That wasn't an attack on Egypt, it was an attack on Israel. They attacked Israelis in Egypt because the wall and the incursions make it tough to launch attacks on Tel Aviv. Lee Smith is a moron.

The Vick piece is fascinating, but what I'd really like to know is, How was the reporting done? The knock on either the press or the occupation itself has been that Iraq has reached the point where Westerners are quarantined into the decreasingly secure Green Zone. (Hawkish version: reporters are too scared to venture out and see all the good things. Critical version: security is so bad reporters and officials dare not venture out . . . ) Vick has direct quotes from self-identified members of native-Iraqi insurgent groups, so presumably he didn't have a US military escort. Who were his guardian angels? No local stringer was identified as "contributing to this report," so theoretically it's all Vick.

This would all seem to work in favor of Mr. Bush's actions in the area. His goals of a foundational change in the region would seem to be coming to fruition.

I wonder if the usual suspects will be so good as to credit him properly?

I wasn't quite persuaded by Lee Smith's piece.

Sure, the Taba attacks might signal a shift in emphasis on the part of al Qaeda and groups associated with it. But it seems to me more likely that sites important to the Egyptian economy have never ceased being potential targets. Tight Egyptian security has discouraged some terrorists and driven others out of the country, but evidently security at Taba was not as tight for some reason -- and probably had not been as tight for some time, given the length of time it normally takes al Qaeda to prepare attacks of the kind made last week.

There could also have been local issues involved here, a thought that occurs because the explosives used in the Taba bombings appear to have been procured locally. I don't know enough about the Sinai to say what these might have been.

To Jim Henley: Karl Vick did an online chat yesterday (http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/world_vick101304.htm) in which he discusses reporting from Baghdad.

Evidently Iraqi stringers are used extensively. They often do not get bylines, I suppose for their own protection.

So how are those radical Islamists doing?
Um, better than the Red Sox I guess.

Amazing, the analysis of the Taba attacks. It's like listening to a man with 20 20 vision pursuade himself he's blind -- a painful misuse of vestigial reason. Once again, we have rhetoric about how 'desperate" the enemy must be for successfully carrying out a surprise attack. By Lee's reasoning, of course, the WTC was such an act of desperation by A.Q. that it is surprising we even responded at all -- surely it shows that bin Laden was about to commit suicide? And if they overthrow the Egyptian government -- that would be a real defeat for Al Qaeda. And gee, what if they assassinate Allawi? Why, that would be our biggest triumph ever!
I'm with praktike. Lee Smith is a moron.

These reports are probably a little over optimistic, but I think the underlying dynamic is correct.

Here's the deal, notwithstanding the 'cycle of violence' cults obsessions, the truth is that fighting this war in the Middle East as opposed to here and in Europe is the fastest way to end the war. Its a lot easier for the Arab street to support Al Qaeda and love OBL when they are killing Americans. When Iraqis and Egyptians are blowing up, it drives the war home. We are giving the people of the region a stark contrast. We build schools, AQ blows up children. We deliver democracy, AQ instills militant Islam and murders opposition. The realist argument is a recipe for what got us into this mess. The region is evolving now because we are forcing it to. The real cycle of violence is the endless string of dictators using Wahabiism and anti-Americanism to prop up their rule.

I think this is very good news. If the foreign fighters are culled from this mess, the numbers drop substantially. If you weed out foreign fighters and all the AQ types, it looks even better.

Suddenly, you have much lower intensity resistance playing by somewhat stable rules. This is a lot easier to deal with than what we have been facing.

I think - call me crazy - that things are fixing toget a whole lot better in Iraq over the next year.

I hope, for fairness sake, that Bush is there to reap the rewards.

Uh, you seem to be implying that militant Islam fears democracy, when in fact that is exactly what they are fighting for in many places. Just ask the Algerians. There would be an al-Qaida friendly regime in Algeria instead of the current US-Franco puppet regime if democratic elections had not been cancelled in 1992. Do you actually think that militant Islam would not salivate at the chance to have a vote in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan or Yemen? Can you imagine the Egyptian and Jordanian leadership defending their pro-Israeli policies in US-style debates against a hard-line Islamist candidate?

It is true that the Sunnis hardly want a democracy in Iraq since they are such a small minority and have gotten used to being the ruling class over there, but Iran certainly supports elections in Iraq. And what about Iran? In 1953 the US overthrew the democratically elected Iranian leader and it was not until after the '79 revolution that Iran was able to go back to being at least a semi-democracy. Ever since WWII the US has been subverting democracy in the Middle East; it is with the greatest foolishness that the current breed of historically illiterate pundits are somehow imagining that a democratic Middle East equals a pro-American Middle East. Experience has shown the exact opposite to be true.

