By Emma Sky
Best Defense roving Middle East correspondent

The last time I was in Cairo happened to be on 9/11 when I was on a short visit to assess how to help build up the capacity of Egyptian human rights organizations. Everyone was glued to their TV sets, expressing horror at the fate of the people in the Twin Towers, and yet a sense of glee at the 'come-uppance' of the superpower. No one believed that the attack could have been conducted by Muslims. Conspiracy theories abounded. That evening, I took a felucca down the Nile. I thought things would never be the same. But I had no idea how America would choose to respond. It was all worlds away from my life and my reality. Or so I thought.

And so now, a decade later, I am back in Cairo for a five-day trip to get a sense of the country whose regime has been removed by the people themselves -- rather than through external intervention. "The situation is much better since the revolution," my taxi driver from the airport tells me. "There is more freedom. No police knocking on doors in the night." He, like most people I meet, claims with great pride that he was in Tahrir Square on 25 January.

I soon discover that 'more freedom' has made demonstrations a regular part of life in Cairo. The Friday midday call to prayer summons me to Tahrir Square. Some Egyptians head into the mosque, while others sit outside. Across from the Mogama (the government building), some are already staking out parts of the square to set up stalls and hold their demonstrations. They kneel in unison, praying together. After the prayers are over, more people join the demonstrators. People wave flags, paint hands and faces with the Egyptian colors of red, white, and black, and chat happily. Despite the removal of Mubarak and his cronies, the crowd still chant the slogan so identified with the revolution: "as-shaab yurid isqaat in-izaam" ("the people want the fall of the regime"). Today, there are further demands. People are protesting rumors of an offer of amnesty to Mubarak in return for returning the money he took and an apology to the Egyptian people. People are upset that Suzanne Mubarak has only confessed to having a paltry sum of money -- only $4 million in assets. She is fooling the Egyptian people. She should go to jail. So should Zakaria, Mubarak's chief of staff. There are posters of Mubarak trying to run off with the wealth of the Egyptian people, of his whole Cabinet with vampire teeth in their mouths, and of Zakaria as a tortoise accused of "corruption, blood, and slow governance." Posters call for unity between Muslims and Christians -- all are Egyptians. A bank employee tells me that an agreement between Hamas and Fatah has been reached because Mubarak is gone. He stated that Mubarak was America's poodle, preventing Palestinian unity. The atmosphere in the Square is one of carnival. Different people take turns leading the chants. I watch mesmerized. A man with a beard -- presumably from the Muslim Brotherhood -- leads the crowd in their chants. All join in. Then it is the turn of a young clean-shaven man. I move towards another area. A young woman, wearing a baseball cap with keffiyah round her neck, is standing on a platform singing before a crowd of young women. She shrieks the lyrics, inviting the woman to shout back. "She is no Fairuz," I mutter. And those around me laugh. What she lacks in musical talent, she makes up for in enthusiasm. There is plenty of good humor in Tahrir Square.

Read on

Libya is looking really interesting. As a friend of mine once observed, how good an officer can Colonel Qaddafi really be if he hasn't received a promotion in 30 years?

I also wonder how this is going to play out in Iraq, given its place between the Shiite and Sunni worlds.

Andrew Sullivan, bouncing back smartly from his time on the injured reserve list, summarizes the American role in the Middle East social upheaval: "We finally figured out how to help democracy in the Arab world: get out of the way and nudge quietly from a distance."

Meanwhile, my CNAS colleague Andrew X-man is vacationing in Cairo, this year's Davos. Here are two of his reports.

Speaking of CNAS, here is an optimistic piece by my two bosses about the state of the war in Afghanistan. I feel out of touch with that war, but I hope they are right.

If you were sitting around my office on Tuesday morning, sipping your third cup, this is what you would have heard. My officemate, Robert Kaplan, and I were chatting about my blog item on Monday about me concluding that President Obama did pretty well in Egypt. I said to Bob, yeah, in sum I'd give the president a B+. Bob said no, really more an A-. His reasoned thusly:

President Obama has thus far handled the crisis in Egypt rather well. He has been attacked in some quarters for a muddled response. But what is forgotten is that he had to accomplish two contradictory things, which automatically necessitate a degree of muddle. For one thing, he had to be on the right side of history, with the democracy demonstrators in Tahrir Square. But he also had to signal to pro-American monarchs and autocrats in other Arab countries that he was not about to desert them. And that meant not throwing Mubarak overboard too soon. Rulers like King Abdullah in Jordan and Sultan Qabus in Oman are, in fact, enlightened and moderate autocrats who deserve America's support, even as they are critical regional allies. The Saudi royals are less enlightened, but protect the Western world's oil supply. We do not want to be party to any of these regimes crumbling because of the combination of street protests and perceived lack of U. S. support. Obama's cerebral, cautious response was exactly what was called for.

And then off we went to a meeting. I used to hate meetings -- it was one reason I stopped editing in newspapers and went back to reporting. But they tend to be kind of fun at CNAS. As long as I keep them to one or two a week.