(V):

> One could say that the support for the 'El Presidente' of Egypt over the last 30 years
> was an artificial peace. That anyone challenging his government was arrested,
> imprisoned or tortured. Isn't then the USA admins supporting the regime yet another
> example of double standards!!

People in general forget small details of history that shed light on the nature of a president and why he was supported by the USA.

In the 1970s Anwar El Sadat was president of Egypt. Sadat managed to accomplish some things which were of great interest to the USA. First, he strengthened the Egyptian army, thereby getting rid of Soviet influence that had crept in during former president Nasser's regime. After Nasser's death, Sadat got rid of soviet equipment and advisors while at the same time strengthening the Egyptian army. This put him in a stronger political position to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This peace treaty was politically and strategically important to both the USA and Israel. That treaty got Sadat three things: Egypt was expelled from the Arab League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and a fatwah (assassination) was called against him.

After Sadat was assassinated, there was a political vacuum in Egypt. A man had risen in rank and power in the military during the 1970s. That was vice-president General Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak promised to continue Egypt's peaceful policies towards Israel in exchange for economic and military support from Washington. Through the 1980s and into the present Mubarak proved to be a strong ally of the USA and a supporter of Israel. Over the years Egypt's military recieved more and more economic support from Washington. Today that support amounts to 1.8 billion USD and Egypt is the second largest recepient of military aid from the USA after Israel.

Besides supporting Israel, Mubarak also made Egypt a military ally of the USA during both wars in Iraq. As a full ally he provided equipment, personnel, land and air space, etc. He also cracked down on fundamentalist islamists who sought to drive him from power. While being called a dictator, Mubarak did everything right by Washington's standards. It is for this reason that his military receive, and will continue to receive, such strong economic support.

At this point Washington is trying to gauge how a new president will behave. Since the military still have all political and economic power, it is unlikely that things will change much in Egypt beyond just a new face in the presidency. Whoever is elected president will have to do things according to the dictates of the military, and Mubarak and his allies run the military. Washington will not tolerate any president who takes a belligerent stance towards Israel, or who allows fundamentalist Islamic groups to gain a foothold in the political landscape of Egypt.

Egyptians are torn between a desire for democracy, nationalism, Islamic religious fervor, a desire to support Palestinians, a desire to maintain good relations with the West, economic problems, and a latent military rule.

There will be those who will criticize President Obama for being ambiguous or apparently lacking resolution in supporting protesters. However, the stakes for both the USA and Israel are really big and the administration will not fully know who they are dealing with until after the elections in September. Will it be a Mubarak lackey, an extreme nationalist, a fundamentalist religious leader, a more moderate liberal? Anyone of them could rise to power depending on where the Egyptian military see what is most convenient for themselves.