From Wisconsin to Washington to Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Athens, and London, there is a growing discontent of citizens with their own governments. The commonality is that large groups of individuals are organizing protests against the government, but the demands of change are far from universal. And there is no standard of peaceable assembly or violent overthrow, nor have governments reacted in the same manner to discontent of their populations.
While I would hold that the underlying worldwide economic downturn is a primary factor in convincing people to speak out, this factor has not received attention as an international factor, but rather as a side issue on the local stages. The spark in Tunisia was a non-permitted fruit cart seized by a low-level government official. It convinced the owner to set himself on fire, and the people to turn out in large numbers to demand the resignation of a President who probably never heard of the fruit cart owner or the official that seized the cart, until the former permanently disfigured himself, over a hundred dollars worth of goods.
For much of the last 3 years, Americans have gathered in large numbers in Tea Party rallies, to protest government largesse. In 2010, unions gathered in Wisconsin to protest spending cuts of government. In the US, these protests and rallies demonstrate the diverse demands, means, and goals of individuals unhappy with the US Government, as well as the reactions of politicians to the protests.
Internationally, the London riots are also protesting against spending cuts by government, while the Cairo protests were said to be about a President elected too many times, and resulted in a Parliament just elected being tossed out by the military.
In Wisconsin and Washington, the elected officials noted the protestors, but did not change their policies in the least. Gov Walker still passed the union reform legislation, even as union thugs damaged the capitol building. Speaker Pelosi rammed through mandatory health insurance legislation, "so we could find out what is in it." The IVAW showed up to support the unions in Wisconsin, as did college doctors handing out excuses for teachers to miss work. Professional protestors and unemployed malcontents showed up to support bureacrats making upwards of 100k/year in pay and benefits.
In Cairo, shops shut down and unemployed Egyptians gathered for weeks in "Freedom" Square. Despite violence from stone throwing to arson, the media purported that only "pro-government protestors" were behind the violence, downplayed the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and left wing el-Baradei in organizing or leading the calls against an old ally. It called MB "political islam" rather than islamism, because they didn't want to point out that MB has a goal of reducing women's rights and other tyrannical means of government. But the protestors weren't necessarily supporting the MB, even if MB grew more powerful by the actions of the protests. That could easily be an unintended consequence, just as suspending the Egyptian Constitution and disbanding the recently elected Parliament may not have been what the people wanted. But the numbers of protestors have not equalled a majority of the electorate in any location.
In Libya and Iran, the governments did violently suppress the protests. In secular Libya, the people took up arms to overthrow the government while in Iran the protestors simply honored the murderded as martyrs, to inspire greater protests. The Islamist Iranian government remains in power, while the Libyan government has lost its power across much of the nation. There are differences aside from one being a secular, military dictatorship and the other being an islamist tyrannical dictatorship. There are also similiarities, including the sponsorship of international terrorism by those 4 decade old dictatorships.
Libya's support of terrorism has diminished over the years, while Iran's has increased not only in quantity, but also in effectiveness and professionality. Hezbollah and Hamas are both controlled from Iran and have grown into shadow governments and political parties while maintaining their terrorist forces and adding organized crime and militaries to their organs.
In Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, politicians have resigned from power in the face of protests, with little resolve to violently supress the people, while in Libya, Syria, and Iran, the dictators demonstrate their grip on power and stomach for atrocity through government murder of their own people.
Some apologists for the POTUS have claimed that no President has faced such a challenging world of foreign policy. Hogwash. His predecessor faced 9/11, War in Afghanistan, the shifting political winds of War in Iraq, pregnant chads in Florida, and several challenges on Wall Street, including the aftermath of the Dot.com bubble, 9/11, and more. JFK faced the Bay of Pigs disaster, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the rise of the war in Viet Nam, and more. Carter faced the rise of Islamism in Iran, the Tehran Hostage Crisis, and more. Reagan faced the Soviet Union in a Cold War, as well as hot wars in Nicarauga, El Salvador, Grenada, the hostage crises in Beirut, the Beirut Bombings, the Berlin Bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, and an old ally turned drug-running mercenary in Noriega.
The challenges that faced prior Presidents were not always successfully navigated, but it is not difficult to ascertain that decisive action was more effective, even when the wrong plan, than was indecisiveness. Bush Sr. dithered for 3 days on Tianamen Square, and the nation turned against him. Obama dithered for 30 days on Libya and never did have a policy for the Iranian protests, and the world has noted his lack of leadership, or spine. For 2 years, he has sent opposing mixed messages on Afghanistan, and for all of 2011, he has sent opposing mixed messages on protests in the Middle East.
The Libyans are now seen holding up French Flags and praising Sarkozy, because Sarkozy has taken the lead. The media is devoid in coverage of Syria, but 20,000 were on the streets yesterday, protesting the secular dictatorship there, that also happens to be an ally of Islamist Iran and their minions Hezbollah Terrorists.
While previous Presidents dealt with combatting rising communist revolutions against errant allies, this one is dealing with deciding what to do or say about rising popular protests against old, tyrannical enemies. No, the answers aren't easy. He needs to ask the Intelligence world: who are backing the rebels and who is the likely winner if the governments are overthrown, but opposing the current tyrannies of Syria, Iran, and Libya is a no-brainer. The only way to lose is to wait long enough to decide that the rebels or peaceful protestors are murdered before he takes necessary steps. The only way to lose is to support the enemy against a friend or dither in supporting a friend against an enemy.
It is an old, but important saying to combat leaders when the shooting starts: "Do Something, even if it's wrong," because if you just stand there, you're going to get shot. As the Commander in Chief, it is his job, to do something, in these situations. It is a freaking war in Libya. That's what a "kinetic situation" is. He was elected to make tough decisions in tough times. If he can't do that, if this job is above his abilities, then he needs to step aside. He has the best resources of the world at his beck and call. All he has to do is tell someone he wants a full report on the situation in a previously unknown country before he goes to bed, and someone will have it ready to brief over breakfast.
These protests are not equal, nor are the demands of the protestors. The actions of the protestors are equally unequal. Breaking up violent protests with water cannons is far different than dispersing an angry but peaceful crowd with bullets.
The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble, to address grievances to the government. It does not guarantee a right to occupy buildings of government, nor to damage those buildings, nor to commit acts of civil disobediance. Being the loudest does not make one the rightest, nor mean one speaks for everyone. But the American Bureacrat making $100k/year in pay and benefits does not equal an unemployed Egyptian wishing he made $1k/month. It's far different for a Persian to protest for free and fair elections, and a union thug to protest for keeping more than twice the per capita GDP of American workers, and against the duly elected politicians that they opposed.
Stumble It!
