Two weekends ago, I was at a wedding, and another guest mentioned that he was being “good,” and honoring his wife’s request that he not check his Blackberry or Twitter feed. Knowing that the Ravens-Steelers NFL Playoff game was underway, I asked him if he wanted to check it because he cared about Baltimore or Pittsburgh.
“Neither. Tunisia.”
“You have Tunisia in your fantasy league?”
This guest, a Middle East policy wonk at think tank, told me that his friends at the State Department were running around trying to get up to speed on the sudden changes in Tunisia; he chuckled and said he had told them that today they were desperately trying to understand Tunisia, tomorrow they would be taking credit for what happened, and within a short time, most of them and most of Washington will have forgotten about Tunisia.
Here we are, two weeks later, we’ve transfixed by a sudden uprising in another North African country. U.S. influence over events in Tunisia was negligible, and probably on par with the amount of U.S. interest in the long-term outlook for Tunisian politics. Obviously, U.S. influence over what happens in Egypt is limited, but it includes the roughly $1 billion in annual aid and a traditionally close – perhaps too close – relationship with a regime that suppresses dissent, controls the media, and does not hold free and fair elections.
The position of the government of the United States of America should never be to say to the side that’s using batons on demonstrators, “attaboy.”
The folks in the streets in Egypt include plenty of backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, aspiring Islamists, and garden-variety bad folk. But reports indicate the crowds include a large number of previously apolitical Egyptians who are fed up with three decades of governance that were not merely oppressive, but incompetent.The Egyptian economy has never thrived; you know the usual figures – 40 percent get by on less than $2 per day. But when you pile rising wheat prices on an impoverished country, ordinary folks find the usual poor governance untenable. They have to eat, and have to believe there’s some small possibility of their lives getting better someday. Hosni Mubarak and his regime have worn out a decades-long benefit of the doubt from a people who historically were inclined to have tea, complain, and shrug rather than burn cars and take on riot police.
If you support the right of American Tea Partiers to gather together and protest their government, I don’t quite understand why you would deny the average Egyptian the same right. It’s not like angry Egyptians can write a letter to the editor or vote out their representatives to get better results. Even if the protesters are anti-Israeli, want a more Islamist government, and can repeat every bit of anti-American propaganda they’ve ever heard, who are we to say to them, “You deserve no better than Mubarak”?
As of this writing, the Mubarak regime appears to be tottering. He’s 82 years old and has had health problems. Even if he survives this challenge to his power. Mubarak will be gone someday; even if we preserve the status quo, we can’t preserve it for too much longer. And the status quo isn’t that great for American interests (when we’re the perpetual scapegoat in Egypt’s media).
It was shameful for Obama to hesitate and dawdle before endorsing the Iranian protesters, and it creates the awkward precedent for the Obama administration speaking sooner, and more positively, about protests against the government of an ally. But in the end, why would an American president tout the virtues of a regime that shoots unarmed protesters? Let Mubarak fall. He’s had his chance, and he has failed the Egyptian people.
Thankfully, Obama has a great wealth of experience from his days as a community organizer that he can draw from to help guide him through this fantastically complicated international crisis.
If the US Air Force starts dropping free smokes and "walkin' around money" on the streets of Cairo, we will know that Obama is drawing on that wealth of experience.
"The folks in the streets in Egypt include plenty of backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, aspiring Islamists, and garden-variety bad folk. But reports indicate the crowds include a large number of previously apolitical Egyptians who are fed up with three decades of governance that were not merely oppressive, but incompetent."
Remember that similar nonsense was said about those who wanted to topple the Shah of Iran. How did that work out? Unfortunately, if Mubarak falls it will be the Islamofascists who run the show in Egypt.
The reference comparing the protestors to the Tea Party is weird as well as a case of wishful thinking. What's going on in Egypt is a struggle between an aging, corrupt tyranny and the genocidal maniacs who want to replace it with an even worse one.
Wow, Scott, I never thought of it that way before. That's quite a zinger you laid on Obama there.
But now that I consider it, you're quite right. It is too bad that this didn't happen when W was still in office, bc his expertise on the infield fly rule and Jack Daniels would have been the obvious superior alternative.
