Obama: Still Wrong on Egypt, and the World

From Walter Russell Mead, "Still Wrong About Egypt — and Wrong About the World."

Commenting on the president's anodyne and vapid statement on Egypt, Mead writes:

Concludes President Obama:

No transition to democracy comes without difficulty, but in the end it must stay true to the will of the people. An honest, capable and representative government is what ordinary Egyptians seek and what they deserve. The longstanding partnership between the United States and Egypt is based on shared interests and values, and we will continue to work with the Egyptian people to ensure that Egypt’s transition to democracy succeeds.

One hopes the President understands what drivel this is. It is not at all clear that Egypt is in the midst of a transition to democracy. It is in the midst of a crisis of authority and has been wallowing for some time in a damaging crisis of governance, but is Egypt really in a transition to democracy? And is democracy really what “ordinary” Egyptians want?

Right now one suspects that most Egyptians fear that the country could be in a transition to anarchy, and that what ordinary Egyptians (who are extremely poor by US standards and earn their bread by the sweat of their brow with very little cushion against illness or a bad day at the market) want most of all right now is security. They aren’t fretting so much about when they will have a government more like Norway’s as they are terrified that their country is sliding in the direction of Libya, Syria or Iraq.

As is often the case, Washington policymakers seem to be paying too much attention to the glibbest of political scientists and the vaporings of the Davoisie. Egypt has none of the signs that would lead historians to think democracy is just around the corner. Mubarak was not Franco, and Egypt is not Spain. What’s happening in Egypt isn’t the robust flowering of a civil society so dynamic and so democratic that it can no longer be held back by dictatorial power.

Virtually every policeman and government official in the country takes bribes. Most journalists have lied for pay or worked comfortably within the confines of a heavily censored press all their careers. The Interior Ministry has files, often stuffed with incriminating or humiliating information about most of the political class. The legal system bowed like a reed before the wind of the Mubarak government’s will, and nothing about the character of its members has changed. The business class serves the political powers; the Copts by and large will bow to the will of any authority willing to protect them.

And Americans should not deceive themselves. While some of Morsi’s failure was the result of overreaching and dumb choices on his part, he faced a capital strike and an intense campaign of passive resistance by a government and business establishment backed by an army in bed with both groups. Their strategy was to bring Morsi down by sabotaging the economy, frustrating his policies and isolating his appointees. Although Egypt’s liberals supported the effort out of fear of the Islamists, the strategy had nothing to do with a transition to democracy, and it worked.

This is not to say that Morsi or his movement had a viable alternative policy or governance model for Egypt. They didn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood had no clue how Egypt could be governed, and a combination of incompetence, corruption, factionalism and religious dogmatism began to wreck Morsi’s government from Day One.

If American policy toward Egypt is based on the assumption that Egypt is having a “messy transition” to democracy and that we must shepherd the poor dears to the broad sunny uplands, encouraging when they do well, chiding when they misstep, Washington will keep looking foolish and our influence will continue to fade. If that is the approach our foolishness compels us to take, look for more cases in which American good intentions just make us more hated—not because we are wicked, but because we are clueless.

Islamists Claim Victory in Egypt Election

The New York Times reports, "Egypt’s Military Cements Its Powers as Voting Ends":

CAIRO — The Muslim Brotherhood early Monday projected its candidate, an Islamist, as the winner of Egypt’s first competitive presidential election, hours after the ruling military council issued an interim constitution granting itself broad power over the future government, all but eliminating the president’s authority in an apparent effort to guard against just such a victory.

The military’s new charter is the latest in a series of swift steps that the generals have taken to tighten their grasp on power just at the moment when they had promised to hand over to elected civilians the authority that they assumed on the ouster of Hosni Mubarak last year. Their charter gives them control of all laws and the national budget, immunity from any oversight, and the power to veto a declaration of war.

After dissolving the Brotherhood-led Parliament elected four months ago, and locking out its lawmakers, the generals on Sunday night also seized control of the process of writing a permanent constitution. State news media reported that the generals had picked a 100-member panel to draft it.

“The new constitutional declaration completed Egypt’s official transformation into a military dictatorship,” Hossam Bahgat, director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, wrote in an online commentary. Under the military’s charter, the president appeared to be reduced to a powerless figurehead.

Though final results were not available, Brotherhood supporters called the apparent victory by their candidate, Mohamed Morsi, a rebuke to the military’s power grab. “Down, down with military rule!” a crowd at Mr. Morsi’s campaign headquarters chanted as he prepared to give a victory speech shortly after 4 a.m. Monday.

Mr. Morsi thanked God, who, he said, “guided Egypt to this straight path, the path of freedom and democracy.” He pledged to represent all Egyptians, including those who had voted against him. And he made a special profession of support for the rights of members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority, many of whom had rallied against him out of fear of the Brotherhood.

More at that top link.

And see Barry Rubin, "Egypt: Things to Think About as We Await the Presidential Election Outcome":

While one can certainly sympathize with the idea of letting an elected parliament take office, that’s not necessarily such a clear call in strategic terms. The parliament — which will write the constitution and thus define the powers of the president — is almost 75 percent rabidly anti-American and antisemitic. (I don’t write that last word lightly, but it is quite accurate.) Imagine if this situation had arisen in Iran in 1979 with the Iranian military refusing to turn over power to the forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Would it have been wise for Washington to demand that this be done as soon as possible?

Yet, here is Defense Secretary Leon Panetta calling on Egypt’s military in a manner that “highlighted the need to move forward expeditiously with Egypt’s political transition, including conducting new legislative elections as soon as possible.” Senator Patrick J. Leahy has called for withholding U.S. aid to Egypt, saying, “I would not want to see the U.S. government write checks for contracts with Egypt’s military under the present uncertain circumstances.”  What circumstances are more appropriate for sending U.S. arms and money? When the Muslim Brotherhood dominates parliament, the presidency, has written a constitution mandating Sharia law, and follows a policy of death to America and death to Israel? Who are you going to cheer for if Islamists rebel against the regime?

Maybe now is a good moment for the U.S. government to remain quiet.

Read it all.

BONUS: At Telegraph UK, "Egypt presidential election overshadowed by further army power grab and voter fraud claims."

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Seeks Shift by Hamas for Co-Existence With Israel

I'll believe it when I see it.

At New York Times, "Islamist Victors in Egypt Seeking Shift by Hamas":

CAIRO — As it prepares to take power in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is overhauling its relations with the two main Palestinian factions in an effort to put new pressure on Israel for an independent Palestinian state.

