Let's say this at the outset: if things go badly in Egypt, anyone who says that the current administration "lost Egypt" is being silly at best and malicious at worst. Our policy regarding Egypt has not changed in any significant way since Begin and Sadat signed the peace accords in the 1970s. If someone is inclined to blame Obama, they might as well blame either Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter too.
That said, there's danger galore in what's happening and there's an excellent chance that things will go badly. Hosni Mubarak is a standard-issue autocrat/strongman of the sort that has plagued most of the world for a long time now. He's cut from the same cloth as any Arab autocrat you'd like to name, or any caudillo in Latin America. He is a thief, a liar and a killer. On balance, he needs to go.
The problem is what follows Mubarak. I have heard and read in recent days that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't so bad, really, and that we don't really need to worry about them should they take power in Egypt. Forgive me if I don't believe that. As I mentioned earlier, both Zaiman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 figure Mohammed Atta are both Egyptians. Both came to al-Qaeda essentially from the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood sits roughly in the same place now that Khomeini and the hardcore theocrats in Iran sat in 1979. And my guess is that the MB would do everything possible to seize power in the chaos that is sure to follow Mubarak's departure.
The tough part is this: there really aren't any good options right now. Mubarak might be ruthless enough to try to mow down the protesters with his police force, but there's reason to believe that the military would not stay in its barracks if that were to happen. In any event, Mubarak is 82 years old and unlikely to last much longer even if he manages to squelch what's happening. I don't have much confidence in Mohammed el Baradei, last seen in his element as a feckless, officious bureaucrat playing Sergeant Schultz around the Iranian nuclear program. He's got Kerensky written all over him.
So what can we do? Beats me. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
8 comments:
first order: divest from israel.
you'd be surprised how much america hate stems from its proping up a foreign people in their midst.
Mark,
I agree with most of what you say here, but think that the el-Baradei/Kerensky analogy might be a little facile. But I don't doubt that the Obama Admin and the State Department find the current situation in Egypt awkward. Also, I do think and hope that your concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood are overblown. No doubt, there are some bad actors in the Brotherhood, but the MB is also an 80 year old Sunni political party that has always espoused democracy and secular government. That makes them considerably different than the Shia theocrats that took over Iran in 1979. And while al-Zawahiri and Atta are former members of the Brotherhood, they left the organization BECAUSE they viewed it as too secular and too moderate. Additionally, the MB is the largest of many political opposition groups, but only has an estimated 20% of popular support. Events in Iran in 1979 saw one faction with broad support pitted against another deligitimized faction explicitly propped up by the West. Egypt seems to be unfolding more along the lines of a classic revolution against the palace, where no one outside of the palace supports the continuation of the regime, including the armed forces.
Given the depth of our interests in the region, the best way forward seems clear: We should continue to differentiate between Mubarak (whose situation seems untenable) and the Egyptian Armed Forces (which is the real kingmaker). We need to do everything we can to ensure that Mubarak gets replaced while the legitimacy of the military stays intact.
Egypt strikes me as a lot more like Turkey than Iran. A mostly secular government and society where the armed forces are a liberalizing and very powerful element. And a group that I doubt, very much, will want to turn their back on the 1.4 Billion in arms and money that it gets directly from the US every year. Egypt has kept the peace with Israel and cooperated on security and anti-terrorism issues with the U.S. for over 3 decades. That's he main reasons why the aid has continued to flow. We weren't talking about suspending aid to Egypt when Mubarak rigged the parliamentary elections last month because virtually no one thought that this aid should be linked to political reforms. Nothing should change until we figure out where this is going.
Regards,
Rich
Regards,
Rich
I agree with most of what you say here, but think that the el-Baradei/Kerensky analogy might be a little facile.
If there were evidence that el-Baradei had significant support and an independent power base, I'd feel otherwise. But I don't see that, Rich.
Also, I do think and hope that your concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood are overblown.
If you were to quantify that statement, how much would be think and how much would be hope?
More later. And I need to respond to you, too, Gino.
Mark,
It's a Revolution, so anything is possible. But if have to guess:
70% think, 30% hope. And regarding the Kerensky/el-Baradei analogy, I doubt right now if el-Baradei even has the backing that Kerensky did when he first came to power. But the difference is that the Russian Revolution had White and Red Factions, internal security, trades unions and multiple radical organizations battling, the Russian military was deeply divided and the situation was very fluid. I am willing to bet that the Egyptian military, when they make their move, will do so in a uniform fashion. They are going to decide who will replace Mubarek, and it won't be his son and it may not be Suleiman. But whomever it is that person will be relatively safe, but only because they understand their position vis-a-vis the Army.
In fact, this just came through in the Financial Times, and it sounds like the Egyptian High Command is making its decision: “The armed forces will not resort to use of force against our great people. Your armed forces, who are aware of the legitimacy of your demands and are keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirm that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody,” said the statement. (The Financial Times, Jan. 31, 2011)
I think this means that the Mubarak regime is on its last legs, and the military is going to dictate terms. Which probably doesn't bode well for the MB. Only time will tell. but I don't see the Egyptian army handing power over to the MB any time soon.
Regards,
Rich
Gino,
this poll seems to counter that argument...or at least, temper it:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-toward-united-states-are-much-improved/
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
That's fair. On the way home from work I heard an interview with Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic, a writer whose work I think is very good (I thought his Imperial Grunts was excellent). Kaplan is essentially in agreement with much of what you posit.
Since it appears the military is going to stay in its barracks, rather than support Mubarak, that augurs well. Kaplan also drew the parallel with Turkey. My caution would be that Turkey has taken a fairly hard Islamist turn in recent years, so there are forces afoot beyond what we can see from our vantage point.
Gino, I understand your view, but I don't think there's any chance that the U.S. would abandon Israel. There are two reasons: first, if we were to abandon Israel now, the goodwill we'd potentially gain in the Arab world would be fleeting at best and we'd also lose face with many of our other allies for doing so -- our word would be no good. Second, if we cut off Israel now, they would have no reason to listen to our concerns in the region and would be free to strike any of the other players without compunction. I don't see how that's desirable, either. And that's leaving aside the other part of your argument, which is that Jews are somehow foreign to that region, which is simply not true.
Mark,
Column Lynch has an interesting article about el Baradei in Foreign Policy today
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/31/el_baradeis_personal_revolution_from_multilateral_bureaucrat_to_populist_patriot
Kinda what I am thinking: His importance is being inflated by the West because of his being one of the only internationally recognized Egyptians, after Mabarak. It's all about the media needing to put a face on a story.
Rich
Interesting piece, Rich. If Lynch is correct, el Baradei is the functional equivalent of, say, David Gergen.
Post a Comment