The reality is that very few, if any, people can be "prepared" for the office of the Presidency these days. The range of policy matters they are required to make judgments upon far exceeds what one could expect any human being to master. Thus, being successful is much less about prior expertise or experience, than intelligence and sound judgment.
Obama should not "endorse" the protestors, but demand their freedom to protest, as he has done. It's what he did in Tunisia and it worked out well. I know you folks think nothing can happen in the Middle East without us mucking around in it, but the last time we tried to get involved in handing out democracy in Middle East, Bush ended up handing Gaza over to Hamas. (Remember, Bush argued the Oslo Accord requirement political parties in the region renounce violence and accept the existence of Israel in order to be involved in elections should be waived, thinking there was no way Hamas would win.)
Both Bush and Obama's State Departments have considered Mubarak an ally in our fight against Islamists and, frankly, he was. Yes, he should go down, but we will only draw the wrong kind of attention to the region if we try to meddle.
Excusing our current President's anti-presidential behavior and dissing our previous President ignore history. Ronald Reagan did his homework, believed in America's role in among the nations because he knew where the American people came from.
Reagan also helped prepare nations for the toppling of wicked dictators; see recent history of Poland. An American President today could be extremely influential in helping overthrow evil regimes; but not our current President. Perhaps we could have been strengthening the people of Egypt for this time of overthrow, helping people get rid of a wicked ruler, and put a good ruler/government in place. I pray God is raising up another Ronald Reagan for such a time as this!
Wow! It's so great to see the NRO come out on the side of idealism and principle, after all those years supporting realpolitik and the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. I hope you have the courage to keep it up when your guys get their next shot at running the State Department.
It is utterly unprincipled to brag about our democracy at home, to complain about the authoritarian tendencies of Islamists, and to tout ourselves as the force of freedom in the world, and then support a dictator like Mubarak. The irony of supporting Mubarak is that what comes after could be much more in our interests if only we have the guts to support the cause of freedom now.
We should remember that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have been around a lot longer than other Islamist groups. Everything I have read suggests they have mellowed with the years.
The democracy movement in Egypt is also strong. It reaches far beyond radical Islamists. There is a likely secular candidate for President in Mohamed El-Baradi. And it would be far easier for Obama to portray himself as a heartfelt supporter of change.
I am usually a big Obama supporter. But he is losing me on this one.
Funny that two Obama supporters end up on this thread. But you couldn't be more wrong.
If, as you say, the democracy movement is strong, then they need to win by dint of their own efforts. We not only should not help them, we could not help them. That's because the blowback of American attempts at "assistance" will always be stronger than any "assistance" we could give.
We do not have to openly support either the government or the protesters. That is a false dilemma. Open support of either party is not in our long-term interests, and our long-term interests are more important than liberal idealism. Conservatives used to understand such things.
As for rising wheat prices, Mr. Geraghty should read Mr. Kudlow's article at his blog on NRO. We helped cause the higher prices with our desperate monetary policy.
Henry Kissinger, where are you now when we need you?
"Realpolitik" is that, barring a stright military takeover to preserve order, there is no alternative close to the status quo that is as beneficial to the U.S., and even that would serve to give militant Islam more leverage in the Middle East.
Meanwhile Geraghty ignores that Republican politicians are, as far as I can tell, the only ones still actively "touting" Mubarak now. See Mitch McConnell, John Bolton, Thaddeus McCotter, et al.
Our government is time tested and stable enough that we don't fear populist movements like the Tea party or the anti war protesters creating anarchy in the street and threatening the very existence of the state. The police or military will put an end to a violent uprising, and the citizens will ultimately turn against them, even if they agree with their cause.
You probably can't say that about what's happening about Egypt right now. The question is, if ordinary citizens are able to physically tear down their dictatorial government in a violent upheaval and erect a new one of their choosing, how much freedom can we actually expect from that society? I'm sure the French who stromed the Bastille had legitimate grievances against their government.
If Mubarak is overthrown, can we afford to send financial and the military aid to prop up that new government, to protect it from internal frictions and islamists who will rise up against individual freedoms? Will they be our ally in the first place? We took out an entire regime in Iraq and stayed there for 10 years and counting, and that place is still taking baby steps.