Officials of the Brotherhood, Egypt’s dominant Islamist movement, are pressing its militant Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, which controls Gaza, to make new compromises with Fatah, the Western-backed Palestinian leadership that has committed to peace with Israel and runs the West Bank.

The intervention in the Palestinian issue is the clearest indication yet that as it moves into a position of authority, the Brotherhood, the largest vote getter in Egypt’s parliamentary elections, intends to both moderate its positions on foreign policy and reconfigure Egypt’s.

Brotherhood officials say that they are pulling back from their previous embrace of Hamas and its commitment to armed struggle against Israel in order to open new channels of communications with Fatah, which the Brotherhood had previously denounced for collaborating with Israel and accused of selling out the Palestinian cause. Brotherhood leaders argue that if they persuade the Palestinians to work together with a newly assertive Egypt, they will have far more success forcing Israel to bargain in earnest over the terms of statehood.

“Now we have to deal with the Palestinian parties as an umbrella for both of them, and we have to stand at an equal distance from each,” said Reda Fahmy, a Brotherhood leader who oversees its Palestinian relations and is now chairman of the Arab affairs committee in Egypt’s upper house of Parliament. “Any movement of the size of the Muslim Brotherhood, when it is in the opposition it is one thing and then when it comes to power it is something completely different.”

The shift in the Brotherhood’s stance toward neutrality between Hamas and Fatah — acknowledged by officials of both groups — may relieve United States policy makers, who have long worried about the Brotherhood’s relationship with the more militant Hamas. The United States considers the Palestinian group to be a terrorist organization. But the shift in Egypt’s policies may unnerve Israel, because it is a move away from former President Hosni Mubarak’s exclusive support for the Western-backed Fatah movement and its commitment to the peace process. Israeli officials have said they will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

But Mr. Fahmy said the Brotherhood believed that Palestinian unity could break the deadlock in talks with Israel. “A Palestinian negotiator will go the table and know that all the Palestinian people are supporting his project,” Mr. Fahmy said.  “This will be a huge change and very important to both sides.” Jailed at times by the Mubarak government for his role in the Brotherhood, Mr. Fahmy spoke this month from an ornate hall of Parliament.

I'm skeptical, frankly.

According to Gallup, more Egyptians favor the 1979 peace treaty with Israel than oppose, although the numbers are down by more than 10 percent from before the revolution. See: "Egyptians Sour on U.S., Eye Closer Ties to Turkey, Iran: Perceptions of Peace Treaty with Israel steady."

But see Barry Rubin, "Egypt is a Volcano, The West Snoozes, But Israel Won't Play the Role of Pompeii":

Reality: Those who are, or will soon be, governing Egypt view themselves as being at war with Israel for all practical purposes.  It matters relatively little that there is still a peace treaty. In Cairo, there are no thoughts of peace.

This is the second biggest disaster of the “Arab Spring.” The same applies to the Egyptian government’s attitude to the United States. That is the biggest disaster.

It is a disaster that U.S. policymakers and journalists have not even begun to recognize, much less counter.

Well, there you go.

Continue reading at the link.

Egypt's Mohamed Morsi Dictates U.S. Foreign Policy to the Obama White House

They say that voters don't vote foreign policy. In presidential elections pocketbook issues dominate, and especially in a year like this. And so far, it's not clear that the Republicans have won over the electorate on the jobs crisis (so we might be stuck with another four years of this Obama-Democrat calamity). But there's a lot more on our collective plate this year, and that's the standing of the United States as the continued leader of the free world. The evidence on the Libya attack is so overwhelming now that the White House can no longer cover it up. And we know that the Obama administration's foreign policy toward the Arab world has failed, our relations with and standing in the Muslim world has literally exploded in great balls of fire before our eyes. And the kick in the teeth is still to come when Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi meeets with President Obama to lay down the law on how the United States is to deal with the Middle East. I hope Obama's been practicing his bow, because he's going to be bending low before the Muslim Brotherhood chief, deeper than any head of state to which he's kowtowed thus far. Americans need to take a good hard look at what's going down and then ask themselves if 2012 isn't one of those elections in which history shall be the final judge. Obama promised a fundamental transformation in 2008. He's kept his word and continues to deliver the goods, bringing down Uncle Sam every step of the way.

At the New York Times, "Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties":

CAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.

A former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi sought in a 90-minute interview with The New York Times to introduce himself to the American public and to revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, an autocratic but reliable ally.

He said it was up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt, long a cornerstone of regional stability.

If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. He said the United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture, even when that conflicts with Western values.

And he dismissed criticism from the White House that he did not move fast enough to condemn protesters who recently climbed over the United States Embassy wall and burned the American flag in anger over a video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad.

“We took our time” in responding to avoid an explosive backlash, he said, but then dealt “decisively” with the small, violent element among the demonstrators.

“We can never condone this kind of violence, but we need to deal with the situation wisely,” he said, noting that the embassy employees were never in danger.

Mr. Morsi, who will travel to New York on Sunday for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, arrives at a delicate moment. He faces political pressure at home to prove his independence, but demands from the West for reassurance that Egypt under Islamist rule will remain a stable partner.

Mr. Morsi, 61, whose office was still adorned with nautical paintings that Mr. Mubarak left behind, said the United States should not expect Egypt to live by its rules.

“If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment,” he said. “When the Egyptians decide something, probably it is not appropriate for the U.S. When the Americans decide something, this, of course, is not appropriate for Egypt.”

He suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, but would not be as compliant as Mr. Mubarak either.

“Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region,” he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians.

He initially sought to meet with President Obama at the White House during his visit this week, but he received a cool reception, aides to both presidents said. Mindful of the complicated election-year politics of a visit with Egypt’s Islamist leader, Mr. Morsi dropped his request.

Well, yeah. Bowing, in the White House, before the leader of the Arab terrorist world might not have gone over too well with the American public. That's something that even the Obama-enabling media wouldn't be able to conceal.

Things are not right in the world. There has never been as much groveling in our foreign policy, and now a two-bit terrorist lackey is dictating America's foreign policy on the Middle East. It's a disgrace of epic proportions, the mother of all clusterf-ks. May Americans take notice, for the survival of the republic is in their hands.

More at Big Government, "Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations" (via Memeorandum).

PREVIOUSLY: "David Horowitz on Libya Attack: 'One of the Most Disgraceful Moments in the History of the American Presidency...'"

RELATED: From the Western Center for Journalism, "Egypt’s New President Keeps Useful Idiot Obama On Short Muslim Brotherhood Leash."

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon.

