At the Daily Beast, Bruce Riedel has posted an essay called “Don’t fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood,” the classic, conventional-wisdom response to the crisis in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is just fine, he’d have you believe, no need to worry. After all, the Brothers have even renounced violence!
Advertisement
One might wonder how an organization can be thought to have renounced violence when it has inspired more jihadists than any other, and when its Palestinian branch, the Islamic Resistance Movement, is probably more familiar to you by the name Hamas — a terrorist organization committed by charter to the violent destruction of Israel. Indeed, in recent years, the Brotherhood (a.k.a., the Ikhwan) has enthusiastically praised jihad and even applauded — albeit in more muted tones — Osama bin Laden. None of that, though, is an obstacle for Mr. Riedel, a former CIA officer who is now a Brookings scholar and Obama administration national-security adviser. Following the template the progressive (and bipartisan) foreign-policy establishment has been sculpting for years, his “no worries” conclusion is woven from a laughably incomplete history of the Ikhwan.
By his account, Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna “preached a fundamentalist Islamism and advocated the creation of an Islamic Egypt, but he was also open to importing techniques of political organization and propaganda from Europe that rapidly made the Brotherhood a fixture in Egyptian politics.” What this omits, as I recount in The Grand Jihad, is that terrorism and paramilitary training were core parts of Banna’s program. It is by leveraging the resulting atmosphere of intimidation that the Brotherhood’s “politics” have achieved success. The Ikhwan’s activist organizations follow the same program in the United States, where they enjoy outsize political influence because of the terrorist onslaught.
Banna was a practical revolutionary. On the one hand, he instructed his votaries to prepare for violence. They had to understand that, in the end — when the time was right, when the Brotherhood was finally strong enough that violent attacks would more likely achieve Ikhwan objectives than provoke crippling blowback — violence would surely be necessary to complete the revolution (meaning, to institute sharia, Islam’s legal-political framework). Meanwhile, on the other hand, he taught that the Brothers should take whatever they could get from the regime, the political system, the legal system, and the culture. He shrewdly realized that, if the Brothers did not overplay their hand, if they duped the media, the intelligentsia, and the public into seeing them as fighters for social justice, these institutions would be apt to make substantial concessions. Appeasement, he knew, is often a society’s first response to a threat it does not wish to believe is existential.
Here’s Riedel again:
By World War 2, [the Brotherhood] became more violent in its opposition to the British and the British-dominated monarchy, sponsoring assassinations and mass violence. After the army seized power in 1952, [the Brotherhood] briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it.
This history is selective to the point of parody. The Brotherhood did not suddenly become violent (or “more violent”) during World War II. It was violent from its origins two decades earlier. This fact — along with Egyptian Islamic society’s deep antipathy toward the West and its attraction to the Nazis’ virulent anti-Semitism — is what gradually beat European powers, especially Britain, into withdrawal.
We must stop having the fear complex. The methodolgy for centuries to deal with terrorists is to make them and their families affraid. We know the threat and mostly who they are. Turn the tables on them
As usual, a thoughtful and incisive analysis. It was rather striking how the description of the Brotherhood strategy and tactics parallel those of the progressives in this country. Not that the progressive agenda would end up with anything similar to sharia, of course. Would it?
Mr. McCarthy - As usual, excellent and very informative. Reidel is the modern day Richard Falk who assured us we had nothing to fear from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the William Duranty of the 1930s who reported so favorably on the Soviet Union (because he took bribes to do so). My own feeling is that we should support Mubarak and/or the millitary. If we are tepid in our support of them we will have Islamic Republic of Egypt, and things can turn out very badly for the US and Israel.
There is no doubt that we should fear the Muslim Brotherhood but I don't think that precludes the U.S. from supporting the toppling of a dictator.
This movement is mainly of young Egyptians clamoring for political and economic freedoms. 77% of the population is under 30, and how Obama treats this situation will probably determine whether the new government will be islamic extremist or a moderate democracy based on cooperating with the U.S.
What needs to be realized is that there is going to be a revolution no matter what; the question is where the U.S. will stand and how that will affect the perception of the U.S. by the new Egyptian leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood is most certainly in the minority right now, so to worry about them and let that have an effect on our policies is asinine in my opinion.
If we stand with Mubarak we will then be the enemy and allow the Brotherhood to recruit more against us. If we stand with Mubarak, the Brotherhood will grow.
A thoughtful and well said article Mr. McCarthy. Events in Egypt will and are occurring in a managed chaotic way on purpose, so as to seem random. Yet one could suppose differently as with many uprisings they have an agenda well hidden, yet just as succinct as a knife heading toward vital organs. The US must stay focused on the outcome rather than the rage, which is concerning with who are in charge.