It sounds sad, but it's probably wise to preserve the imperfect government and hope for reform. If we consider Hu Jintao and the Chinese government as an associate, then we can gulp hard and stand by Mubarak.
Say peace is restored, political parties are formed, and free and fair elections are held ... and a government comes to power that suppresses dissent and supports terrorism. Who would be satisfied with the result and the prospects for peace and prosperity (I mean except for Jimmy Carter)?
Honestly, I have no idea how this might turn out. The Iranian revolution was obviously radical and theocratic since the return of The Ayatollah was its objective; there's no such figure on Egypt's horizon today, at least not one who commands the allegiance of the masses like Khomeini did.
On the other hand, as conservatives especially we know nothing good springs from a mob. It's clear what it's against (rising food prices) ... I still have no idea what it's for (besides lowering food prices). Or, to put a finer point on it, what's the protesters' program for a healthier economy ... socialism ... capitalism ... Islamic farming ... what?
I'm not sure there's much we can do here, other than doing whatever we can to stick it to the Muslim Brotherhood, support true reformers where we can, and let Mubarek and the youth of Egypt work it out for themselves.
It's unsettling to know we can't determine what happens but, without an open and obvious enemy spearheading this movement (like the Soviets and Khomeini way back when), I think we have to support the reformers, oppose the terrorists, remain agile in the midst of a fluid situation, and remember that the first virtue of a statesmean is prudence.
Given our history, our sentiments naturally run toward popular revolt and protest - but we fail, too often, to make distinctions: "Revolution" (American) is not "revolution" (French) is not "revolution" (Bolshivek) etc.
"Protest-in-the-streets" (MLK)is not driven by the same forces as "protest-in-the-streets" (Egypt.) Nor will the outcomes be equally benign.
A distinction that screams to be made: Mubarak is "bad" (fill in your own parentheses) and the MB is "bad" (again - fill in your own parentheses) - real bad, in different ways. I must ask: How has the MB "mellowed"? Perhaps in our perception of who they are and what they do? More sophisticated, and with better publicists, does not equal less sinister, less dangerous. Sorry you missed it, Mr. Geraghty.
I can't buy that brand of lame acquiescence - from a lame BHO administration OR jaded columnists.
We could well be witnessing the beginnings of a sequence of Islamonazi takeovers in the Middle East that will have positively frightening consequences.
"...who are we to say to them, 'You deserve no better than Mubarak'”?
Oh my, oh my. Jim, the issue at hand is not our preserving logical consistency and ideological purity at all costs. The issue is that, as Americans, we should look at what goes on in the world in terms of our National security and National interest.
If we take a bird's-eye view of Middle-Eastern history in the last 50 years, we can easily see how democracy in those countries has a pesky tendency to turn out regimes that are hostile to us. I honestly much prefer a pro-American dictator than a MB-backed, fatwah-spewing, America-hating Islamic fundamentalist--no matter how democratically elected. And you?
If you are looking for logical consistency and ideological purity, here it is: As an American and a Conservative, I care about our National interest first--and about concepts of moral self-congratulation much, much later.
And to get back to Egypt specifically, no, I will not cheer on the overthrow of a pro-American leader, while the MB busses in thousands of duly-indoctrinated agitators to "lead" the crowds, the mullahs hide behind the benign façade of a naive puppet, and Iran smiles and licks its chops.
In short: we can't afford an Egypt that goes Iran's way. Not with everything else happening in the world.
Thankfully, Obama has a great wealth of experience from his days as a community organizer that he can draw from to help guide him through this fantastically complicated international crisis.
If the US Air Force starts dropping free smokes and "walkin' around money" on the streets of Cairo, we will know that Obama is drawing on that wealth of experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The folks in the streets in Egypt include plenty of backers of the Muslim Brotherhood, aspiring Islamists, and garden-variety bad folk. But reports indicate the crowds include a large number of previously apolitical Egyptians who are fed up with three decades of governance that were not merely oppressive, but incompetent."
Remember that similar nonsense was said about those who wanted to topple the Shah of Iran. How did that work out? Unfortunately, if Mubarak falls it will be the Islamofascists who run the show in Egypt.