Islamists Seek Takeover of Egyptian Revolution

I'll have lots of commentary on the Middle East over the next few days. Especially noteworthy is Victor Davis Hanson, who gave a phenomenal keynote speech on Saturday morning at the Freedom Center's Western Retreat. More on that later. Meanwhile, looks like the Los Angeles Times is playing catch-up to the New York Times on the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics. See, "Islamists in Egypt seek change through politics":

Egypt has long been the touchstone of the Arab world. The protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square that ended with Mubarak retiring to his villa on the Red Sea riveted the Middle East. That drama suggests that Egypt's post-revolutionary era — its emerging blend of politics and Islam — will have tremendous influence on what evolves in coming generations across the region.

The political Islam popular in Egypt strikes more the tone of the moderate Muslim party running Turkey than the fundamentalist theocracies presiding over Saudi Arabia and Iran. Political parties based solely on religion are still illegal here, but the military council ruling the country has astounded many by permitting Islam a wider role. Analysts suggest this tolerance is calculated so that in coming months the army can hand over the nation to an elected parliament after assurances from the Brotherhood that it will not run a candidate for president.

Egypt is not the only nation where Islamic messages are whispering alongside the clamor of revolt. In Yemen, religious radicals are seeking to exploit anti-government protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a U.S. ally against Al Qaeda. In Syria, conservative Sunni Muslims more antagonistic toward Israel than President Bashar Assad could fill the vacuum if his government is toppled.

The Muslim Brotherhood's calls for a relatively mainstream Islamic government appeals to its majority of educated and professional members. In Egypt's first taste of true democracy, the Brotherhood and more fundamentalist Salafist organizations, however, told followers that it was their religious duty to vote to approve a referendum on constitutional amendments that benefited Islamists by speeding up elections.

One of Egypt's leading ultraconservative sheiks, Mohamed Hussein Yacoub, influenced by Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi strain of Islam, was quoted as saying after the referendum had passed: "That's it. The country is ours."

Such sentiment shows that in a span of weeks, age-old religion, not the enthusiasm and slogans of the Facebook generation, is likely to be a crucial factor in choosing a new Egyptian government. This swift change has surprised even the Brotherhood, which avoided references to Islam during an uprising that was not inspired by religion.

More at the link above.

And at the New York Times previously, "Islamist Group Is Rising Force in a New Egypt." And at Director Blue, "The Rise of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Right on Cue."

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."

Kissinger on Egypt: 'Classic Pattern of Revolution'

From Britain's Channel 4, "Henry Kissinger warns Channel 4 News that if an Islamist government replaces Mubarak in Egypt that it would be a 'fundamental change to the kind of world we have known since World War 2'."

The first thing to note is how brutally Kissinger slaps around his interviewer, Krishnan Guru Murthy, who throughout tries unsuccessfully to impugn not only American foreign policy toward Egypt, but Kissinger himself. Seriously. It's like an aged professor putting a disrespectful student in line.

But beyond that, I want to tie Secretary Kissinger's discussion with the newly kindled debate over neoconservatism and realism that's been engendered by events.

Daniel Larison, at American Conservative, it tutting and strutting around like a rooster in a hen house, "The Democracy Promotion Fetish." Obviously, the fact that democracy in Egypt could result in extremely unfavorable strategic circumstances counsels against too much grandstanding for the freedom agenda (something that I noted here earlier, in my discussion of "analytical realism"). The thing to recall about Larison is that he's an America-basher in "paleo-conservative" clothing, who gets most of his props from the neo-communist left. Any exertion of U.S. forward power is "ill-considered" and risks "blowback" against the "American empire." It's all a bunch of hooey, in any case. It's laughable "neocon derangement syndrome" for the most part. And thus no wonder Larison's got absolutely zero influence outside the truther fever swamps and with the nihilist left's hate-addled crossover readers.

But Kissinger's discussion dovetails with something else I've been meaning to get to. It turns out the Harvard's Stephen Walt, at Foreign Policy, offers a realist analysis of the Egyptian revolution: "A realist policy for Egypt." For realist Henry Kissinger, who served during the Nixon years, the collapse of Mubarak's regime holds deep structural significance of epochal proportions. It's interesting how he places uncertainty over both Egypt's government and it's commitments to peace in the context of Israel's security. He sounds wise, just like the elder statesman he is. In contrast, Walt offers a convoluted revisionist realist take on things, and suggests that "realism dictates that the United States encourage Mubarak to leave ..." Well, it can. But the theoretical justification can't be adequately specified in a blog post. Besides, theory's not the point. Bashing Israel and proposing a major reorientation of U.S. policy is. Walt writes:

To be specific, this crisis in Egypt is an opportunity for the United States to rethink the underlying principles of the Pax Americana that Washington has sought to maintain in the Middle East for decades. That arrangement rested on three pillars: 1) unconditional support for Israel, 2) denying or discounting Palestinian rights, and 3) support for and collusion with various "pro-Western" leaders whose legitimacy was always questionable. Though this policy had occasional moments of success-such as the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the 1991 Gulf War -- it was always a long-term loser. Unconditional U.S. support removed any short-term incentive for Israel to cut a fair deal with the Palestinians, and collusion with leaders like Mubarak made the United States even less popular on the Arab street.

In short, this as a moment when Barack Obama needs to be on the right side of history.

Being on the right side of history apparently means throwing Israel under the bus. And again, the contrast between Walt's revisionism and Kissinger's traditionalism is striking. Indeed, Kissinger dismisses "university professors" (like Walt) at the clip. Real world forces impinge on the actions of states, what theorists refer to as constraints. But in Walt's world, Egypt's revolution provides the ultimate opportunity to downgrade both Israel's legitimacy and America's interests in the Jewish state.

And this is why I don't trust realists like Stephen Walt. He goes hand-in-hand with folks like sleazy paleocon Daniel Larison, and together these shifty types provide high-falutin academic and ideological gloss to old-fashioned post-colonial progressivism. It's dishonest at the least and ultimately morally reprehensible.

White House 'Congratulates' Morsi on Winning Egyptian Presidential Election

Daniel Halper reports, at Weekly Standard:

White House spokesman Jay Carney issued the following statement in response to the Egyptian presidential election:

"The United States congratulates Dr. Mohamed Morsi on his victory in Egypt’s Presidential election, and we congratulate the Egyptian people for this milestone in their transition to democracy.

"We look forward to working together with President-elect Morsi and the government he forms, on the basis of mutual respect, to advance the many shared interests between Egypt and the United States.  We believe that it is important for President-elect Morsi to take steps at this historic time to advance national unity by reaching out to all parties and constituencies in consultations about the formation of a new government. We believe in the importance of the new Egyptian government upholding universal values, and respecting the rights of all Egyptian citizens – including women and religious minorities such as Coptic Christians.  Millions of Egyptians voted in the election, and President-elect Morsi and the new Egyptian government have both the legitimacy and responsibility of representing a diverse and courageous citizenry.

