Last edited Fri May 10, 2013, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Both assumptions would be wrong.
Tunisia appears to have been the sole case of organic inception of rebellion and a reasonably happy outcome because nobody from the outside seems to have interfered, much, there really isn't a lot there, so nobody splashed a lot of gasoline around and played with matches. But, that just may prove how little I've actually studied the place.
Egypt is a series of a permanent revolutions from above that has eaten up Arab Nationalism, and Mubarek, the geriatric pretender to that obsoleted revolution. It was only inevitable that he had to be replaced by a newer pretender to true revolution, revolutionary Islam in the form of the Brotherhood, which was always the shopholders and CIA-endorsed alternative to the real thing.
The twin insurrections in Libya and Syria are all about exile groups calling for simultaneous Days of Rage, which were largely ignored by the masses and the regimes, until the snipers and burnings of government buildings set off an undertrained and overarmed police into a predictable frenzy of deadly overrreaction. Then the blood really started to flow. An eye for an eye, just the thing to set off latent religious and clan based vendettas going back generations. Very much according to Petraeus' insurgency and Clinton's regime change handbook.
The problem with these things is that once you blow the lid off of them by remote control, they just keep burning, like runaway oilfield fires. We really don't have a clue what to do to extinguish the blowout, other than to pour high explosives on it, step back, and pray that it doesn't blow back, again.