Building a new democracy takes more than just taking out the bad guy.

I lean towards looking at the US foreign policy in broad term using a combination of diplomacy, military assistance, intel assistance, economic aid, and other means that will help a democratic government take root and have the capacity to succeed.

Unlike the neo-con approach to foreign policy, there is no one right mix of all the above. Each engagement requires a different approach.

Correct me if I am wrong, but America did not require the French to stay. You succeeded in far worse conditions with none of the above, except diplomacy and ruinous loans.

and Europe .... Any dwellars there that can attest to this?

The world is a different place. I dont see the relevance in comparing circumstances in 18th century colonial America and 21st century Middle East.

700 Club? That is like America's Muslim Brotherhood, yes? Crazy religious people who pretend to be semi-secular?

Humans don't change...and the external conditions a country faces are more favourable to a young democracy now, anywhere in the world, then they were in North America in the 18th century.

You will have to explain this.

Most countries in the 18th century were self-supporting to a large extent. That is not the case today in a global economy, which is why all of those young and emerging democracies rely heavily on US (and other) economic aid as well as US training on basic democratic institutions and even, to some extent, military assistance.

In conclusion, I do not support an isolationist America. I also dont define America by the extremes (eg 700 club) although a dont discount their influence, particularly during the previous administration.

America faced a lack of infrastructure, hostile indigents, and was cut off from trade with the world's greatest power for several years after the American revolution. In addition, there were factional disputes and a level of official corruption that makes the modern day look like a fool's paradise.

Today, an emerging nation has the world bank, trade that beats its way to their doors, and very little in the way of external threats. The world in general is far more peaceful on a day to day level than it was even a century ago.

And I do not consider America itself to be extremist, just very confused. In fact, I have considered remaining here when my studies are complete, because America has a much better weekend than Egypt does. I won't, of course, but the idea is very tempting.

Actually, America had more natural resources than any other country in the world at the time and was the first truly democratic country to emerge in the era of colonialism. Of course, it wasnt perfect.

I would urge you to read de tocqueville's "Democracy in America"for an outsider's understanding of the American democratic experiment.


Egypt gets about $2 billion/year in military and economic aid from the US.

Are you suggesting that a new government in Egypt should decline that aid?

Yes. It is better to stand on your own.

I would bet that a more democratic government that emerges in Egypt will disagree with you.

There is no shame in taking assistance as one is in the early stages of development.

Of course they will disagree with me. Have you ever seen a politician turn down funding?

And Egypt is not exactly in the early stages of development. We are very experienced in changing governments.

Thirty years is a long time between changing governments. Am I not correct in saying that majority of Egyptians (those under 30) have never known or experienced democracy in their lifetime.

You would be more correct in saying that no living Egyptians have experienced actual democracy as you understand it.

And there's very little chance they will. Egypt is far more factionalised (spelling?) than America. We do not play well together.

This is no reason not to try, of course. But Egypt typically moves to something that more closely resembles a monarchy.

I appreciate your perspective and wish you well when you go back home!