"The United States intends to work with all parties within Egypt to sustain our long-standing partnership as it consolidates its democracy.  We commend the Presidential Election Commission and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) for their role in supporting a free and fair election, and look forward to the completion of a transition to a democratically-elected government.  We believe it is essential for the Egyptian government to continue to fulfill Egypt’s role as a pillar of regional peace, security and stability.  And we will stand with the Egyptian people as they pursue their aspirations for democracy, dignity, and opportunity, and fulfill the promise of their revolution."

I guess that's a prototypical formal statement of diplomatic recognition, but still, given this White House's utter amateurism on Egypt over the last 18 months, such breezy statements are literally frightening.

See Rep. Allen West, for example, "The Muslim B'Hood takeover in Egypt shows Arab Spring is radical Islamic nightmare" (via Memeorandum):

A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama Administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons. Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed they would not run a presidential candidate. Clearly the Arab Spring is nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare. Now we need to unequivocally reiterate our support to the Coptic Christians and Israel. What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama Administration. I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.

Boy, that's a tough set of recommendations!

I only dissent on the immediate withdrawal of foreign aid. We have leverage over Egypt's foreign policy through our foreign aid program, and perhaps the military will impress on the new government the importance of regional peace. That is, we have the carrot of cooperation over Cairo at the moment. We may have to use the stick of direct military support to Israel at a later date. Let's see how it goes.

Again, read Jonathan Tobin's piece from earlier today, which is about the right tone, I'd say: "U.S. Must Avoid Embrace of Morsi."

Obama's Statement on Egypt

At the Washington Wire:

President Barack Obama’s statement on Wednesday’s events in Egypt:

As I have said since the Egyptian Revolution, the United States supports a set of core principles, including opposition to violence, protection of universal human rights, and reform that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people. The United States does not support particular individuals or political parties, but we are committed to the democratic process and respect for the rule of law. Since the current unrest in Egypt began, we have called on all parties to work together to address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people, in accordance with the democratic process, and without recourse to violence or the use of force.

The United States is monitoring the very fluid situation in Egypt, and we believe that ultimately the future of Egypt can only be determined by the Egyptian people. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.

Continue reading.

And at Twitchy, "Always evolving: White House releases this week’s position on who should control Egypt’s destiny":

Obama on the wrong side of history twice in Egypt. Calls for Mubarak to step down but not Morsi. Nice work.

— Kirsten Powers (@kirstenpowers10) July 3, 2013

Yeah, well. As I tweeted earlier:

He's got no clue, really. RT @emilydparker "Obama orders US to review aid to Egypt" http://t.co/eoKetOf9NF …

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 3, 2013

Mohammed Morsi Appoints Himself 'Egypt's New Pharaoh'

This is not a joke.

At Telegraph UK, "Mohammed Morsi grants himself sweeping new powers in wake of Gaza."

And Twitchy, "President of Egypt grants himself dictatorial powers."

There's a longer clip here.

And check the Los Angeles Times, "Mideast shifts may weaken Iran's pull with Palestinians":

CAIRO — Iran for years has supplied Hamas with weapons as part of its own struggle against Israel, but the conflict in the Gaza Strip reveals a shift in regional dynamics that may diminish Tehran's influence with Palestinian militant groups and strengthen the hand of Egypt.

The longer-range missiles fired by Hamas over the last week — believed to be modifications of Iran's Fajr 5 missiles — startled Israel by landing near Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. A front-page story in Iran's conservative daily, Kayhan, boasted: "The missiles of resistance worked." Tehran would not confirm the weapons' origin, except to say it sent rocket "technology" to Hamas.

Instead, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters: "What is important is that the people of Palestine must be equipped to defend themselves, and it is the responsibility of all countries to defend the rights of the people of Palestine."

But the Gaza fighting erupted during a new era in the Middle East brought about by the rise of Islamist governments, notably in Egypt, that have replaced pro-Western autocrats. The political catharsis has spurred anti-Americanism, which Iran relishes, but it also has upset Tehran's regional designs.

In Syria — which along with the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah has been Iran's proxy opposing Israel — a revolt inspired by the "Arab Spring" could force President Bashar Assad from power and bring in a government less friendly to Tehran. Hamas angered Iran by opposing Tehran's continued support of Assad and siding with the Syrian rebels, who are mostly fellow Sunni Muslims.

Iran's immediate concern in Gaza is keeping Hamas from strengthening its ties to Arab capitals. This may be difficult, as evidenced by the fact that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which inspired the founding of Hamas and now is in charge of the Egyptian government, played a key role in brokering the cease-fire announced Wednesday.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is likely to press the militant group not to further agitate the region — and Egypt's many domestic problems — with sustained violence against Israel. But Egypt has been criticized for tacitly arming Hamas by not tightening its border with Gaza to stop weapons smugglers from Libya and Sudan.

"The Iranians [had] better understand the paradigm is shifting in the Middle East," said Nabil Fahmy, former Egyptian ambassador to the U.S. and founding dean of the School of Public Affairs at the American University in Cairo. "Hamas needs Cairo tremendously. It really has no other interlocutor to deal with Israel."

But he added that the region is so fluid and unsettled that it is too early to predict winners and losers: "If there are peaceful resolutions, this will lead to a reduced Iranian role. If, on the other hand, you have an increased use of violence," he said, "then ultimately any player that has been supportive of a more aggressive posture will gain ground."

This reminds me of Henry Kissinger in early 2011: "Kissinger on Egypt: 'Classic Pattern of Revolution'."

The Times of Israel is also reporting that Israel ruled out a ground invasion to prevent the possibility of a collapse of regional peace agreements and the emergence of a three-front war. See: "TV report: Warnings that peace deals with Egypt, Jordan could collapse led Israel to end Hamas assault with no ground offensive."

Big changes. All while President Obama's busy pardoning turkeys. He's so insignificant in the global sweep of things, and so wrong. So deeply wrong. Americans will be choking on some of the biggest buyers remorse ever.

More on all of this later ...

Egypt and the End of History

Some may have noticed, even in my own writings perhaps, but there's substantial debate over the meaning of events in Egypt for the Bush administration's freedom agenda, and especially for the neoconservative vision of democracy promotion.

