Doug Casey on Revolution in Egypt and Beyond

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

L: Doug, there are flames going up in the Middle East, something you've long said was in the cards, but it's not between Israel and its neighbors (click here to read Doug's last article on Egypt, in which he predicted social unrest). The revolutionary spirit sparked in Tunisia seems to have spread to Egypt, the largest Arab nation and a major U.S. ally, greatly destabilizing an already shaky region. The whole world suddenly seems in greater peril. What do you make of this?

Doug: Well, I think it's about time – in fact, way past time. Revolution in the Middle East is long overdue.

L: [Chokes on tea, starts mopping keyboard with napkin.] Care to elaborate?

Doug: I'm not saying I favor the unpleasantness and inconvenience for so many people that comes with such events, but this upheaval is long overdue. These Arab countries have long been the most repressive places in the world, with the possible exception of the despotisms in Africa, to their south. It's very good to see these regimes being overthrown. And the revolution – hopefully that's what it is – is internally generated. It's not the product of an invasion by foreign troops from an alien culture, which is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regime change in that whole part of the world is inevitable, necessary, and salubrious. The problematic question is: what are the old regimes going to be replaced with?

L: Fair enough. Let's take this one piece at a time… I think I know what you'll say, but do you think this is a fire that's going to spread, or were Tunisia and Egypt just particularly rickety?

Doug: I think it is going to spread, and I'll tell you why.

First, these regimes are not the only highly repressive ones. Every regime in the Arab world – in fact every regime in the Muslim world – is corrupt, backward, and repressive.

Second, with the communications and travel revolutions of the last few decades, the people in these places know they've been getting a raw deal and suffering a lower standard of living than much of the rest of the world. It was one thing, in the old days, to live from hand to mouth and get beaten by the police if you stepped out of line. People thought that was the natural order. But now they can see people in the west live vastly better, and they aren't going to take it any more.

Third, with Facebook, Twitter, cell phones, text messaging, and so forth, people can actually organize action on a massive scale far easier than ever before.

So a broad revolution in the Muslim world has been inevitable for a couple of decades. I suspect it's now imminent.

L: I remember reading that a major factor in the Soviets losing control was the fax machine, which enabled a primitive form of what you're talking about. It's interesting that the Egyptian authorities tried to prevent losing control by shutting down Twitter and other social networks. It didn't work. I just heard a news story saying that some two billion people across the planet are now on the Internet in one form or another. I don't think one third of the planet's population has even been literate at any past point in history, let alone actively participating in a language-driven system of information exchange. We've said before that the Internet is the most revolutionary thing to come along since the printing press – now we're seeing that this is literally true.

Doug: Yes – you can download the "Flash-Mobs for Dummies" app right now. And there's no way to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Technology is everywhere the friend of the common man, starting with fire and the wheel. But political and religious elites – the Atillas and the witch doctors of the world – always try to keep the genie in the bottle. The printing press, gunpowder, the automobile, the computer – the elites have always hated these things, and don't want the common man to have them. Radical new technologies always work to overturn the status quo.

L: So, where do you think the next place will be where the people decide they've had enough?

Doug: Could be anywhere. Of course we can't be sure this revolution will succeed – maybe it will be a false start, like the aborted insurrections in Europe in 1848. But I think it's more likely to catch fire, like the wars of liberation in South America in the 1820s.

The trouble is that there are all kinds of revolutions – as different as the Russian revolution of 1917 was from the one of 1989. I think this one is likely to be more like the latter: pro-freedom. We're watching chaos theory in action. It could appear in Pakistan, a perennial candidate, partly because it isn't even a real country – just a hodge-podge put together by an imperial power. Algeria and Libya are two more highly repressive regimes that deserve to go. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest risk. This is not a Middle Eastern problem, but could quickly become a worldwide conflagration, especially if a keystone like Saudi Arabia falls.

L: I could see Saudi Arabia going next – it's hardly a bastion of freedom and respect for human rights.

Doug: Far from it; it's a medieval theocracy/kleptocracy. And yet, the "talking heads" on TV are not praising the people for throwing off their chains. The reason is that most of these horrible, repressive governments are all U.S. puppets. They are stooges, getting anywhere from tens of millions of dollars to billions of dollars per year, in the case of Egypt, in direct support from the U.S.

L: Rape and pillage all you want, we'll support you as long as you're a good ally.