Andrew's analysis is historically accurate and contemporaneously sound. He also points out the similarities between Leftist and Islamic ideologies that explains the congeniality the two have for each other. The Labor Union Report has documented much of the Left's Union support and Obama administration encouragement for the instigation of political upheaval across the Islamic MidEast. If radical Islamic elements triumph in Egypt, look for nothing more than non-committal weasel words mouthed by the 'Exalted One' from a big, toothy grin.
"This movement is mainly of young Egyptians clamoring for political and economic freedoms."
What is your evidence that their main concern is economic freedom? They are clamoring to abolish minimum wage and licensing laws; state pensions and healthcare? The young are usually the most radical in any society, so how is that fact supposed to be encouraging?
You are a perfect example of the sort of wishful thinking that Mr. McCarthy so eloquently criticizes. We project our own values onto primitive societies the only thing we know for sure about is a complete absence of any tradition of liberty.
Congratulations Mr. McCarthy for a well written, historically sound and well argued essay. We should be very afraid.
I especially like the fact that you are one of the few that are strong enough to call "Mohamed ElBaradei, an anti-American leftist who willfully abetted Iran’s nuclear ambitions while running the International Atomic Energy Agency."
He's been a liar and twit forever, and I'm glad you're finally calling him the "pig-rat" that he is. I also liked the directed and firm reading-down of US foreign policy concerning Islam, placing facts above the State Departements "Kumbayi" assine sense of direction in leading us mindlessly into Sharia Law.
"If we stand with Mubarak we will then be the enemy and allow the Brotherhood to recruit more against us."
We will be the enemy whether we stand with Mubarak or not. Period.
No, I don't have an answer.
But should the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt, there will be war and we will be involved, eventually, and it will be nasty. World War II will look like a Sunday Brunch with the family in comparison.
I strongly disagree with the reasoning of this article. Hezbollah is a fine example -- while they are unquestionably a disruptive factor in Lebanon, their role as an in-system agitator increases their exposure to overt criticism and deep analysis of their motives. A terrorist organization needs to do little more than write manifestos and blow things up; a political party, however, has to seek the votes of constituents, and those votes require actions and results that are consistent with a voting process.
It should be even more heartening to consider the Hezbollah example given the influence of tribalism in Lebanon. And let us not forget that prior to their entry into politics, Lebanon was engaged in an interminable civil war.
Back to the Muslim Brotherhood, this article completely ignores that the protests in Egypt are distinctly muted on issues of religion and America/the West. The concerns being raised are wholly domestic; unemployment, political freedom, corruption, etc. We rightly have concern regarding how this plays out, both for ourselves and our interests as well as for Israel, but the fundamental issue at play here is not a question of Islamists and whether their worldwide influence ticks up a few points (it will), but whether a dictatorship supported by us against the people of a country is ever, ever, in our long-term best interests. (After all, it worked so well in Pakistan, right?.......)
Dictators are certainly undesirable, but, as Andy points out, often, the choice is between one undesirable and another. Mubarak is one, the Brotherhood is another. Mubarak provides more stability, not only for Western interests, but for Egyptians. They may suffer from oppression, but it can be worse, and the Brotherhood will be worse.
Anyone who is reasonably well-read on Islamic history, particularly regarding what is termed "Islamist" history, understands the sinister nature of the Brotherhood. Its leaders are not innocuously urbane as, perhaps, the Saudis viewed them and as some in the West insist on viewing them. That is a mere facade, a mask, just as Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. It is dangerous. Islam is dangerous, because it is the framework that supports what is termed "Islamism". Islamic ideology is dangerous and the West must play a careful and very tricky game in dealing with its myriad dangerous parts. Those parts that provide stability, no matter how anti-democratic, are preferable to the virulent radicalism of fanatic and evil jihadists, even those that portray themselves as urbane.
Andy, as usual, gets it right and says it right. Please listen and pay attention.
"What is your evidence that their main concern is economic freedom? They are clamoring to abolish minimum wage and licensing laws; state pensions and healthcare? The young are usually the most radical in any society, so how is that fact supposed to be encouraging?"
My question to you and also Mr. McCarthy is where is your evidence that the Brotherhood is in the drivers seat here? From what I have seen the main body of the unrest comes from a frustration of a lack of freedoms. Do you think that the fact that Egypt ranks 137th in the world in per capita income might have something to do with it? I don't see the protestors burning American flags and these don't appear to be anti-western protests.
"We will be the enemy whether we stand with Mubarak or not. Period."
Really? You actually think that if we help relieve them of their oppressors the majority in their country will still hate us? After they themselves overtake their oppressor on their own they will definitely hate those who stood with their oppressor during the conflict.