Progressives are loathe to admit it, but what's happening in Egypt is indeed a vindication, in broad outline, of George W. Bush's foreign policy, "a balance of power that favors freedom." The administration was of course criticized from both left and right, from Democrat anti-interventionists and Republican neo-isolationists, especially on the use of force. But the fact remains that the larger vision of universal freedom and justice in the world is playing out in Egypt today. (And again, I'm partially bracketing the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamists may come to power, but it will be a detour on the road to natural right.) This has created some divisions among democracy-promoters, as Jeffrey Goldberg points out, "The Neocons Split with Israel Over Egypt" (at Memeorandum). And also Jonah Goldberg, "Wait, the Neocons Actually Believe that Stuff?", and "More on the Neocons vs. Israel." And while it's true that the Iraq war tempered the administration's fervor for spreading democratic values, the statements and values of George W. Bush are finding resonance today on the Nile. (Jeff Jacoby notes the twists and turns, at Boston Globe, "The Vindication of the ‘Freedom Agenda’.")

Most of the differences here deal with the speed and scope of democratic change, and with the need to uphold traditional security concerns while advancing a liberal agenda. But freedom is freedom, at least when defined as universal aspirations for individual rights and human dignity. We see this in Egypt's revolt most powerfully in the viral video posted by Asmaa Mahfouz on January 25th. And it's this broader sense that must cause progressives fits of apoplexy. Checking over at the far-left Crooked Timber, it turns out that John Quiggin's waxing about how the Egyptian revolution is vindicating Francis Fukuyama's thesis on the end of history (the end of Hegelian ideological struggle in history, and the triumph of democracy), "Fukuyama, F*** Yeah":

Supposing that Tunisia and Egypt manage a transition to some kind of democracy, it seems inevitable that quasi-constitutional monarchies like Jordan and Morocco will respond with further liberalisation and democratisation, for fear of sharing the fate of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Add in Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, all of which have elections of some kind, and the dominant mode in the Middle East/North Africa will have been transformed from dictatorship to (admittedly highly imperfect) democracy. The remaining autocracies (Libya, Mauritania Sudan, Syria) and the feudal monarchies of the Arabian peninsula will be seen as the barbaric relics they are, with days that are clearly numbered. Even if things go wrong for one or both of the current revolutions, the idea that these autocratic/monarchical regimes have some kind of durable basis of support is gone for good.

So, how is Fukuyama’s view of the end of history looking?

Quiggin, for all his pro-democracy harrumphing, is a radical progressive, and thus it's impossible for him to admit the idea that Fukuyama's end of history thesis is largely synonymous with the Bush administration's freedom agenda. Seriously. Look at that roster of states cited by Quiggan: From Tunisia and Egypt to Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, the promotion of freedom in those nations was inherent to President Bush announcement, in 2002:

The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance ...

When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.

There it is, plain as day. But progressives can't cite the freedom agenda without admitting that they've been on the wrong side of history. Quiggan's an academic, so he can reach back into more rarefied intellectual history to make his case, and citing Fukuyama provides plausible deniability, at any rate. Folks might recall that Fukuyama quite famously renounced the Bush administration's Iraq policy in a 2006 essay at the New York Times, "After Neoconservatism":

More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directly threatened.

Fukuyama's attack on regime change in Iraq was widely cited at the time. But a careful analysis of Fukuyama's writings reveals it's not so much the vision of universal freedom that he rejects, but the efforts of the United States to promote it with force of arms. In 2004, at National Interest, Fukuyama prefaced his later comments at New York Times. Renouncing democracy promotion at the point of a gun, he concludes nevertheless with an endorsement of American power in promoting world freedom, "The Neoconservative Moment":

The United States should understand the need to exercise power in pursuit of both its interests and values, but also to be more prudent and subtle in that exercise. The world's sole superpower needs to remember that its margin of power is viewed with great suspicion around the world and will set off countervailing reactions if that power is not exercised judiciously ....

The promotion of democracy through all of the available tools at our disposal should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the Middle East. But the United States needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social-engineering projects in parts of the world it does not understand very well.

I doubt this is an argument that the fevered hordes at Crooked Timber will find very satisfying, but the facts are self evident. And some over there don't even like the idea that Egypt confirms the end of history thesis itself. For example, communist Freddie deBoer takes exception, "This perspective — this triumphalism — is one of the most rigidly enforced orthodoxies on the Internet." Yes, triumphalism, Western triumphalism to be exact. We're still moving in that direction, and the debate over Israel's fears of a democratic Egypt shows how fragile the grip of Western triumphalism is. But there's no doubt that human freedom is scoring a victory in the land of the pharaohs. And that's why, despite the caveats, I still don't say "Let Egypt Go to Sh*t."

'Let Egypt Go to Sh*t'

That's what Eric Dondero told me today in an e-mail exchange. He blew off my argument for democracy in Egypt and said:

"Full-fledged support of Israel. Let Egypt go to shit. Threaten them. Tell them, any border crossings by the Egyptian military into southern Israel will be met with the full might and force of the US Military."

Also, at the comments from Eric's blog, Libertarian Republican:

Donald, protect Israel, and make it abundantly clear, whatever happens the United States will not tolerate a Radical Islamist regime like Muslim Brotherhood taken over.

Pressure Mubarak to step aside and let someone pro-America/pro-free enterprise take his place.

But alas, with Islamist-sympathizer Obama in the White House, the situation is just about hopeless.

I also heard from my former student Barbara Efraim. She's concerned. She wrote that "a government led by the MB can be BAD." No doubt. And Barbara's especially worried about Israel: "Netanyahu said that they need to support Mubarak, but when he leaves, the incoming government coalition will most probably be opposed to Bibi and to the U.S." Again, that's for sure. News reports indicated today that Mohamed Ghanem, a Muslim Brotherhood stooge in Egypt, has announced plans for a military campaign against Israel. So to be clear, I'm not minimizing the threat. I think the New York Times' piece last night covered the challenges extremely well. Israel Matzav links to that piece, with added discussion: "The New Middle East." And John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has been on Fox News all week warning against the Muslim Brotherhood. It's a dangerous situation.

That said, no one knows for sure what will happen. The New York Times reported earlier that Egypt's military renounced the use of force against the protesters. See, "Mubarak’s Grip on Power Is Shaken." And a million protesters are expected to take to the streets on Tuesday.

So amid all the uncertainty, I say once again: America has to stand for freedom. Stephen Hadley, former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, offered an insightful analysis at today's Wall Street Journal, "The Two Likeliest Political Outcomes for Mubarak":

Time and a full array of political alternatives are critical in the upcoming presidential election and the parliamentary elections that undoubtedly will follow. If given an array of choices, I believe that the Egyptian people will choose a democratic future of freedom and not an Islamist future of imposed extremism. While the Muslim Brotherhood, if legalized, would certainly win seats in a new parliament, there is every likelihood that the next Egyptian government will not be a Muslim Brotherhood government but a non-Islamist one committed to building a free and democratic Egypt.

