On Revolution.

These are incredible times in Egypt.

President Hosni Mubarek has found himself the center of attention over the past few days. For almost 30 years, the country has been under the slowly-tightening grip of Mubarek's power-drunk regime, unable to hold elections without major fraud and manipulation yet seeing the gap between poor and rich grow insurmountable. But now, thousands of Egyptians have taken to the street in Cairo and several other large cities, with the chief demand of Mubarek's resignation.

Mubarek has yet to step down, though he has committed to dismantling his government and replacing them with more of his top allies.

Inspired by the Tunisian populace's success in getting their strongman president to flee the country, the Egyptian people have not let down in more than 6 days of demonstrations. And, with an inept, hothead police system, and an army that is at best neutral in the conflict, Mubarek has little to defend himself, save his international allies.

WHY DO WE CARE?

If Mubarek is driven out, a power vacuum will quickly take his place, with several factions struggling to get a foothold at the top. Several of these are secular, as the protests have been, and thus could indeed be a great step forward for Egypt if they can get enough attention leading up to the elections. There is at least one faction, though, with the religious fervor and fundamentalist rhetoric that could actually win an election: the Muslim Brotherhood.

When power vacuums spring up, they are usually filled by the most rabid candidate, the one who can get his base the most riled up. We saw this in the U.S. with the leaderless Republican Party from 2009-2010, where the Tea Party used its easily-quoted hard-right viewpoints to win dozens of elections.

In Egypt, most parties have little rhetoric, and fractured bases. The Muslim Brotherhood, however, has a readily-stated party line (Anti-Israel, Anti-Western meddling), a structure based on the religion of 90% of the people, and the advantage of being able to promote a drastic shift from the secular policies of the past.

Luckily for its opponents, the Muslim Brotherhood currently has the support of only a tiny fraction of the Egyptian electorate. But, as we saw in the U.S., a tiny sliver of support can quickly grow to a winning advantage if given the opportunity.

President Obama has toed the line on this issue thus far, never going so far as to call for the ousting of Mubarek, but also never going so far as to say that the people should cease their protests. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the administration's best hope is for a quick and peaceful transition to a new government that somehow maintains the foreign policies of the past while incorporating revolutionary domestic policies that satisfy the majority of the Egyptian people.

On the Taliban.

For the last 30 or so years, the Taliban have been a force in the Middle East.  Formed as a backlash against the warlord-ruled clans and tribes of 1970s Afghanistan, the Taliban have morphed into possibly the most powerful non-governmental Islamist group (they did control the government of Afghanistan from 1996-2001, but have not had any state power since they were overthrown by the U.S.-led Northern Alliance).

The Taliban have gone from being the saviors of the region to being the destroyers of peace in the Middle East.  So who are they really?

WHAT’S GOING ON?

Today marks the beginning of a mini-summit between the U.S., Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  The presidents and staffs of all three countries will meet for the next few days in order to discuss and solve the problem of the Taliban’s recent resurgence, especially in Pakistan, where the militant group has approached as closely as 60 miles to the capital of the nuclear-equipped country.

Based on the Taliban’s anti-American stance of late, which included stubbornly defending and hiding our friend Osama bin Laden in the years since September 11, the prospect of a Taliban Pakistani government is fairly frightening.  So how did this get so bad?

WHY DO WE CARE?

Because America caused it.  All of it.  The Taliban gained power and renown only after the U.S. funded their fight with the Soviet Union in the early ‘80s, providing weapons and money for military training of Talibani soldiers, including Osama bin Laden.  Later, the U.S. injected their money into the Pakistani military, in hopes of having a strong ally in the region, but this too backfired as it led to military coup after military coup in the country, and the democracy in place now is unstable at best.

What we’re seeing now is a U.S.-backed group fighting another U.S.-backed group over fragile territory in a fragile region.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE FUTURE?

Hopefully the American government now can learn from the mistakes of the past, and not simply throw money at problems until they go away.  I hope it’s clear now that it’s not safe to simply back one side of a conflict – the other side never goes away.  We see this again and again – in Israel/Palestine, North Korea/South Korea, and even Latin America.  Instead, we should focus on funding peace and stability, bringing both sides to a table in order to get to the heart of the conflict.

If they haven’t learned these lessons, and insist on forging peace only in the fires of war, we’re doomed to repeat the cycle yet again.  Only this time, a nuclear power is at stake.