America governments and turning them into even more totalitarian anti-America governments.

Democracy is more than just voting. An unprepared population gets to vote once and never again. That's when you get governments like Iran and Hamas.

A precondition for being allowed to field candidates in an election should be that they do not intend to dismantle the democracy after the election.

You say America could not act differently because of the mindset of America's policymakers during the Cold War and after.

Well, that's the problem isn't it? Presidents may want but Congress does not. Whatever. The conclusion is that America has not been a force for good in the Middle East. And it could act differently. No cosmic fatality in America's policy in the region.

And you do not say why that is so: essentially on behalf of Israel. Come on, say it Miller! Congress does not do what is right by Egyptians but what is right by Likudniks because it is in hock to a foreign power, Israel, which buys and sells Senators and Congressmen at will.

Finally you say America has to keep on the right side of the army because America will have to deal with it. Yes, with a military it has propped up, financed, armed to the teeth -- less than Israel of course. So it is a vicious circle, don't you see? You strengthen an institution and then claim you have to deal with it. It is dumb, very dumb.

And in any event, threaten the Egyptian army with the withdrawal of the 1.5 billion US$ you give it yearly and it will come on its knees. You do not need to deal with the army. You want to deal with the army. Because America's foreign policy is essentially a military one. You keep on the good side of soldiers, not of people.