There are three primary angles to choose from in responding to the unrest in Egypt.
1) Support Mubarak in leading a transition to democracy. If we don’t support Mubarak, he will fall and dangerous elements might come to power—individuals who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and possibly Islamist. America must not forget the terror that seized 1990s Egypt and birthed the ideology of al-Qaeda. Moreover, we must not offend the other dictators in the region, lest the stop supporting us in our counterterrorism agenda, by pulling out the rug from under Mubarak.
This, which is what appears to be US policy, is wrong on a number of fronts. First, democracy as envisioned by its advocates is a secular and pro-American one. Mubarak had 30 years to create such a democracy: It never happened. Real democracy in Egypt will contain undesirable elements, and perhaps worse, so this argument is either fantasy or support for dictatorship in disguise. Such a democracy would also put Mubarak on trial, something no dictator would tolerate. Worse, it is very likely that Mubarak will have to massacre civilians to stay in power until elections in September. Does the US want to support that? No.
2) Publicly do nothing and say nothing of significance. The US cannot and should not micromanage events in the Middle East. Moreover, this is not an opportunity for excitement. When the dust settles and the dreamers get their heads out of the clouds, they’ll remember that transitions to democracy are messy, chaotic, and frequently fail. In the former Soviet Union, “revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan proved phoney. In the Middle East, they have been downright dangerous. See exhibit a, b, and c: the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and theocracy in Iran.
This is not be a bad argument—if we were living in another universe. In the universe I live in, the US has nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the putative purpose of bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. You can't backtrack now.
Moreover, the examples of “failed” revolutions are virtual non-sequiturs. Georgian and Lebanon are ethnically divided, feeble nations. In Ukraine, barely half of the country supported the “Orange Revolution”. Kyrgyzstan is, well, Kyrgyzstan. The Palestinian elections occurred in a non-state, intending to be a referendum supporting the rule of Fatah.
Iran is a better parallel. In both cases, autocrats with poor health sat on socio-demographic time-bombs. Confused American policy (which is what we are seeing again) made things worse. Once the revolution started, American attempts to stop it were doomed to fail. What is different is that Khomeini was truly a unique character, without any counterpart in Egypt. Iran, furthermore, was more divided, and more violent.
3) The better policy is for the US to call for Mubarak to step down, and hold elections soon- perhaps in a few months time (Mubarak’s call for the people to wait until elections in September is a joke). A transitional government, led by the military, with El-Baradei, Amr Moussa, or some other benign figurehead at the top, is a much better plan. The military is the only institution able to keep order and avoid the power vacuum that currently exists in Tunisia. A constitutional assembly will have to come afterwards.
And for some editorializing: Any advocate of freedom and democracy has to support the undivided calls of the Egyptian people for Mubarak to leave. If you don’t, then you need to reexamine your values. After sacrificing untold blood and treasure in Iraq for Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, this is the American response to a genuine call for democracy? Such hypocrisy defies description.
- Jon
1) Support Mubarak in leading a transition to democracy. If we don’t support Mubarak, he will fall and dangerous elements might come to power—individuals who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and possibly Islamist. America must not forget the terror that seized 1990s Egypt and birthed the ideology of al-Qaeda. Moreover, we must not offend the other dictators in the region, lest the stop supporting us in our counterterrorism agenda, by pulling out the rug from under Mubarak.
This, which is what appears to be US policy, is wrong on a number of fronts. First, democracy as envisioned by its advocates is a secular and pro-American one. Mubarak had 30 years to create such a democracy: It never happened. Real democracy in Egypt will contain undesirable elements, and perhaps worse, so this argument is either fantasy or support for dictatorship in disguise. Such a democracy would also put Mubarak on trial, something no dictator would tolerate. Worse, it is very likely that Mubarak will have to massacre civilians to stay in power until elections in September. Does the US want to support that? No.
2) Publicly do nothing and say nothing of significance. The US cannot and should not micromanage events in the Middle East. Moreover, this is not an opportunity for excitement. When the dust settles and the dreamers get their heads out of the clouds, they’ll remember that transitions to democracy are messy, chaotic, and frequently fail. In the former Soviet Union, “revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan proved phoney. In the Middle East, they have been downright dangerous. See exhibit a, b, and c: the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and theocracy in Iran.
This is not be a bad argument—if we were living in another universe. In the universe I live in, the US has nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the putative purpose of bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. You can't backtrack now.
Moreover, the examples of “failed” revolutions are virtual non-sequiturs. Georgian and Lebanon are ethnically divided, feeble nations. In Ukraine, barely half of the country supported the “Orange Revolution”. Kyrgyzstan is, well, Kyrgyzstan. The Palestinian elections occurred in a non-state, intending to be a referendum supporting the rule of Fatah.
Iran is a better parallel. In both cases, autocrats with poor health sat on socio-demographic time-bombs. Confused American policy (which is what we are seeing again) made things worse. Once the revolution started, American attempts to stop it were doomed to fail. What is different is that Khomeini was truly a unique character, without any counterpart in Egypt. Iran, furthermore, was more divided, and more violent.
3) The better policy is for the US to call for Mubarak to step down, and hold elections soon- perhaps in a few months time (Mubarak’s call for the people to wait until elections in September is a joke). A transitional government, led by the military, with El-Baradei, Amr Moussa, or some other benign figurehead at the top, is a much better plan. The military is the only institution able to keep order and avoid the power vacuum that currently exists in Tunisia. A constitutional assembly will have to come afterwards.
And for some editorializing: Any advocate of freedom and democracy has to support the undivided calls of the Egyptian people for Mubarak to leave. If you don’t, then you need to reexamine your values. After sacrificing untold blood and treasure in Iraq for Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, this is the American response to a genuine call for democracy? Such hypocrisy defies description.
- Jon
