There seems to be a misconception that a revolution occurred in Egypt, when in fact all that happened is that one corrupt insider was replaced with another. Mubarak was never (except probably in his own mind) indispensable. What is indispensable is a dictator who can use the tools of repression to protect the interests of the United States, Israel, and Egypt's wealthy. Someone for example like Omar Suleiman, who until a few weeks ago was head of the country's intelligence service and was hastily appointed "vice president" to Mubarak when it became apparent that the latter might not survive and it was deemed expedient to have an acceptable replacement waiting in the wings.
Glenn Greenwald has detailed Suleiman's long and intimate relationship with the United States ("Obama's Man in Cairo", http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/08/suleiman), noting that as head of the intelligence service he was a key resource in America's torture regime. Quoting Lisa Hajjar of Al Jazeera English:
The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black
sites -- and others were turned over for torture -by-proxy to other
regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt's torturer-in-chief. At least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt --Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib -- was reportedly tortured by Suleiman himself.
This is the man who is now Egypt's great hope for democracy?
Greenwald goes on to note that a Wikileaks cable from the US embassy in Tel Aviv informs State that in the event that Mubarak should fall, Suleiman would be Israel's preferred replacement.
I also doubt that the US was as instrumental in forcing out Mubarak as Mike suggests. The US was Mubarak's key backer for thirty years, and while it must have dawned at some point on the Obama administration that Mubarak mighrt not survive - I have no doubt that the US played a big role in setting up Suleiman as a backup if that happened- Obama could not bring himself to publicly call for Mubarak to step down even on February 10, when Mubarak gave a speech announcing that he would not resign, appearing to significantly escalate the crisis. Obama limited himself to issuing a statement in which he said " “too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11egypt.html). Wow, hard hitting stuff! Mubarak did in fact resign the following day, when continued pressure from the Egyptian street made it apparent that Mubarak was going down, and the only choice left for both the US and Egypt's military-oligarchic clique was whether they were prepared to go down with him.
That was unfortunately characteristic of the US' confused and hesitant response to the whole crisis. The danger of Mubarak falling and being replaced by a genuinely democratic regime threatened every assumption that has underpinned American foreign policy in the Middle East since the Camp David accords, and no one in Versailles on the Potomac wants to consider the implications, still less prepare for them. Like the reactionary ancien regime in Europe before the revolution they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. I wonder how that's going to work out?
