A Tale of Three Kings

Today in the Middle East, three countries are looking to fill the boots left over from the preceding regime: Iraq, Libya and Egypt.

Syria is still on the table, and a nearly different case. Syria has always been a divided society, but the inspiration of Tunis, Libya and Egypt have encouraged the Syrians to rise up and reclaim their previous intentions.

Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadaffi and Hosni Mubarak all ruled their countries for 30 years. But that is where the similarities almost entirely halt. While Ghadaffi and Saddam came to power through violence, Mubarak did not. While Mubarak and Hussein had relatively open societies, Ghadaffi isolated his people and purposely tried to hide Libya's rich connection to the Roman Empire and enhance ties towards other African post-colonial nations. 

Ghadaffi succeeded a string of events that overthrew King Idris in 1969. Saddam succeeded a well established government that came to power after brutally murdering the Hashemite King Faisal II in 1958. Mubarak ascended to power after the long reigns (and assassinations) of Anuar Saddat and Gamal Abd-El Nasser -- who in effect succeeded after the abdication of King Farouk. 

Saddam Hussein was taken out by a foreign power, put on trial before his countrymen and executed -- as per verdict of the Iraqi Tribunal. Muammar Ghadaffi was captured while hiding from his people in Libya. He was taken out, mocked and killed. His body was defiled in the desert --only a week after he confidently vowed to see each rebel die. Hosni Mubarak fled from Egypt, seeking safety in Saudi Arabia, after protests sought to remove him from power.

But these three men have a lot in common. First, they ran their countries with an iron fist. They were the elected ruler and not leaving power for any reason. Each man was comfortably known as the face of his country's government, unquestionable and above the law. Many beloved each one, and others hated -- but the ones who hated kept it private. A generation saw these men as the unquestioned leader, to think otherwise was not an option.

This sense of regularity kept order in Iraq, Libya and Egypt. Once each man was outed, a score of recognized leaders came forward to take control of the entire society. However, each factional leader claimed to have authority not recognized by the other. Even in Egypt, where Mohammad Morsi was elected by a clear majority, this was not satisfactory and he was ousted in less than a year. 

In today's world, Egypt, Iraq & Libya are all being torn up by factions. Egypt has a strong military vowing to maintain order -- but in effect, it is only prolonging the inevitable. Egyptians have not had fair representation. Not with Nasser or any other politician. King Farouk and his predecessors did not represent the people and nor did any of the long term ruling men that followed. The military can quell protests on a day's length, but are futile to remain as such. Especially as time progresses.

Iraq has a government that does not represent the people, nor will it compromise. But Al-Maliki is not strong like Saddam Hussein, and Al-Maliki is out of touch with the people. The authority of their democracy is fading. Kurdistan has announced independence, and external insurgents are capturing cities and defeating the Iraqi army. In fact, the Iraqi army is really more of the government's army than the peoples'.

Libya is facing a western pull towards democratization, against the bouts of strong militae. Each militia wants to seize power for themselves. The lack of want to reason with one another, and the elected parliament's ineffectiveness, are the results of an oppressive dictator. They will not be cured overnight.