Such a government would still pose real challenges to U.S. policy in many areas. But with all eyes in the region on Egypt, it would be a good outcome nonetheless. With a large population and rich cultural heritage, Egypt has always been a leader in the Middle East. Now it has the opportunity to become what it always should have been—the leader of a movement toward freedom and democracy in the Arab world.

And see also William Kristol's latest analysis, "Obama's Opportunity: This is the 3 a.m. phone call. Will President Obama rise to the occasion?":

It’s up to President Obama to seize the moment. It’s not too late for him to do so. But the stakes are high, and the situation is urgent. Egypt’s path may be determined in the next 48 hours. President Obama can overcome all the counsels of timidity and passivity. He can take charge of his administration. He can help usher Mubarak out—his presence is now a source of instability, and the longer the showdown continues, the greater the odds of a bad outcome. He can get the U.S. engaged—to some degree publicly, but on all cylinders privately. Our ability to shape events is limited, we keep on being told. That’s true—but we don’t know how much we can do until we try. And what’s the downside? We can’t bring back the status quo ante.

I too think that the Egyptian people will ultimately choose freedom, and the biggest threat to stability in the region is the Obama administration's amateurism. Support the Egyptian democracy. Change will be messy, and even dangerous, but it will be honest and we'll deal with the consequences. I won't tell the Egyptian people to "go eat sh*t."

Picking Sides in Egypt? Choose Freedom — Resist the Red-Green Alliance of Anti-Israel Fanaticism

By now folks are anticipated the end of the Mubarak regime. Unfortunately, the political and ideological battles lines are not so neatly drawn. I personally hesitate to attack the Obama adminstration as alleging aiding the Islamists, as in the case of my good friend Reaganite Republican, "Obama Secretly Schemed with Egyptian Opposition for 'Regime Change' for Years!" The evidence there is based on a single WikiLeaks cable published at Telegrah UK and the significance depends on how we define "opposition." The Egyptian opposition movement is broad, and the Muslim Brotherhood has long been the most well organized and highly mobilized. So there's danger there. But as Pamela points out, the fight is for freedom. If anything, the administration has been way too restrained in its approach to the protests. And by standing on the side of dictatorship, Obama gives aid and comfort not just to Islamist extremists, but the world solidarity movement seeking to delegitimize and destroy Israel. The first shot below is from Joshua Keating and the second, from a CNN screencap, shows a protester sporting Arafat's keffiyeh. Clearly, the neo-Stalinist ANSWER contingents have infiltrated the protests, turning opposition to Mubarak into a totalitarian red-green alliance for terror and Israel's destruction: "The Red-Green Alliance: Muslim Brotherhood, ANSWER Battle Mubarak."

The problem will be to sort through the range of opposition groups to find those who truly support freedom. It's not the ANSWER hordes, nor is it those at the far-left Salon, who have published a screed from self-hating Israel-basher Philip Weiss, a.k.a, Mondweiss, "Why is America So Afraid?":

The grimness on the faces of American Establishment figures reflects the greatest threat to authority, the crumbling of an existing order. Support for Israel has defined order in this region for decades and steered our support for dictators ... All this is changing in Egypt. An Arab liberation story is forcing itself into world consciousness ... There is bound to be great suffering in Egypt, we pray for a smooth transition, but if the Egyptians are only left to handle their own affairs, who doubts that the polity that will emerge from this chaos will be more responsive to human rights, and will strike a blow against the fetters of anti-Arab racism that have chained the American mind.

Pamela has more on the Salon communists, "Scrubbing and Smearing: Islamic vs. Secular Governance in Egypt - Leftist Islamic Machine in High Gear." Also, related at Blazing Catfur, "Egypt 'Support' Rally Hijacked By the Usual Islamist Suspects & Their Enablers."

This is not to say it will be easy sorting through the lines of opposition. The report from tour guide Amos Abidov is illustrative. Leading a group of visitors to Epypt, he reports:

How is the atmosphere? Do you feel secure?

"The attitude towards us as Israelis and tourist is very friendly. Actually, they're overly nice compared to my previous visits in Egypt. The Egyptians want to explain themselves, to tell everyone about their struggle. They speak Arabic over here so it's easy to communicate with them. On Friday we went right past the demonstrations on our way back from the pyramids, and people helped us get though the crowd."

Looks like the Muslim Brotherhood folks weren't on the scene.

That said, the danger remains in the larger political and strategic situation. Two reports are worth checking. At Pajamas Media, Barry Rubin warns of a fundamentalist regime coming to power, and at STRATFOR, "Red Alert: Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood." Hamas cells from Gaza have made their way into Egypt, working there with fundamentalist elements in the security apparatus. All told, the challenge is monumental, but as the tourist passage above illustrates, the end result of regime formation in Egypt is ultimately a political question.

There's an excellent (and extremely cautious) roundup at Sister Toldjah's, "Egypt: 'Things are never so bad they can’t get worse'." And the post links to the very pessimistic interview with Ambassador John Bolton at Fox News from Friday.

So, if we have to choose, it's not a choice between the authoritarianism of Mubarak's nationalist regime and those of the Red-Green alliance for Islamist terrorism. The choice is freedom. And had the Obama administration been out in front on this, the peaceful elements --- like those helping the Israel tourists above --- could have gained the upper hand in the emergence of a new regime. It's not too late. But no matter what happens, we can see the battle lines ahead. Freedom and democracy on the one hand, and violent anti-American, anti-Israel totalitarianism on the other.

Analytical Realism: Political Stability in Egypt is Cardinal Israeli Interest

Readers following my analysis of Egypt have noted my optimism on the prospects for democratization. While I don't for a minute doubt the possibility of the most dangerous outcome (an Islamist regime committed to the destruction of American interests in the Middle East, and to eradication of Israel), I've focused rather idealistically on the notion of universal change toward Western-style freedom. The more I think about it, I could be wrong. And I'm becoming more pessimistic, against my inclinations to human goodness. So, I probably should be giving more weight to analytical realism, and especially to Israeli security interests. And thus, don't be surprised as my commentaries appear more hard-headed as events continue to unfold. The euphoria is fading.

The headline at top borrows from the Jerusalem Post's editorial, "An orderly transition of power in Egypt":

Relations with Egypt since the signing of the Camp David Peace Treaty in March, 1979 have been cold, yet even a tepid peace with Egypt is of utmost importance.

