It’s quite horrid that the aforementioned “moderates” are not supported by the current administration in DC, but instead the Muslim Brotherhood is. I maintain that it was and is utterly deliberate on the part of this administration, and at this point, nobody can argue that it was not.
Historians will argue about the American role in the “Arab Spring” for a long time. There is no doubt that the changes that occurred in North Africa had been fermenting for a long time. The highly repressive secular regimes of Mubarak, Assad and Qaddafi were the remnants of the severely flawed socialist, secular pan Arab movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. These regimes, supported by the Soviet Union , were economic failures. Despite the oil wealth of Libya, the cultural and intellectual heritage of Egypt and the inherent entrepreneurship of Syria, these regimes failed to deliver prosperity or end the endemic poverty of the masses. However they were very repressive politically and the methods of repression were harsh. So when they began to collapse ( as they inevitably would), it was the Islamists who were in the vanguard and tragically for long suffering people in the best position to seize real power. They are very unlikely to be successful or bring beneficial change to their countries. The Obama administration clearly muddled through the changes and can accurately be said to have led from behind. SOS Clinton demonstrated no clear expertise or insights into the evolving changes. Aid was given to Libyan and Syrian rebels without knowing their real identity or intent. Frankly its doubtful the Obama actually wished or wanted an Islamist triumph but was unprepared and really not capable of preventing it. Obama’s legacy is that things will get worse in North Africa and war will be more likely.