The reference comparing the protestors to the Tea Party is weird as well as a case of wishful thinking. What's going on in Egypt is a struggle between an aging, corrupt tyranny and the genocidal maniacs who want to replace it with an even worse one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, Scott, I never thought of it that way before. That's quite a zinger you laid on Obama there.
But now that I consider it, you're quite right. It is too bad that this didn't happen when W was still in office, bc his expertise on the infield fly rule and Jack Daniels would have been the obvious superior alternative.
The reality is that very few, if any, people can be "prepared" for the office of the Presidency these days. The range of policy matters they are required to make judgments upon far exceeds what one could expect any human being to master. Thus, being successful is much less about prior expertise or experience, than intelligence and sound judgment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama should not "endorse" the protestors, but demand their freedom to protest, as he has done. It's what he did in Tunisia and it worked out well. I know you folks think nothing can happen in the Middle East without us mucking around in it, but the last time we tried to get involved in handing out democracy in Middle East, Bush ended up handing Gaza over to Hamas. (Remember, Bush argued the Oslo Accord requirement political parties in the region renounce violence and accept the existence of Israel in order to be involved in elections should be waived, thinking there was no way Hamas would win.)
Both Bush and Obama's State Departments have considered Mubarak an ally in our fight against Islamists and, frankly, he was. Yes, he should go down, but we will only draw the wrong kind of attention to the region if we try to meddle.
Obama is playing this exactly right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcusing our current President's anti-presidential behavior and dissing our previous President ignore history. Ronald Reagan did his homework, believed in America's role in among the nations because he knew where the American people came from.
Reagan also helped prepare nations for the toppling of wicked dictators; see recent history of Poland. An American President today could be extremely influential in helping overthrow evil regimes; but not our current President. Perhaps we could have been strengthening the people of Egypt for this time of overthrow, helping people get rid of a wicked ruler, and put a good ruler/government in place. I pray God is raising up another Ronald Reagan for such a time as this!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow! It's so great to see the NRO come out on the side of idealism and principle, after all those years supporting realpolitik and the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. I hope you have the courage to keep it up when your guys get their next shot at running the State Department.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is utterly unprincipled to brag about our democracy at home, to complain about the authoritarian tendencies of Islamists, and to tout ourselves as the force of freedom in the world, and then support a dictator like Mubarak. The irony of supporting Mubarak is that what comes after could be much more in our interests if only we have the guts to support the cause of freedom now.
We should remember that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have been around a lot longer than other Islamist groups. Everything I have read suggests they have mellowed with the years.
The democracy movement in Egypt is also strong. It reaches far beyond radical Islamists. There is a likely secular candidate for President in Mohamed El-Baradi. And it would be far easier for Obama to portray himself as a heartfelt supporter of change.
I am usually a big Obama supporter. But he is losing me on this one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheo:
Funny that two Obama supporters end up on this thread. But you couldn't be more wrong.
If, as you say, the democracy movement is strong, then they need to win by dint of their own efforts. We not only should not help them, we could not help them. That's because the blowback of American attempts at "assistance" will always be stronger than any "assistance" we could give.
Self-determination means they do it themSELVES.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe do not have to openly support either the government or the protesters. That is a false dilemma. Open support of either party is not in our long-term interests, and our long-term interests are more important than liberal idealism. Conservatives used to understand such things.
As for rising wheat prices, Mr. Geraghty should read Mr. Kudlow's article at his blog on NRO. We helped cause the higher prices with our desperate monetary policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHenry Kissinger, where are you now when we need you?
"Realpolitik" is that, barring a stright military takeover to preserve order, there is no alternative close to the status quo that is as beneficial to the U.S., and even that would serve to give militant Islam more leverage in the Middle East.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeanwhile Geraghty ignores that Republican politicians are, as far as I can tell, the only ones still actively "touting" Mubarak now. See Mitch McConnell, John Bolton, Thaddeus McCotter, et al.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow long before Paul Krugman discerns the malignant hand of Sarah Palin in the Egyptian Tea Party?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur government is time tested and stable enough that we don't fear populist movements like the Tea party or the anti war protesters creating anarchy in the street and threatening the very existence of the state. The police or military will put an end to a violent uprising, and the citizens will ultimately turn against them, even if they agree with their cause.
