Strange, strange bedfellows... the ape of faxes seems to be on the same page as Victor Davis Hanson.

Minister X wrote:Just so I can be sure, are you saying an Islamist regime can't come to power in Egypt, or simply that it's less likely than it was in Iran in 1979 (when it was, obviously, very likely)?

Less. The situation is not 100% predictable.

How would you compare it to 2006 in Gaza?

Much less

Or to recent days in Lebanon, where an Islamist regime is slowly gaining ascendancy?

Less, although if that did happen in Lebanon, it would all kick off up there.

Or to Afghanistan, where Islamists are giving NATO all we can handle and more?

Frankly, a little less.

I don't just want to not see MB making any headway in Egypt; I want to see them defeated everywhere. Defunct. Current events in Egypt, their land of origin and still their intellectual center, will generate changes and create some power vacuums, and MB will be trying to make the most of whatever opportunities are presented to them. If I'm being a bit more vigilant and paranoid about this than I need to be, I see that as a lesser evil than underestimating the MB, and as a much lesser evil than going out of my way to spread underestimation of the MB.

I suppose a lot depends on what you are prepared to accept in order to achieve it.

So I hope I can achieve some clarity with Danivon and perhaps find common ground. I say the MB is dangerous even if/when they appear moribund. (Wuz you ever stung by a dead bee?) I say that them gaining political ascendancy in Egypt in the short term isn't the worry; pointing out how unlikely that is amounts almost to the use of a straw man. The worry is that they can work themselves up a few notches, make themselves just a bit more influential in some way or other. The worry is that whereas Egypt now has an opportunity to escape its past and emerge from a culture that retards progress in human rights, human development, human resources, and individual human freedom, the MB cares nothing about that or opposes it, and whatever weight they have will act as an anchor if Egypt is lucky enough to get its ship of state sailing in the right direction.

I ask Danivon what he is saying. Is he saying we can safely ignore the MB? Or if not ignore, at least feel no anxiety about? Is he saying that as a movement they are less regressive than I've described? How much less? Do you see them in any way as some sort of socialist brother, as you do Chavez? Do you see them, because they are against what they call US imperialism, as being in some sense on your side, or closer to you in ideology than, say, Sarah Palin?

Or are you simply saying that various and sundry parties are overstating MB's role in the current uprising? If so, can you point to anyone I've not mentioned as culprits in that regard: Beck, Hannity, Mubarak, and some Israelis? What danger is lurking therein that overshadows the danger presented by the MB itself? (Granted, Glenn Beck in charge of anything would be worse than MB in charge of a caliphate from London to Bali, but other than that...)

Ignore them no. Democracy does mean trusting people to make their own decisions, even if they are not what we thing are the right ones. We can feel anxiety - some of us are excellent at it - but we should not see them as the only potential threat either. After all, a more moderate islamic movement may be far more tempting to Egyptians than the MB, but still cause you sleepless nights. Even the fairly secular Nasser wasn't exactly a great pal, was he?

But let me be pretty clear (seeing as you are implying what I think about Chavez), I don't see the MB as in any way like the revolutionary left. They are reactionaries. I don't even see Chavez as a 'brother'. He has done some good things, and some bad ones, and I dislike the methods he's used to gain and hold power. More like an errant cousin, I suppose.

ray

Regarding Ricky's 1st sentence, I view it as incredibly offensive. Israel is a stable democracy with individual rights, an independent judiciary, and a strong rule of law. Certainly one could have made the point about Québécoise in Canada or farm interests in Europe, but no, Ricky has to drag Israel into it. What is really going on here? (I give Ricky the benefit of the doubt: his thinking is muddled and he is not at all prejudiced.)

Israel may be a functioning stable democracy...but the example of a minority fundamentalist religious political party holding sway in a minority parliament is apt.Your other examples don't point to a fundamentlaist religious party and so are not as apt.
There may be other examples where organized political parties, founded and run around fundamental religious principles, supported by a minority of the electorate, hold as much sway as they do in Israel, but they don't come to mind. Since we debated this a few months ago it was top of mind.
Are you offended by the reality of the domestic poitical situation in Israel? Or just a little over sensitive?

