I commend the writer for taking what seems an ideological stance on the issue, as I think well-thought through, non-bigotted and reasoned ideology is a good thing, certainly for domestic Western politics anyway.
However, Cohens ideas seem way too simplistic , black and white and straightforward for them to ever translate into something practical in Egypt, based on what I'm seeing from the news agencies.
A media commentator on Al Jazeera said yesterday. 'how can dialogue between these factions become real when they can't even agree on events that are actually happening'. I found this a very telling insight.
One man kills another, in brutal cold blooded fashion, yet two sides have different version of events. In Britain this happens too, but when it happens abroad somewhere like Egypt, naturally Westerners generalise and want immediate straightforward answers. We expect things to become transparent, so we can then intellectualise the problem and make a solution.
Who is killing who?
Who is right and who is wrong?
Who is the worse of the two evils?
Who should we then finance and support? etc etc etc
Also, despite the illegal invasion of Iraq, and our leaders medalling in Middle Eastern affairs as if it were a toy that can be defused by them, its seems reasonably clear that the West has been reduced to nothing more than a social commentator on the Middle East now. Debating the terminology and 'language' of a coup while thousands on all sides are slaughtered all over the place in Egypt.
This is Camerons and possibly Barack Obama's biggest weaknesses too, that sometimes they come across like swarve political pundits rather than political leaders. Ready and willing to manipulate language and construct a reality that suits their own countries interests, while people in the Middle East are murdering their enemies like fish in a battle for power.
Its still better to play the pundit though............ than to dive head first into political insanity alas Bush and Blair I suppose.