Doug: Right. But aside from being grossly unethical, this is a short-sighted policy. In the minds of millions of people all around the world, it associates the U.S. with repression, rather than freedom, which is what the U.S. should – and once did stand for – back when it was America. And unfortunately, people conflate America with the U.S. government, even though they're totally different things – antithetical things, actually. I remember years ago walking down the street in Cairo, and a kid of about 15 yells at me "Damned American." I'd never done anything to him. But the U.S. government had obviously done something to make him feel that way. If I'd thought of it, I would have said, "Hey kid, I've got nothing to do with your secret police – I'm on your side." But it wasn't the place for a philosophical discussion.

L: It's Orwellian; the "land of the free and the home of the brave" is the supporter of tin-plated despots around the world.

Doug: I know – it's totally perverse. We supply their arms. When a protestor picks up a can of teargas, its label reads: "Made in USA." They see U.S. military equipment being used against them. The U.S. government is supporting all these disgusting despots, making enemies of billions of people, turning the U.S. into a police state, and bankrupting the American economy. They're truly multi-talented. But, the average American sees the government as a friend and protector. It's funny – the average Arab may actually be much more politically hip and realistic, and desirous of liberty, than the average American. Maybe some day they'll send their CIA and military over here to bring us freedom.

L: "Underprivileged dictators of the world – apply here for financial aid!"

Doug: [Chuckles] That's what it amounts to. And it's all free. The Federal Reserve can create as many trillions of dollars as anyone needs.

L: The amazing thing is that all these Bright Boys in Washington never seem to get a clue. They supported murderous dictators in Latin America until they got thrown out. They supported the Shah of Iran until he got thrown out. They supported Saddam Hussein, and then ended up turning on him themselves. And they still support some of the most brutal regimes in the world today, sowing the seeds of even more suspicion and hatred – how can they be so blind?

Doug: They never learn at all. And the worst part of it is that there's no need to – nor benefit in – having any involvement whatsoever in any of these places. It's both unnecessary and counterproductive to American interests; it only benefits the people who live within the D.C. beltway, and those who slop at the same trough. You can't impose a new social order on a people from the outside. And even if you could – whoever you put in office, there's going to be some group or another that's going to object, dig in, and hate you for it to boot. You create more future conflict and enemies for yourself. All these idiots blathering on about what "we" should do should just mind their own business.

L: If only the would-be "nation builders" would remember Jefferson's mandate: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Doug: Better watch out – quoting Jefferson can get you on the terrorist watch list these days. But you know I'm an optimist, and the good news is that all of this is coming to an end. Whatever happens is going to happen, and there won't be much the U.S. can do about it, because all this nation-building nonsense is horrifically expensive and the U.S. is already tapped out trying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan – not to mention Detroit and New Orleans. It's "game over" for Mubarak, and close to "game over" for the U.S. empire.

The U.S. government is bankrupt, and will be increasingly immobilized. In a few years, they'll be completely unable to meddle anywhere, because there simply won't be any money to pay for it. The Fed's own projections say the entire budget will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt, with no money even for the military, unless something is done soon. There is no politically feasible way to cut spending on those programs. Does that mean the U.S. Navy will wind up rotting at the dock, like the Soviet Navy? It will be interesting to see. Either the roughly $1.5 trillion for "defense" goes, or the $1.5 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, and such goes, or interest on the national debt goes, or the scores of federal agencies go…

At this point, the U.S. budget is like Wile E. Coyote after he's run off the edge of a cliff. His legs are still windmilling in the air, but he doesn't realize it yet.

Sometimes things need to get worse before they can get better. It almost certainly means that in the not-too-distant future, U.S. foreign interventions are going to be scaled way back, or stop entirely, because they simply won't be possible anymore. That will be a good thing for backward countries all over the world.

L: Okay, back to the Middle East, which is looking more and more like the Muddled East, do you think there's any chance this could blow over and die down?

Doug: These things are chaotic over the short run, but I'd say no. I think the cat's out of the bag, for the reasons we discussed earlier. I have not been spending much time there lately, so all I know is all anyone knows – if you can say they know anything at all from watching TV and reading the papers. One interesting thing about Egypt, in particular, is that no one really knows that much about the "Muslim Brotherhood" – what they actually believe, how powerful they are, and what they'd actually do if they take over.

I think back to the French Revolution. It was, initially, an excellent thing; they got rid of a tyrant and the entire old regime – a big plus. But what replaced it? First they got Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety, the Jacobins and La Terreur – then they got Napoleon, who was another kind of disaster. The same thing could happen in the Middle East.

Nobody appreciates a busybody. Especially one who's consistently backed repressive criminals for decades. The best thing the U.S. could do at this point would be to butt out completely.