We don't have any idea about the reality of the MB support in Egypt. Until there are free and fair elections or an independent professional polling organization any guage is a best guess. There are enough differences with Iran to give hope to those who'd like a secular democracy to take hold. One thing that Egypt has, is that its populace has seen what happened in Iran... And Iran has not been seen as a friend of Egyptians or viewed as friendly to Sunni Muslims...
However, if the elections present the winning party with a fractured parliament ...like many in Europe, minority parties can achieve much of their goals if they are invited into a a coalition. If the 20% support in Egypt is realistic, and if a parliamentary proportional representative government is established...then the MB could achieve outsized influence.
But thats a long way off from thinking about. Its likely to take a couple of years just to establish a new constitution... and a referendum on that....In the interim the Army will likely play the role of caretaker of secularism. Similar to the Turkish army for 30 years.

You are right. I'm over sensitive ... I have reason to be. Just read the pages of anti-semitism all over the web, every place you look. Then look at our history, not just in total, but individually. We are mostly over sensitive. If we are not, we are in denial.

I don't think it is an apt connection at all. We are talking about a revolutionary situation where minorities take control because of ruthlessness and total disregard for individual rights. The current governments in Iran and Syria are the best examples.

The synapses in your brain make that connection because you read all sorts of press about the evils of Israel. For you it is salient because of repetition. But these are not analogous situations. Min X, myself and others are concerned that a minority will take over a government through force, and not via the ballot box. That's a fundamental point. You are talking about fractured parliaments as if that's where this all is going. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I thank Danivon for his comprehensive response - I think we probably understand each other, a rare occurrence when communicating in this medium.

The news this morning is not good. LINK LINK Suleiman gave an interview in which he issued what the protesters see as thinly veiled threats. He spoke of "the dark bats of the night emerging to terrorize the people," which I truly hope is a mistranslation. More to the point, he spoke of the demonstrations needing to stop and of implementing martial law. He said, "the culture of democracy is still far away" which I take to mean that the reforms he is promising will be very limited. In Tahrir Square it's thought that secret police are thick on the ground, working undercover, "taking names" as it were. The protesters are still dedicated and determined - they are calling for stronger protests - but I found one comment very chilling: "we don't talk politics very much to people we don't know," said one protester when discussing the fears of secret police infiltration. How can you create change unless you talk politics extensively with people you don't know? This quote sums up how subtle repression works better than whole essays I've read.

It's quite surprising that this thread has gotten this far with only a whiff of debate about the role the Obama administration is playing in Egypt. The blogosphere seems to be heating up in that regard. Part of the news I found disturbing this AM is that Joe Biden has been on the phone with Suleiman. HERE is a slightly more detailed story about that. Consider: Obama or Biden or Hillary could talk to Suleiman and not issue "a White House readout on the conversation". (Maybe they figure Wikileaks will publish the text soon anyway. grin) I do not trust Joe Biden to get this right and I doubt that this sort of public diplomacy can accomplish much. VDH, in the piece I cited above, excoriates the left in general for being insufficiently dedicated to the idea of spreading democracy. He's not being anything close to fair, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. He doesn't leave the right untouched, though; this sums up the article:

Whereas on the right there are three fissures over Egypt — neocon support for the protestors, realist support for Mubarak to keep a lid on things and change slowly, isolationist desires to keep the hell out of another costly obligation — on the left these days it is basically trying to explain post facto Obama’s herky-jerky policies as coherent, successful, and idealist.

As I see it, the US could pursue one of four basic routes: 1) support the protesters, 2) support Mubarak, 3) support slow, orderly change/reform, or 4) keep our big mouths shut. If we do #1 we say to every head of state with whom we do business but has a less than perfect record as a democrat that they can't count on us. If we do #2 we say to every lover of freedom and democracy that American ideals as just so much BS propaganda. Obama has thus chosen option #3 but has been pursuing it awkwardly. As a result, our Mubarak-like friends are still concluding that we're unreliable and supporters of human rights everywhere still see us as hypocrites - with the mushy middle we're reaping 80% of the worst effects of the two firm positions. Okay... maybe just 50%. Our closest allies in Europe etc. probably see it as the proper choice (though their respect for Obama's skills can't be growing).

