A reader points out that while Biden’s “Mubarak is not a dictator” comment is risible, the vice president was correct that Mubarak should not step down, because what comes next — a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship — could be worse.
A few responses:
(1) To paraphrase the Egyptian-American sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, there is constantly a competition between the autocrats and the theocrats, with both exploiting the fear of the other. Into this, George W. Bush was wise to try to cultivate the liberal middle. Alas, after 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice coordinated a reversal of policy. It was an incredibly short-sighted move. Had we continued to cultivate the liberals, we would have a great deal more leverage than we have now. Obsequiousness to dictators might seem a good short-term strategy, but in the long-term, it undercuts our interests and our moral authority tremendously. That said, Bush should not be credited for much since he did not have the strength of leadership to pursue a policy consistent with his lofty rhetoric.
(2) Biden’s embrace of Mubarak is reminiscent of Obama’s indifference to the Iranian protesters who rose up in protest after Ahmadinejad’s June 2009 reelection. Obama kept quiet because he hoped that the Iranian regime would unclench its fist and engage diplomatically. But, if it’s the choice between engaging and preserving an adversary or seeing that adversarial regime cease to exist, the latter is generally a better choice.
(3) The Muslim Brotherhood is a serious threat, but it has not been at the forefront of the protests. Perhaps the Egyptians are finally realizing that Islamism in itself is not an answer. Let’s hope so. We should do nothing to empower the Brotherhood and by nothing, we must think twice before making its members by making them partners for engagement. We forget that engagement isn’t a neutral act, but that by agreeing to sit down with others, we empower them.
(4) We should not expect a pro-American regime should Mubarak flee into the dustbin of history. Egyptians are fiercely nationalistic and, across the region, ordinary peoples’ mindsets have been shaped by decades of anti-American propaganda. The Egyptian people will be angry that they have fallen so far behind the rest of the world. But a serious government intent on bettering its people rather than filling its bank accounts abroad will at least begin the necessary steps to reforming an Egyptian system which is rich in manpower but unable to exploit its advantages.
(5) One out of every three Arabs in the Middle East lives in Egypt, and while Egypt is a shadow of its former self, it is still important culturally. Tunisia’s Ben Ali was perhaps the worst of the region’s dictators after Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. But many others should be quaking in their boots: President Saleh of Yemen is really no better than Mubarak; recent attempts to bolster are relationship with Saleh really do a disservice to long-term U.S. interests, because Saleh is both corrupt and incompetent. Iraqi Kurdistan President Masud Barzani also should be worried. Perhaps the most dangerous scenario for U.S. interests of the spreading protests would be to King Abdullah of Jordan, a ruler seen by his people as aloof and corrupt while his wife, celebrated in American circles, is seen by Jordanians as living a profligate lifestyle which the Kingdom cannot afford.
Spot on.
Putting a lid, especially a clamped down lid, on a boiling pot is generally a bad idea.
Mumbarak need to be negotiating a peaceful transfer of power by declaring open elections to replace him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love how you say "anti-American propaganda" as if America has not been supporting and funding Mubarak for the past 30 years. This arrogance is breath taking and the number one reason for the anti-American sentiment in the middle-east.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJimmy Carter tried to cultivate the 'liberal middle' (encourage the 'White Revolution'). It weakened the Shah, until the Shah fell. There was a brief time period where it even looked like the liberal middle would control Iran--Shapour Bakhtiar's administration lasted for 36 days.
But after those 36 days, the liberal middle crumbled and the Ayatollah seized control.
Would supported the Shah have been a better long-term strategy? Hard to tell. I think that autocrats need to be supported until the time is right, until the middle is strong enough to support a government. If the Shah had been able to hold out another year, or two, if Carter had not pushed him so hard to liberalize the government, could Iran have become a Middle East democracy? It's hard to say; even hindsight is not always 20/20.
I am distressed, however, at how ignorant most Americans seem to be about how the Iranian revolution occurred, especially since there are so many current corollaries. We must at least attempt to learn lessons from the past. Ignoring how past efforts to encourage democracy ushered in a theocracy is something that we ignore to our own peril.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't see any good result from this. Then again, I didn't see any good result from the status quo either. It will go from bad to bad or bad to worse. Can anyone give me a plausibly realistic scenario where things could get better for Egypt?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Muslim Brotherhood is a serious threat, but it has not been at the forefront of the protests."
That is not entirely accurate.
Very true... these protests began with little hint of the Muslim Brotherhood being involved.