You probably can't say that about what's happening about Egypt right now. The question is, if ordinary citizens are able to physically tear down their dictatorial government in a violent upheaval and erect a new one of their choosing, how much freedom can we actually expect from that society? I'm sure the French who stromed the Bastille had legitimate grievances against their government.
If Mubarak is overthrown, can we afford to send financial and the military aid to prop up that new government, to protect it from internal frictions and islamists who will rise up against individual freedoms? Will they be our ally in the first place? We took out an entire regime in Iraq and stayed there for 10 years and counting, and that place is still taking baby steps.
It sounds sad, but it's probably wise to preserve the imperfect government and hope for reform. If we consider Hu Jintao and the Chinese government as an associate, then we can gulp hard and stand by Mubarak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSay peace is restored, political parties are formed, and free and fair elections are held ... and a government comes to power that suppresses dissent and supports terrorism. Who would be satisfied with the result and the prospects for peace and prosperity (I mean except for Jimmy Carter)?
Honestly, I have no idea how this might turn out. The Iranian revolution was obviously radical and theocratic since the return of The Ayatollah was its objective; there's no such figure on Egypt's horizon today, at least not one who commands the allegiance of the masses like Khomeini did.
On the other hand, as conservatives especially we know nothing good springs from a mob. It's clear what it's against (rising food prices) ... I still have no idea what it's for (besides lowering food prices). Or, to put a finer point on it, what's the protesters' program for a healthier economy ... socialism ... capitalism ... Islamic farming ... what?
I'm not sure there's much we can do here, other than doing whatever we can to stick it to the Muslim Brotherhood, support true reformers where we can, and let Mubarek and the youth of Egypt work it out for themselves.
It's unsettling to know we can't determine what happens but, without an open and obvious enemy spearheading this movement (like the Soviets and Khomeini way back when), I think we have to support the reformers, oppose the terrorists, remain agile in the midst of a fluid situation, and remember that the first virtue of a statesmean is prudence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven our history, our sentiments naturally run toward popular revolt and protest - but we fail, too often, to make distinctions: "Revolution" (American) is not "revolution" (French) is not "revolution" (Bolshivek) etc.
"Protest-in-the-streets" (MLK)is not driven by the same forces as "protest-in-the-streets" (Egypt.) Nor will the outcomes be equally benign.
A distinction that screams to be made: Mubarak is "bad" (fill in your own parentheses) and the MB is "bad" (again - fill in your own parentheses) - real bad, in different ways. I must ask: How has the MB "mellowed"? Perhaps in our perception of who they are and what they do? More sophisticated, and with better publicists, does not equal less sinister, less dangerous. Sorry you missed it, Mr. Geraghty.
I can't buy that brand of lame acquiescence - from a lame BHO administration OR jaded columnists.
We could well be witnessing the beginnings of a sequence of Islamonazi takeovers in the Middle East that will have positively frightening consequences.
This will not turn out well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...who are we to say to them, 'You deserve no better than Mubarak'”?
Oh my, oh my. Jim, the issue at hand is not our preserving logical consistency and ideological purity at all costs. The issue is that, as Americans, we should look at what goes on in the world in terms of our National security and National interest.
If we take a bird's-eye view of Middle-Eastern history in the last 50 years, we can easily see how democracy in those countries has a pesky tendency to turn out regimes that are hostile to us. I honestly much prefer a pro-American dictator than a MB-backed, fatwah-spewing, America-hating Islamic fundamentalist--no matter how democratically elected. And you?
If you are looking for logical consistency and ideological purity, here it is: As an American and a Conservative, I care about our National interest first--and about concepts of moral self-congratulation much, much later.
And to get back to Egypt specifically, no, I will not cheer on the overthrow of a pro-American leader, while the MB busses in thousands of duly-indoctrinated agitators to "lead" the crowds, the mullahs hide behind the benign façade of a naive puppet, and Iran smiles and licks its chops.
In short: we can't afford an Egypt that goes Iran's way. Not with everything else happening in the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse