The Obama administration’s deer-in-the headlights policy toward Egypt will probably change if and when Mubarak & Co. leave and thereby introduce the risk of a Czar–Kerensky–Lenin or Estates-General–Paris Commune–Committee of Public Safety scenario — i.e., the better organized and militantly non-democratic forces coming to the fore amid loosely organized protest against prior oppression.
Any “unity” government with the anti-democratic Muslim Brotherhood as a member is de facto a route to an Islamic Republic and a hostile Egypt for years to come — a veritable Libya, Syria, or Iran on steroids. We should remember just how much Nasser and, later, a pro-Soviet early Sadat stymied U.S. interests. Certainly Mubarak’s Egypt is no more Western or modern than was the Shah’s Iran, where the unlikely return to the pre-modern world soon became accepted. The thing that stopped Iraq from going the way of Iran (e.g., Saddam–Allawi–Zarqawi, like Shah–Banisadr–Khomeini) was, in large part, constant and vocal support for constitutional government and nothing but — and the skill of the U.S. military.
I suppose the West currently feels like someone watching a train approaching an abyss without much insight into how to prevent the train from going over the cliff. Our daily-evolving strategy apparently hinges on proper triangulation, shifting from prodding Mubarak to reform to calling on protesters to form a democratic government as Mubarak appears to weaken, all while allowing some leeway should he make a remarkable recovery.
I hope we are saving our condemnation and diplomatic powder for even the hint of an Islamic manipulation of the chaos. However, after the president’s Al Arabiya interview, his silence over Tehran in spring 2009, and the Cairo speech — the constant themes being U.S. culpability for Iraq, generic apologies for purported past sins, and America’s under-appreciation of past Islamic brilliance — I fear that far too many in and outside the Middle East are unsure how America would react to an Islamist absorption of the currently popular protest. ‘Oh well, America probably sees these guys as the inheritors of Cordoba, once again doing their part to create another Western Renaissance or Enlightenment.’
In short, at some point soon, we are going to have to come out and express our support for a non-Islamist constitutional state, period — without any Carter-esque talk of “moderate” Islamists.
These can NOT simply be interesting parallels:
El Baradei, populist uprising calling for participatory democracy and unity government, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and
Salvador Allende, populist uprising and Popular Unity government in Chile, 1970.
Especially, when also considering this:
Judge Orders Investigation into Allende's Death
External Link
Someone is pulling strings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> we are going to have to come out and express our support for a non-Islamist constitutional state,
Putting in my civility choppers, and trying so very hard not to be overwrought, allow me to say the Obama administration "came out," as it were, some time ago. "Support for a non-Islamist constitutional state" is not among its priorities in the mid-east. Heck, it isn't even a priority in the Americas.
[Rich L., did I do ok?]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA couple troubling things I noticed while watching video of the demonstrations: a number of the crowd members were carrying posters of Nasser. If that is their model for leadership of the "New Egypt" then Israel is right to be concerned.
The other thing I noticed was that a number of protestors had the forehead callous indicating a very devout Muslim. The true believers develop a mark on their foreheads from constant contact with the ground during prayer. If that is who winds up in a leadership role then the whole world will have reason to be concerned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThings are about to get ugly on the energy front. It's time for Republicans to advance aggressive energy legislation to open up our domestic supplies and encourage nuclear development...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah. Democracy is not for those Arabs - unless they do what the USA says. This aticle exposes the rank hypocrisy of US "pro-freedom" warriors. If they have to choose between a brutal dictator who is a "friend of the US and Israel - and the possibility of a real democracy in which people avctually choose their leaders they choose the former. Disgusting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is only a policy mess or a slow motion train wreck if you think the Obama Administration's goals include Middle East stability, preservation of the Jewish State, and preventing Islamism from metastasizing to more states.
So sayeth the prophet Obama in June 2009, "More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations." Obama is *not* America's friend in this.
Obama hedging his bets is just classic Obama. Try to look moderate, and appear like you don't have a position in the media. Meanwhile pursue your hard-left, anti-American ideology. Giving Egypt back to its rightful owners is just more of the same from Obama. The chaos, death and destruction in Egypt are acceptable losses.
If I were Israeli, I would be VERY worried. Obama wants an Islamist Egypt if that is what the "people" (i.e. the ones with the guns) want. The New Egypt will be a means to intimidate Israel into concessions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis whole situation is depressing. Either this ends up with a nation with major worldwide strategic interest thanks to the Suez Canal either in the hands of another slippery military dictatorship or a military-backed dictatorship or the slow but sure slide to an Islamic Republic.
The simple inability of our ability to respond says to me that we need a dramatically reoriented foreign policy. Not that this will ever occur, but if anyone was actually interested in furthering American strategic interests means we go all in for increasing overseas involvement, not necessarily militarily. But this being America, it'll never happen. Instead we'll limp along from crisis to crisis based on the balls of whoever is President at the time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse---"without any Carter-esque talk of “moderate” Islamists."---
Good luck on that.
It's sort of related: the current poll about whether the Obama Administration approach to Egypt is too cautious, just right, too reckless.
