David Brooks hits the nail on the head in a piece in the New York Times from yesterday. He goes directly for the root arguments for those who are claiming that we shouldn’t support the uprising in these three points:
First, the foreign policy realists who say they tolerate authoritarian government for the sake of stability are ill informed. Autocracies are more fragile than any other form of government, by far.
Second, those who say that speeches by outsiders have no influence on places like Egypt have it backward. The climate of opinion is the very basis of the revolt.
Third, for all the pessimism and nervousness that accompanies change, most countries that have experienced uprisings end up better off. We can all think of exceptions, like Iran, but we should greet these events with eagerness and hope.
Using their logic, the Velvet and Orange revolutions were dangerous… while history just hasn’t born that out. Using their logic, we should sit back and not take sides, even though we claim to be a beacon of freedom for the world. Using their logic, we should have sided with Musharraf over the lawyers who rose up after he fired the chief justice of their supreme court.
Their logic is garbage.