Kevin, what color is the sky on your planet?

But it seems to me more likely that sites important to the Egyptian economy have never ceased being potential targets.

Not so. The Egyptian Jihadi groups were completely discredited after the '97 Luxor attacks, and they publicly renounced violence in 1999. Zawahiri denounced the move from his perch in Afghanistan, but Islamic Jihad had by that point been hobbled and incorporated into Al Qaeda.

Mark,

Please name one country on my list where if free elections were held tomorrow a hardline Islamist government would not be elected.

If you believe anything in my comment above is incorrect, please point out my error to me.

The sky is a very dark grey right now on my planet.

You vastly overestimate the number of people in those nations who want a fundamentalist regime. Anti-American, anti-Israeli, sure. But as we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq, the allure of a Taliban like regime is very small.

Kevin,

I think you mistaked "semi" for "non," unless of course, having votes (sham or not) is enough to qualify as a democracy in your view.

If anyone has a reason to be fundamentalist its the Palestinians and they are one of the more secular groups in the region. Is suppose they are 'semi-democratic' as well.

you cannot stop the freedom flood.

I have a theory that i have not done any research on or seen reproduced (though i bet that it has been).

Does increasing the speed that information travels, the amount of infomation, the freedom of infomation increase the speed of political and economic liberalization?

"In Slate, Lee Harris has a long essay..." Actually, that's Lee SMITH, o learned one.

Whoops! Fixed now.

Mark,

The Taliban are the most extreme example of a hard-line Islamist government, there are many other types, such as what Ayatollah Sistani is going to impose on Iraq if he gains power and what we see in the current governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I stand by my statement, if free elections were held tomorrow a hard-line Islamist government would be elected in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen.

Anti-American, anti-Israeli, sure

Thank you Mark for starting to see my point. Not only would these newly democratically elected governments be hard-line Islamist governments, they would also be anti-American and anti-Israeli. Now do you really believe that we are fighting and dying in the Middle East in order to democratize it so that we can replace pro-American and pro-Israeli governments with anti-American and anti-Israeli governments? If you actually believe this then I need to ask you what color the sky is on your planet. As I said, the only way these countries are going to be pro-American and pro-Israeli is if they are not democracies. Our anti-democractic policies in these countries will continue, mark my words.

"Not only would these newly democratically elected governments be hard-line Islamist governments, they would also be anti-American and anti-Israeli."

You havent provided any evidence that these nations would be hard line Islamic. You made a statement. Pakistan is supposedly the most dogedly fundamentalist populations in the world and they elected _a woman_.

There is a huge difference between anti-American and fundamentalist. Turkey is a secular Muslim nation that is _very_ anti-American. So is Indonesia. Would totalitarian versions of these nations more friendly to America serve us better? No. Democratic nations operate on self-interest ultimately, and being on peaceful terms with America is a fundamental interest for every nation. Turkey wouldnt let us use their bases, but they are still a critical ally even if 90% of their population hates us. Is a friendly monarchy in Jordan better for our interests in the long run than a democratic, anti-american Jordan? I dont think so.

"Now do you really believe that we are fighting and dying in the Middle East in order to democratize it so that we can replace pro-American and pro-Israeli governments with anti-American and anti-Israeli governments?"

Yes. Because ultimately pro-American governments havent been doing as advertized and supporting our interests. Saudis were as responsible as anyone for 911. An anti-American but democratic Saudi Arabia is a better neighbor than what we have.

"Our anti-democractic policies in these countries will continue, mark my words."

Like in Afghanistan?

I think you mistaked "semi" for "non," unless of course, having votes (sham or not) is enough to qualify as a democracy in your view.

We can debate how “democratic” Iran is today; certainly with its elected parliament and presidential elections, albeit highly compromised recently, it is more democratic than say Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt but it is certainly not as democratic as Turkey. What we can’t argue about is that it was more or less a proper democracy in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh for daring to nationalize Iran’s oilfields. After this coup d'etat Iran became an absolute monarchy because that was the only form of government that would insure a pro-American and pro-Israeli regime. The Shah briefly flirted with a constitutional monarchy but this threatened his relations with the West and he therefore crushed these reforms which led to the 1979 revolution. What is undeniable is that Iran today is far more democratic than it was under the Shah and the only way they got there was to overthrow their pro-American government. This is the lesson that was learned in the Muslim world, make of it what you will.