I voted "too reckless", because Obama and the Administration have not the slightest idea of what is going on in Egypt much less what to do about it (e.g two days ago the Sec of State said Pharoah Hosni's regime was stable, now we want orderly change). Them doing anything will be ad hoc, uninformed, without thought, and, thus, extremely damaging.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, this episode has made one thing clear...most of the conservative talk about supporting democracy and freedom around the world was and is complete bunk.
Most of the right still seems to prefer pet dictators over supporting the natural rights of man. Shame on you.
Yes, this situation could end up disastrous--like any birthing. This is the time for very cautious, non-cowboy foreign policy for the U.S. (thank goodness the old team is out!) Yes, things could get worse, but they could get better. As long as there is an opportunity to greater democracy and human freedom, we should do what we can to support it, instead of engaging in all this slightly racist nay-saying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Most of the right still seems to prefer pet dictators over supporting the natural rights of man."
The choice is not between dictatorship and the "natural rights of man". The choice is between a pro-US dictatorship and and an anti-US dictator. Only the loony, America-hating Left prefers the latter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Pierre: They start out choosing democratically. Then one day they wake up and the only candidates on the ballot are the ones approved by the "democratically elected" leaders. See Iran, Cuba, PRC, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Dexter, you think that Middle Easterners are incapable of anything other than a dictator?
Why?
And if that's the case, why did we sacrifice American lives to bring democracy to Iraq?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"you think that Middle Easterners are incapable of anything other than a dictator?"
No.
"Why?"
They are low-IQ religious fanatics with no tradition of representative democracy, honest civil government, or any of the other things that make non-dictatorships work.
"And if that's the case, why did we sacrifice American lives to bring democracy to Iraq?"
I have never agreed with that objective, I don't think we have obtained it, and I don't think we can obtain it.
What I said in 2003 was "we do not need democracy in Iraq but an obedient pro-US Saddam."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiot,
You're really pulling the race card? Way to completely delegitimize any actual argument you may have been attempting.
But I'll bite, regardless. Do you mean "cautious non-cowboy" foreign policy like Obama blundering into existing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, unilaterally making demands that even the Palestinians weren't making? Thus prompting them to say, "Holy cow, if the leader of the free world is making demands on our behalf, then...What HE said!" Barack Obama is solely responsible for blowing up and shutting down those talks. Where's your non-cowboy now?
And no conservative is saying they prefer dictators over the natural rights of man. (False choices, anyone?) They are saying they prefer dictators who aren't Hell-bent on destroying the West over radical theocrats who are not only Hell-bent on destroying the West, but also in oppressing their citizens even worse than the current dictator. That's called nuance, which the Left claims to know so much about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@RiotLibrarian - I don't pretend to know what "most conservatives" think about spreading democracy in the world and especially in the middle-east, but I believe there are plenty that thought Bush's democracy initiatives were at best Quixotic, and at worse plainly dangerous.
Personally, I'm all for "democracy" in the middle-east, not because it will bring stability and/or peace, but because it will bring some (much needed) clarity on Islam.
I think Islam is dangerous. Very dangerous. And, I think it's far too convenient for many in the liberal intelligentsia (and to some degree for their conservative colleagues, too) to characterize the violent actions perpetrated in the name of Islam, as being planned, financed and executed by a "fringe" group of extremists, or by Iranian theocrats, or by "mad" dictators. It's all bunk. And Egypt's near-term evolution (perhaps devolution is a better word), will prove it.
Democracy will come to Egypt. And as a result, the most violent, radical and anti-western elements will come to power, absent bloodshed and with overwhelming popular support. We will then see Islam for what it really is - a dangerous plague on the world, and liberal apologists won't be able to pretend that it's a "few extremists" giving the ideology a bad name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe U.S. military depends heavily on Cairo West Airfield for access to Africa and the Mid-East. A loss of that base would sorely hamper on-going operations throughout Africa.
We would have to use Italy or Spain for our air stops.
A government unfriendly to the U.S. will shut down our access.
That would be a bad thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In short, at some point soon, we are going to have to come out and express our support for a non-Islamist constitutional state, period — without any Carter-esque talk of “moderate” Islamists."
Ever the optimist, Dr. Hanson?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the purposes of empowering Mohammedan theocracy, our historic first Islamic apostate president has already abstained from his usual pattern of voting “present” by boldly trusting the United States’ full faith and credit behind the Iranian mullahs’ quashing of the past post-election popular insurgency.
What better forum as a follow-up to his prior Cairo panegyric than to praise the Brotherhood for the compatibility of their ambitions with his, proclaim support for Persian-Arab, S hi'ite-Sunni ecumenism in their pursuant of global supremacy, and celebrate the weakening of our Western way of life as the preferred outcome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor Israel, at least, it all boils down to this. When , not if, the fundamentalist,
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseanti-Israel, anti-West Islamic state is established in Egypt in several days, weeks or months, at the latest, Israel's inevitable reaction must be an attack
on Sinai to retake all or part of the peninsula, especially the sector that borders on Gaza. The idea of a large, powerful, highly militarized ,fanatical Islamic Egypt a la Iran on Israel's very border is unthinkable (and fatal).
Bill Ayers and the Mrs. agree with CNN. These are really good guys and we can and should work with them. We need a Winston Churchill, now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse