In the past week, we have seen an explosion of stories critiquing the Burmese opposition leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. One article's particularly hyperbolic headline even asked if she was going to be Burma's "next tyrant?"
In the last 12 years since the 9/11 attacks, familiarity has led to a better Western understanding of the complexities in the Muslim world, while far-reaching changes in the Muslim world have undermined a black and white view of the region in the West.
Egypt and the broader Middle East isn't experiencing a clash of civilizations so much as a clash within civilizations. Part of it is generational, part is economic and part is a conflict over ideas, values and beliefs.
The bloody fault lines of conflict today are mapped out not between democratic and undemocratic civilizations, but between global forces of antidemocratic power and human struggles for freedom in every culture.
In raising concerns about the long-term meaning and results of Egypt's revolution, we must return to the very definition of revolution: a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values and myths of a society.
Scholars have long debated the direction that the "paradigm shift" in international relations would take. What would replace the obsolete bipolar international system and the strategic and ideological forces that had driven it?