Democratic Realpolitik and Egypt

From Dr. Robert Bunker, "Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World" (via Great Satan's Girlfriend):

National self-interest now requires that we reevaluate our relationship to autocratic states, both client and otherwise, in the Islamic World and, for that matter, everywhere else. Our interests are now best served by implementing a new U.S. foreign policy approach—one that is sum-sum for our country and the burgeoning masses who live under the yoke of oppression in autocratic Islamic states. Under this new sum-sum strategy, we „play the old diplomatic game‟ and hold our friendly despots even closer while we do everything in our power, short of getting caught (and of course not engaging in crimes against humanity), to seize upon golden opportunities that are now presenting themselves in Egypt and in other Islamic lands to support Democratic revolution. We should not instigate it and we should not invade like in Iraq— Democracy should be seductive, something that is desired and not necessarily forced upon others. If the spark of Democratic revolution should come about spontaneously due to the actions of flash mobs and social network-inspired rioting or is orchestrated from within by more organized bodies, we should support it from the shadows. If a critical tipping point is approached—one in which relative superiority hangs in the balance— and if the stakes are worth it, we may even need to show our hand and threaten or buy off the targeted despot and his military forces in order to make them stand down.

RTWT.

Talk about nuance. Dr. Bunker adds this, for example, "Realism and idealism must always exist in balance, with one not sacrificed for the benefit of the other, if our nation is to remain strong." Yet he warns of obvious and inherent dangers, that some states will succumb to Islamist extremism --- like Egypt today, right? Sure, but see the Wall Street Journal, "Hamas, the Brotherhood and Egypt":

Those who believe that a democratic Egypt is doomed to fall into the Muslim Brotherhood's hands frequently cite the 2006 elections as Exhibit A. But the lesson of those elections is that Hamas should not have been allowed to participate, not that elections should never have been held.

If the Brotherhood wants to participate in elections, it should have to promise to play by democratic rules, respect religious and social pluralism, and honor Egypt's treaty commitments, especially to Israel. And because promises can be broken by those in power, Egypt needs a constitutional system of checks and balances to withstand any attempt to impose one man, one vote, once. Egypt can have a viable democratic future, provided that the democracy is for democrats.

See also Charles Krauthammer (the father of "democratic realism"), at WaPo, "Toward a soft landing in Egypt": (via Memeorandum):

The overriding objective is a period of stability during which secularists and other democratic elements of civil society can organize themselves for the coming elections and prevail. ElBaradei is a menace. Mubarak will be gone one way or the other. The key is the military. The United States should say very little in public and do everything behind the scenes to help the military midwife - and then guarantee - what is still something of a long shot: Egyptian democracy.

More at Los Angeles Times, "Egyptian throngs have a word for Mubarak: 'Leave!'," and New York Times,"Egyptian Government Figures Join Protesters."