The quiet along our mutual border has allowed the IDF to redirect military resources to other potentially inflammatory locations – south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip – while reducing the strain on reserve soldiers.

Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, the IDF and Egypt have quietly coordinated efforts against Iranian-supplied arms smuggling.

Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood rule would not only put an end to all this, but a sometimes reluctant ally, with the largest and (Israel-excepted) strongest armed forces in the Mideast, based on the most advanced American-made technologies, would be transformed into a bellicose foe.

To cover all the borders as potential military fronts for the first time since the years following the Yom Kippur War, the IDF would need to undergo major structural changes, spreading its already limited resources even thinner.

ANYONE WHO cherishes liberty inevitably sympathizes with the aspirations of Egypt’s men and women, young and old, secular and religious, educated and not, who have taken to the streets in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other sites across the country, demanding an end to Mubarak’s oppressive government. Those rare blog entries in praise of freedom that managed to skirt Mubarak’s Internet blackout were truly moving. Justice is on the side of the legions of young Egyptians blocked from getting ahead by a corrupt and mismanaged economy and a system in which who you know is more important than what you have to offer.

It would be comforting to believe that there is a third way – that when the dust has settled, Egyptians could find themselves led neither by a radical Islamist regime headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, nor by more Mubarak-style repression under Suleiman or someone else. One would like to believe that Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad ElBaradei, leader of the reformist movement, is right when he argues that it is only Mubarak’s propaganda that has convinced the West that Egyptians must choose between just two options – the status quo authoritarian regime, or “the likes of bin Laden’s al-Qaida.”

Yet the sad fact is that an overwhelming proportion of Egypt’s populace supports Islamic fundamentalists.

There's more at the link above, but the main point is that a transitional regime under Suleiman will more likely promote the best approximations of freedom in Eygpt. But it's Caroline Glick's piece that's most shaking me out of my euphoric daze. She offers a brilliant, nuanced piece of analysis, and is critical of both the neoconservative vision represented by the Bush administration and the post-colonial progressivism represented by the Obama administration. And she concludes that's there's really no third way beyond these. First principles of statecraft caution against dramatic change in Egypt, and as much as we hope upon hope, I'm now convinced this is the correct analysis. See, "Clueless in Washington":

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?

Distressingly, the answer is that indeed, the US has no idea what it is doing. The reason the world’s only (quickly declining) superpower is riding blind is because its leaders are trapped between two irrational, narcissistic policy paradigms and they can’t see their way past them.

The first paradigm is former president George W. Bush’s democracy agenda and its concomitant support for open elections.

Bush supporters and former administration officials have spent the last month since the riots began in Tunisia crowing that events prove Bush’s push for democratization in the Arab world is the correct approach.

The problem is that while Bush’s diagnosis of the dangers of the democracy deficit in the Arab world was correct, his antidote for solving this problem was completely wrong.

Bush was right that tyranny breeds radicalism and instability and is therefore dangerous for the US.

But his belief that free elections would solve the problem of Arab radicalism and instability was completely wrong. At base, Bush’s belief was based on a narcissistic view of Western values as universal.

When, due to US pressure, the Palestinians were given the opportunity to vote in open and free elections in 2006, they voted for Hamas and its totalitarian agenda. When due to US pressure, the Egyptians were given limited freedom to choose their legislators in 2005, where they could they elected the totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood to lead them.

The failure of his elections policy convinced Bush to end his support for elections in his last two years in office.

Frustratingly, Bush’s push for elections was rarely criticized on its merits. Under the spell of the other policy paradigm captivating American foreign policy elites – anti-colonialism – Bush’s leftist opponents never argued that the problem with his policy is that it falsely assumes that Western values are universal values. Blinded by their anti-Western dogma, they claimed that his bid for freedom was nothing more than a modern-day version of Christian missionary imperialism.

It is this anti-colonialist paradigm, with its foundational assumption that that the US has no right to criticize non-Westerners that has informed the Obama administration’s foreign policy. It was the anti-colonialist paradigm that caused Obama not to support the pro-Western protesters seeking the overthrow of the Iranian regime in the wake of the stolen 2009 presidential elections.

As Obama put it at the time, “It’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the US president meddling in the Iranian elections.”

And it is this anti-colonialist paradigm that has guided Obama’s courtship of the Syrian, Turkish and Iranian regimes and his unwillingness to lift a hand to help the March 14 movement in Lebanon.

MOREOVER, SINCE the paradigm claims that the non-Western world’s grievances towards the West are legitimate, Obama’s Middle East policy is based on the view that the best way to impact the Arab world is by joining its campaign against Israel. This was the central theme of Obama’s speech before an audience dominated by Muslim Brotherhood members in Cairo in June 2009.

There's more at the link above.

And I'll have more later.

Move Quickly on Egypt Democracy

I've been reading around the conserva-sphere, and there's a lot of backtracking on Egypt. The euphoria's gone, replaced with a deep fear of an Islamist regime in Cairo. It's certainly understandable. This New York Times story on Israel paints near trembling at the prospects of collapse of secularist Egypt: "Israel Shaken as Turbulence Rocks an Ally." And Melanie Phillips, one of my favorite writers, made a surprisingly pointed effort to distance herself from the neoconservative agenda of democracy promotion: "The Arab world on the brink...but of what?"

But folks need to get a grip. Nostalgia for Mubarak is exceedingly misplaced. Yeah, he's our guy and all that. But he's been a disaster for Egypt's development, and in an age of increasingly rapid global communications, the regime's failures are exponentially multiplied by the day. Victor Davis Hanson points out that the roots of radicalism in Egypt have more to do with Mubarak's rule than anything found in Israel or the United States, "What’s the Matter with Egypt?"

What’s next? “Finger-in-the-wind” diplomacy may work for a while, but it requires deftness that follows conditions on the street in a nanosecond to avoid appearing purely cynical (a skill beyond Hillary, Biden, and Obama). I think in this bad/worse choice scenario we might as well support supposedly democratic reformers, with the expectation that they could either fail in removing Mubarak or be nudged out by those far worse than Mubarak. Contrary to popular opinion, I think Bush was right to support elections in Gaza “one time” (only of course). The Gazans got what they wanted, we are done with them, and they have to live with the results, happy in their thuggish misery, with a prosperous Israel and better-off West Bank to remind them of their stupidity. All bad, but an honest bad and preferable to the lie that there were thousands of Jeffersonians in Gaza thwarted by the U.S.

So step back and watch it play out with encouragement for those who oppose both Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood— hoping for the best, expecting the worst.

