Egypt and Libya Are Different, But Mubarak And Qaddafi Are The Same

I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between Qadaffi and Mubarak. It's strictly situational. Qadaffi has control of the people with the guns, Mubarak didn't. Call me a cynic, but I'm a firm believer in the Bismarckian philosophy of Realpolitik. Dictators do not fear peaceful protesters, regardless of their number. They do not care what "The World" thinks about them or whether or not Barack Obama is merely "concerned" or has graduated to "very disappointed" in their actions. They do not care about U.N. sanctions or troops that wear powder blue helmets. They do not make ethical or moral decisions. They are not regular people who, for lack of sensitivity training have turned bad. They're wiring is fried. They are narcissistic sociopaths for whom human suffering, aside from their own, has no meaning. They understand human behavior only on a primal level. (Life without a conscience must be incredibly liberating). Force, or the threat of force is the only motivator that has any meaning. The Egyptian Revolution is still in the early innings. But there wouldn't even be a game if the Army had sided with Mubarak. A nice, quick massacre would have been followed by a few weeks of extensive clean-up and American tourists would have been posing by the Pyramids again by Labor Day. I think Libya will end up being what Egypt could have been if the Egyptian Military hadn't had other plans.