We all know the answer to whether or not the Brotherhood being in power would be a bad thing. The question is what is fueling this movement and is the Brotherhood at the center of it? From what I have seen the Brotherhood is not driving these protests.
I live in Israel, and for the first time in my 30 years here, Jewish Israelis from the Left, the Right, the Center, the Religious, and the Secular are all terrified of the real and immediate probability that the Egyptian government and it's large, well equipped, and formidable military is about to fall into the hands of radical Islamic terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Unfortunately, it seems Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have no idea of the dynamics of the Arab Middle East and believe that Egypt will necessarily replace the Mubarak regime with a participatory, democratic, and representative government just like in the United States. Too bad that both of these American leaders seem unaware of or worse indifferent to the Hizballa takeover of the Lebanese government a few weeks ago or the bloody overthrow engineered by the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip several years ago.
The Middle East reality is that the Lebanese and Gaza Strip paradigms are the far more likely outcomes in Egypt than any sort of democracy.
The question is how America should protect its interests, without abandoning its values. A Muslim Brotherhood theocratic regime would obviously be bad for American interests, and not comport with our values, so that caution towards unconditionally supporting the protestors is understandable. A Muslim Brotherhood regime would be one vote, one time. Judging by the protestors I heard over the weekend, A great portion of the Egyptian population subscribes to a conspiracy the about the Jews controlling the United States and America oppressing Egypt at the beck of their Jewish taskmasters. The idea of such deluded people having control of Egypt would not be good for American interests and our government should work behind the scenes to make sure this does not happen, and publically make clear the dire consequences for Egypt should the Muslim Brotherhood gain control.
That understandable caution doesn’t justify our supporting Mubarak over a genuine popular uprising against an oppressive dictator. The rebellion is happening regardless of American action or inaction. So it’s a false dichotomy to posit that America must either support Mubarak, or support the inevitability of the Muslim Brotherhood seizing control. There’s the third option of America lending support to reformist elements in Egypt, which may eventually form part of a Government amenable to liberal democratic reforms in Egypt. Such a Government would likely contain an Islamic religious party such as the Muslim Brotherhood, but this faction could be balanced by the more reformist factions. (This is similar to the genius of the Founding Fathers in Federalist #10)
What’s missing from the Obama Administration and, sadly, from many conservative circles (and more predictably from the Left), is the recognition that American interests are best served by promoting American values. For all of his many failures, George Bush’s greatest achievement POTUS was understanding this nexus between American power projections, interests and values. Reagan understood it during the Cold War, as did FDR and Churchill during WWII. Obama is floundering because he has renounced both American power and the universality of freedom and democracy. I hope it’s not too late.
Hasn’t the narrative from the left invariably consisted of the accusation of a bullying West oppressing noble savages, forcing them to wander in the wilderness because our imperial interventions have torn them from their utopia?
And when jihad turns them against us in revolution, hasn’t our reluctance to defend our way of life ensued from the burden of our own sort of self-imposed noblesse oblige sensibility to retreat from the use of disproportionate force?
So, should the gathering Middle East Caliphate—comprising the nations that extend from Pak•ee’•stan, along the borders of Israel, into North Africa—congeal under the authority of a Brotherhood-like central authority, will it then constitute a sufficiently unappeasable force we will finally confront?
By producing our own oil, building our own products, and leaving them to their own traditional pleasures of beheadings, stonings, amputations, and wrapping up their women like a mummy.
"My question to you and also Mr. McCarthy is where is your evidence that the Brotherhood is in the drivers seat here? From what I have seen the main body of the unrest comes from a frustration of a lack of freedoms. Do you think that the fact that Egypt ranks 137th in the world in per capita income might have something to do with it?"
You are confusing dissatisfaction with poverty with a desire for economic freedom. Egyptians want to have higher living standards - who doesn't? - but it by no means follows from that that they want economic freedom. They want results that economic freedom usually produces, but they don't want the freedom itself. They are focused on the imagined outcome, not on the means of getting there. Also, Egyptians might want political freedom, but only in a limited sense of a freedom from a particular tyrant: all that they have shown so far is that they would prefer a mob rule to him. They are certainly not protesting for freedom of all speech or individual rights.
One quibble: the sentence "It is no accident that Islamists in America are among the staunchest supporters of Obamacare and other redistributionist elements of the Obama agenda" is highly subjective, and takes a rock solid essay based on fact into the realm of domestic politics.
As a follow-up to Ben Besig Israel's observations: seeing that Egypt will, within a few hours, days or weeks, become
a copy of Iran post 1979, it is clear that Israel must make preparations NOW for an attack on the Sinai, whether it be reactive or pre-emptory. The presence of large, militarily powerful fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic state a la Iran on Israel's very borders is unthinkable.