Kevin, are you advocating setting up friendly tyrants or not?

Mark, I specifically listed six countries that would go Islamist, I did not list the counties you mentioned because I do not believe that they would become Islamist if democratic elections were held, just as you have stated. In Afghanistan I do believe we would allow a democratically elected government, I have been very careful not to say otherwise.

Yes. Because ultimately pro-American governments havent been doing as advertized and supporting our interests. Saudis were as responsible as anyone for 911. An anti-American but democratic Saudi Arabia is a better neighbor than what we have.

These are very intelligent words Mark, I couldn’t agree with you more. Every time we intervene in the Middle East it backfires on us and we dig a deeper hole for ourselves. You and I are therefore in perfect agreement in terms of what we think US policy should be for the Middle East then, we should support democratization and let the chips fall where they may.

The problem is that our current government and Kerry’s future Administration do not agree with your statement. We have not seen the least bit of real pressure put on Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Yemen to democratize. We are sending many of these counties billions of dollars in aid and not once have I heard anyone threaten to cut these funds off—let alone to threaten sanctions—if real democratic reforms weren’t enacted.

As for providing proof that these countries would go Islamist, the best I can say is take the example of Turkey, it currently has a soft-line Islamist government and it is one of the most secular Islamic countries around. I may be wrong about Syria but the other I have no doubt about. From all my reading about these countries, if you imagine a US-style debate between a pro-American, pro-Israeli secularist leader and a hard-line Islamist (this is a larger category than just the Taliban it really means a regime that would impose Sharia law) I can’t see the pro-western politician doing very well, especially as long as the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues. I hope I get to be proven wrong soon but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

"We have not seen the least bit of real pressure put on Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Yemen to democratize."

Thats not entirely true, and in fact Jordan and Saudi Arabia have begun democratic reform on the grass roots level. With our encouragement Morocco is even further along the path.
You are right, we dont hold our aid over there heads or twist there arms. Of course, Jordan and Egypt receive aid as part of our Israel policy so that has to be accounted for. The bottom line is, the wind is blowing towards democracy in the region for the first time. Even the discussions being had on the subject would have been unthinkable pre-Iraq.

"From all my reading about these countries, if you imagine a US-style debate between a pro-American, pro-Israeli secularist leader and a hard-line Islamist"

I think our definitions are at odds. When you say 'hard-line Islamist' I think shooting women in the soccer field and terrorist training camps. Afghanistans constitution has many Islamic tenants included, does that make them Islamists? Perhaps, but again, the flavor or Islam that threatens us is Islamo-fascism, which by definition is not democratic. There just isnt a majority desire to see hard core Sharia law in these nations. Now an 'Islamic' government based on Islamic tenants you might be right, but that isnt necessarilly at odds with our interests either, any more than Israel being a 'Jewish' state.

"I can’t see the pro-western politician doing very well, especially as long as the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues."

Of course not, but that isnt our priority. This is a process, and democratic nations dont fight with each other, are more prosperous, and tend to live up to their international obligations (ie, not building terror camps or financing disco bombings). We have to look long term here. An anti-American middle east with democracy is far more favorable to us in the long term than the status quo. Pay me now or pay me later.

I'm surprised Vick didn't cite Nir Rosen's article that appeared in the New Yorker 6 mths ago.

www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040705fa_fact

Rosen spent time in Falluja. He speaks Arabic and convinced the locals he was a Bosnian muslim. He described way back then that the local leaders were getting fed up with the behavior of the non-Iraqi fundamentalist jihadis. Too bad Bush and our civilian leaders only see good/evil. Can't even use basic divide and conquer strategies in a black/white world. When the marines first took over the area from the army they seemed to have a pretty good take on the situation and may have been able to exploit the local frustration with the jihadis. But, Bush had to lose his top and insist on an assault on the city after those 4 wayward mercenaries rode right up Main St. Falluja, without permission, against policy, and with the common sense of sand fleas. Would have been a heck of lot easier to work something out in Falluja back before we started air bombing them.

Lee Smith is a moron.

And to this I say 'word.'

Sure we are taking it to the radical islamists. We are the most powerful nation on earth. Micky Mouse could be in charge and the shear weight of our world power would do some ass whippin. The issue is whether we are going after terrorists in the most effective way. Was Iraq a real threat? No. Would we have been better off to stabilize Afganastan before opening a new front. Yes. Could we have boosted our standing with the moderate muslims by pushing hard to deal with the Israel/Palistinian problem. Yes. Would putting real presure on the Saudis to clean up their act cut at some of the roots of terrorism. Yes. Does killing innocent Iraqis create more or fewer terrorists? More. On and on . . .. Please check on website at http://www.hoppervideo.net I've posted a few short movies about the Bush Administration's lies about the Iraqi threat.