However, in recent days the MB has stepped up their efforts 20 fold to have an increased presence in the rioting on the streets. This should be of great concern because they are the most organized group of descent within Egypt right now (and the largest).
This is from the NY Times from last night:
"Demonstrators in Egypt have protested against rising prices and stagnant incomes, for greater freedom and against police brutality. But religion, so often a powerful mobilizing force here, has so far played little role.
That may be about to change.
With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation’s mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement."
So while the initial root of the displeasure may have had little to do with the MB, the narrative seems to be quickly changing. They are far more advanced in capitalizing on such manners then I think many of us are prepared to give them credit for.
I hope I am wrong about their abilities, but I fear I am not.
By the way, spot on analysis about King Abdullah of Jordan. His overthrow would be nothing short of horrific for our own countries interests. A new Middle Eastern alignment of a less friendly (and potentially fundamentally Islamic) Jordan, Egypt, and Hezbollah controlled Lebanon would look FAR too similar to the days of the 67 war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is being reported that the Iranian government is VERY high and excited about the rioting there, calling the actions "heroic," and labeling this a "revolution." If the Iranian government is suddenly in support of this, I am beginning to more nervous by the second.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIran is behind these protests. This is a clear attempt to bring an Islamist government to power in Egypt. The threat to America is dire. The threat to Israel is mortal.
America should launch airstrikes against the protesters. If Mubarak falls, and the new government includes any Muslims, we should launch a preemptive strike before the new government can hurt Israel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo noone at NRO sees the similarities to Iran?
Why was there an abrupt shift in 2005? Did Condi see that the US was supporting the same bunch of quasi-leftists that were swamped so quickly by the ayatollahs?
Did we see that this was not a mistake we wanted to make twice?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Rubin, thanks for the work...Egypt is but a tip of the iceberg...Iranian rule of the middle east is coming complete with nuclear missiles!!! Who will prevent this from happeneing? POTUS-BHO, VPOTUS-JB, Sec of State HRC? China? Russia? The UN? Their will to war with the West is not political; it is relligious!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBiden is an idiot. The sooner he and Obama are off the stage, the faster our government can be run by adults who actually understand what is going on. Obama's treatment of the Iranian protesters was disgraceful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat next after Mubarak? IRAN. El-Baradei's "democracy" will last several weeks, then, as in Iran 1979, the Muslim Brotherhod, Salafists, and/or a host of other Islamic fundamentalist entities, now waiting in the wings, will
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusefill the void. As in Iran, the moderates, like El-Baradei and his main supporters will either be exiled, jailed or simply done away with.
Those who entertain any other scenarios are naive utopists.
Even though the Corner's authors don't seem to understand the huge parallels between Egypt and Iran circa 1979, it's nice to see how informed the Corner's readers are! (With the exception of a few, who still want to beat the silly old saw that Obama should have interfered in the recent Iranian protests, even though that would have been the exactly wrong thing to do--and something most activists there were begging him NOT to do).
Let's pray that this DOESN'T end up like Iran in 1979.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is very disheartening that the commentators who seem to think that the fall of Mubarak is a positive development always talk about "hoping" that the Muslim Brotherhood does not fill the power vacuum. A causal study of history tells me that "hope" is not usually a determining factor in the outcome..... think 1917 or 1979.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe basis for American foreign/domestic policy idiocy is the failuire to grasp the most simple fact on earth -- different peoples are different from other peoples. Different cultures; different intelligence; different psychology. Mexican immigrants are AmerIndians, and they are different from NW European Americans and always will be. Turks, Egyptians, Arabs have no concept of democracy, and will never maintain one for any time. Like sub-Saharan Africa, what you can expect is 'one man/one vote/one time'. Waiting for the Egyptian masses to install a democratic, secular government is less likely to succeed than waiting for Santa Claus. Talk about invincible ignorance -- what did we learn from Iran in 1979? Even Reagan didn't seem to understand that such an outrageous act of war as taking embassy staff hostage demanded military action as a minimal response. I mean, don't any of these people have dogs? In this life you have two choices: pitch or catch. So, why isn't Yogi Berra our President?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt will.
Believe me, it will.
[Now can I join the State Department?]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJacobite, your 18th century "benevolent" racism has been proven false time and again. Korean babies adopted by Americans can pronounce their R's, Black children can be taught to read, non-Jews have figured out how to count money, and it's likely that Arabs can become civil. Does the cultural environment in Middle East make it easy? No. But it's likely not a racial characteristic.
The important, simple lesson is that people are basically the same everywhere and in all time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse