@ fuster:
I meant "seen" as in "widely/popularly followed, narrated, dramatized." I don't recall round-the-clock coverage and updates, global hand-wringing, major concerned statements from political leaders, etc. You, me, and the Navy know how important the Straits of Malacca are, but a lot more people are concerned about Israel, Islam, Suez, etc.

I confess not to knowing much about Indonesia's transition. The author does make some good points. But that would have been for the WWCD? post. Apparently, Indonesia didn't have a revolutionary leadership, not sure if it had figureheads or a coherent opposition, but Indonesia also wasn't seen as a critical component of the US alliance structure. It might actually have been more critical than it was seen to be, but, then again, it seems to have turned out fairly well.

One big difference between Egypt and the Phillipines, or Iran, or most successful revolutions, is the lack of an identifiable revolutionary leadership or figurehead. It's part of what fuels uncertainty and speculation, and also pessimism about how much further this thing can go. Also makes it easy to paint as mainly negative or destructive, and to open Beckian and saner speculation about dark forces and conspiracies.

I thought typical the dropping left by one commenter to the effect that he only skims, but he could tell from skimming that it was a good piece.