Diehl:
While there have been some arrests, most of the nascent democrats are surviving. Despite all the defiant rhetoric, Egyptian and Saudi police, it turns out, are hesitant to pummel people who say they are responding to the president of the United States.
Fred Kaplan:
NPR's Deborah Amos recently returned from a tour of the Arab states with similar findings. Reform-minded figures in Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia told her that they don't want Bush to endorse their goals or programs—that association with the United States these days, for any cause, is a kiss of death.

"Does killing innocent Iraqis create more or fewer terrorists?"

Terrorists kill many more...

1- most important achievement of this year:

Bush found a Team of Iraquis willing to rebuild the country with US help.

2- most positive sign of this year:

Iraquis went to register in Police and Army in great numbers, that means word "colaborationist" doesnt have social power inside Iraq.
So much was the sucess of Police that islamic terrorists unable to convince Iraquis even with help from Al-Jazeera & Co. had to resort to fear factor targeting police stations.

Every time i heard a police station bombed, while i was sorry to the courageous Iraquis i knowed that it was a best sign for the success of overall battle: Iraquis wanted to build a new country.

Right now terrorists failed all STRATEGIC objectivs

- Unable to drive most Iraquis against US
- Unable to put Iraquis fighting each other
- Unable to put religion issues in top table
- Unable to ruin the economy

This doesnt mean they will be only a "Nuisance" in futur. They still can do much damage (like killing Gov. members for exemple) and certainly will fight to the bitter end like Japanese in 2WWar. I expect least more 5 years of bombs attacks. But unless something very diferent happens they already have lost in Iraq.

Forgot one thing: if the election turns to be a success like Afghanistan; this time media will be unable to downplay it, and it will have consequences in the region.

"Too bad Bush and our civilian leaders only see good/evil. Can't even use basic divide and conquer strategies in a black/white world."

Funny, when Bush gets Libya to flip or cuts deals with Pakistan to capture a bunch of AQ leaders its the 'same old realpolitic propping up dictators'. When Bush pushes democracy in Iraq and tries to crush the people blowing up police stations and children, its seeing the world in black and white.

"When the marines first took over the area from the army they seemed to have a pretty good take on the situation and may have been able to exploit the local frustration with the jihadis. "

Um, any evidence this was a Washington decision?

Actually, Mark, that's an interesting subject. Marine General Conway seemed to indicate that it was, but his statement left some questions unanswered. If the decision to launch the April assault on Fallujah-based insurgents (and the subsequent decision to call it off) was made in Washington, where in Washington was it made? The Pentagon? The White House? Was the President involved?

And were the two decisions (to launch the attack and to call it off) made by the same people?

I don't know what the answers to these questions are. But March and April surely saw an unfortunate series of events in the Fallujah area; it would be worth exploring the decisions made during that period.

Please name one country on my list where if free elections were held tomorrow a hardline Islamist government would not be elected.

Iran.

I may well be a moron, but not for the reasons ascribed to me in various posts above. Had those posters read the article in full, they would've seen that I treated the question whether it was not a de facto attack on Israel by Palestinian groups. Both Egyptian and Israeli intelligence believe that it was almost certainly not, largely because the Palestinians do not want Egyptian security chief Omar Suleiman mad at them now since they meet with him regularly in anticipation of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Is it it possible a Hamas faction did it to discredit current Hamas leadership? Sure. But given the history of other attacks on Egypt's tourist economy, and what a desirable target Egypt is, this right now is a more plausible explanation.

I think the fact that Israelis visit Sinai had something to do with it, but not much. All of Sinai is popular for Italian tourists, and Russian tourists: there are regular flights between Sharm and Russian and Eastern European cities, a business the Egyptians were compelled to cater to after a lot of Western tourism fell off in the 90s. In fact, a case just as plausible as Palestinian groups targeting Israelis could be made for Chechens targeting Russians: a few weeks ago two Chechen women were detained at the Sharm airport and not allowed to fly on to Moscow. Apparently, nothing came of it, but obviously this is something Egyptian security is worried, and right to be worried, about. There are all sorts of tourists throughout Sinai, including American ones, and all of these people score high on jihadist hit lists:factoring all of them in, it seems pretty certain that some group has returned to one of the most valuable (and time-tested, going back to the 40s) targets of all: Egypt's tourist economy and hence Egypt itself.