And as I indicated earlier, the dawdling Obama administration is only empowering the Green-Red alliance working to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Even mainstream progressives are pooh-poohing the Brotherhood's ties to Hamas and global jihad. So we need to move quickly in transitioning to an interim government committed to free-and-fair elections in the near-term. William Kristol offers the appropriate response, "Beyond Mubarak: ‘Twere Well It Were Done Quickly":

In a crisis like this, moving quickly is often more important than moving in an “orderly” way. After all, an “orderly” transition is far less important than a desirable and orderly outcome. Trying to ensure now that everything is “well thought-out” to the satisfaction of diplomats can easily become an excuse for a drawn-out transition. And that means trouble. The more drawn-out this transition is, the more likely it is to end badly. The best case—the least radicalizing one for the population, the least advantageous for the Muslim Brotherhood—would be a quick transition now to an interim government, with the prospect of elections not too far off, so people can rally to the prospect of a new liberal regime. Uncertainty and dithering is what helps the Lenins and Khomeinis in revolutionary situations. Acting boldly to prevent more disarray and more chaos offers the best chance for an orderly outcome.

I'd recommend folks visit Jennifer Rubin for updates throughout the day as well. She hammered the administration's dalliances earlier, "On Egypt, Obama offers 'too little, too late'." And in another entry she points to the pragmatic manifesto of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

"For far too long the democratic hopes of the Egyptian people have been suppressed. Their cries for freedom can no longer be silenced.

"I am deeply concerned about the Egyptian government's heavy-handed response seeking to silence the Egyptian people. It is imperative that all parties involved avoid violence.

"I am further concerned that certain extremist elements inside Egypt will manipulate the current situation for nefarious ends.

"The U.S. and other responsible nations must work together to support the pursuit of freedom, democracy, and human rights in Egypt and throughout the world."

That's the right balance and the right approach. It's time to move forward. The neo-communists will seize the initiative and attempt to install the Islamists in power. Their useful idiots on the progressive left --- in the media and Democrat Party apparatus --- will help propel that outcome. For the true friends of freedom, the best bet is to quit whining about how bad the Muslim Brotherhood is and start working to help the Egyptians on the street take back their country. Those folks are at the top video above. They help us capture a vision of what an emerging secularist democracy could look like.

The Way Forward in Egypt? Defeat the Left's Red-Green Alliance and Build the Secular-Representative Alternative to Mubarak

Over the last few days, William Kristol has been among the most vocal supporters of dramatic democratic change in Egypt. And in today's essay he pushes back against Glenn Beck and others on the right who fear a Red-Green Alliance of communists and Islamists. Kristol also disagrees with Charles Krauthammer, but that seems secondary to him slamming those positing "one-world conspiracies theories" of a communist-backed caliphate across the Muslim world. The problem is that while Glenn Beck's show sometimes comes off as half-baked, the neo-communist left has indeed aligned with global jihad in a campaign against the West. In fact, today was the progressive-left's "international day of mobilization and solidarity with the Egyptian people." The neo-Stalinist ANSWER homepage has the announcement, "Emergency demonstrations: Stop all U.S. aid to Mubarak dictatorship!":

Emergency demonstrations in solidarity with the uprising of the Egyptian people are taking place across the country to demand that the U.S. government stop all aid to the Mubarak dictatorship.

As I've reported many times, the ANSWER contingents have been at the center of every left-wing mobilization over the past decade, from the Iraq war to Proposition 8 to the anti-SB 1070 campaign last year. The left's all-purpose protest machine, ANSWER is bolstered by Democrats and progressives, many of whom have ties to the Obama administration. Code Pink's Jodie Evans, for example, served as a top campaign fundraiser for Barack Obama, and now her organization is leading a fundraising operation for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: "Code Pink: Obama, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood Ally Raising (Tax Exempt) Money to Overthrow Egypt Gov’t:

As we reported previously, Code Pink has been on the ground in Cairo since the beginning of the uprising. The group has made nine trips to Egypt in the past two years as part of a campaign to undermine the Egyptian government and the blockade against Hamas-controlled Gaza.

For over a week now we've had international solidarity protesters calling for an anti-American, anti-Zionist revolution in Egypt, so, folks might want to step back and go easy on the freedom euphoria just a bit (in favor of a prudent democratic realism).

In any case, Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey, a.k.a. Mahmoud Salem, offers a way forward for Egypt's democracy:

So here are my two cents: next time when you head to Tahrir, alongside blankets and food and medicine, please get some foldable tables, chairs, papers, pens, a laptop and a USB connection. Set up a bunch of tables and start registering the protesters. Get their names, ages, addresses & districts. Based on location, start organizing them into committees, and then have those committees elect leaders or representatives. Do the same in Alex, In Mansoura, in Suez, in every major Egyptian city in which the Protesters braved police suppression and came out in the thousands. Protect the Data with your life. Get encryption programs to ensure the security of the data. Use web-based tools like Google documents to input the data in, thus ensuring that even if your laptops get confiscated by State Security Goons, they won’t find anything on your harddrives. Have people outside of Egypt back-up your data daily on secure servers. Then, start building the structure.

You see, with such Proper citizen organization and segmentation, we’ll have the contact information and location of all the protesters that showed up, and that could be transformed into voting blocks in parliamentary districts: i.e. a foundation for an Egyptian Unity party. That Egyptian Unity Party will be an Umbrella party that promotes equality, democracy & accountability, without any ideological slants. It should be centrist, because we don’t want any boring Left vs. Right squabbling at that stage. Once you institute the structure, start educating the members on their rights and their obligations as citizens. Convince them to bring their friends and relatives into meeting. Establish voters’ critical mass , all under that party.

The Egyptian Unity Party, however, will not be a permanent structure, but rather a transitional entity with a clear and direct purpose: create the grassroots organization to take back the parliament and presidency in the next elections. Once sufficient votes and seats have been obtained, the party will amend the constitution to promote civil liberties, plurality, and truly democratic elections. Once that constitution is in place, the party can disband, and its elected members can start forming their own parties and collations, based on their personal beliefs and ideologies, or they can join any of the existing parties, and breathe some life into their decaying carcasses. We will end up with an actual political process and representative political parties that will actually discuss policy and have to represent those who voted for them so that they can get re-elected. Democracy in action. An old but brilliant concept. A way to ensure that no matter what, we will have a huge influence on who becomes the next Egyptian President come election day in September.

That sounds awesome. The only problem is that during revolutionary crises the most highly organized factions often seize power through divide, conquer and assassination politics. We know now that Egypt's Arab street will not be silenced. But the shape of developments is still extremely fluid, and given the left's heavy investment and mobilization in the Muslim Brotherhood, a certain caution is well warranted.