What about keeping our big mouths shut? In its most pure form this means saying nothing but "no comment" in response to any and all questions. Not "we are monitoring the situation" or any lines that include words like "but" or "however"... just nothing. It would look very odd but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be best. We could still operate behind the scenes in some ways if we were careful. Biden could still phone Suleiman. Aid dollars could continue to flow if we wanted them to, or we could close the tap if we wanted. And I think the protesters would probably be much happier with this option than the current mushy middle one.

Of course, remaining silent would speak volumes in some ways. We have been interventionists nearly everywhere; people would wonder if we were turning toward isolation and their conclusion in that regard might cause alterations of policy in many places (maybe for the good, maybe not). And because silence would be such an unexpected move, it would say that we're becoming less predictable. That might or might not be a good or bad thing. But regardless of everything else, silence does have one solid virtue: you can't lie if you say nothing. No one can throw your words back at you at some later date.

So for the sake of argument, I'll take this position: we can't take course #1 or #2 and #3 is not doing us or anyone else any good whatsoever. We ought to shut up.

Comments?

Minister X wrote:So for the sake of argument, I'll take this position: we can't take course #1 or #2 and #3 is not doing us or anyone else any good whatsoever. We ought to shut up.

Comments?

|Well, I think #4 would be just as problematic as what you have now, frankly. People would fill your silence with their own assumptions. Besides, you've already said stuff. Stopping now would not be the same as saying nothing all along.

Really, the issue is that #3 is being handled badly (and Visner was a spectacular mistake).

Mind you, I don't think there's a perfect way to deal with it. Be seen to interfere too much and it's foreign meddling. Not enough, and you are allowing potential bad things to happen. With the situation changing all the time, what might be a good play today could be totally wrong tomorrow.

I tend to agree that we are stuck with option #3.

Why was Wisner a spectacular mistake?

Because one of the first things he did was come across as saying that Mubarak should stay. If policy is #3, why is your envoy hinting at #2?

It was not your nation's finest diplomatic hour.

Ray, read my last paragraph and I think you'll understand I was in the hypothetical. Thats because I don't see there being a possibility that the Egyptian government is taken over by force by anything but the current armed forces. The MB has not shown itself to have the power or the organization to do so in the near term. And I've read nothing of a military/MB connection.
I doubt that the MB is a threat whilst the army is still independent.

What fundamentalist parties like is free and fair elections until they win...then things change. What is required is that the army remain guarantors of a constitution that promotes and guarantees secular governance. How egypt gets there I don't know. Perhaps Turkey is a closer example.

X

It's quite surprising that this thread has gotten this far with only a whiff of debate about the role the Obama administration is playing in Egypt

George Will

It also would be amazing, because there is a cottage industry of Barack Obama critics who, not content with monitoring his myriad mistakes in domestic policies, insist that there must be a seamless connection of those with his foreign policy. Strangely, these critics, who correctly doubt the propriety and capacity of the U.S. government controlling our complex society, simultaneously fault the government for not having vast competence to shape the destinies of other societies.

As Will points out in the Post this morning, no one saw this coming. Not the CIA (who also missed the fall of comunism in Russia and the events in Tunisia) nor even the Israelis intelligence.
One would think that by now the limits of influence were understood. Part of Obama's problem is that the army sits in their American tanks, and the police fired American tear gas and the people understand that Mubarak had an American blessing for 34 years..Pretty concrete examples of a long term overarching American policy. You can't change how your country is viewed overnight without dramatic sweeping events. I don't see what dramatic sweeping event Obama could come up with that could strike any kind of balance or not have some kind of blowback.
He's muddling through. At least he hasn't invaded.

Ricky - thanks.

Danivon, it seems that Wisner made some poor remarks in Europe, but we really don't know how effective he was in Egypt. Perhaps he conveyed remarks from Wash DC to Mubarak just right. I think we should take the long view on how well Obama and the US does with this crisis. If Egypt has a peaceful transition to a more democratic society, the US gets high marks. If Mubarak stays in power with more ruthlessness or some other dictatorship (islamic, fascist, or otherwise) takes over, the US gets low marks.

Minister X wrote:As I see it, the US could pursue one of four basic routes: 1) support the protesters, 2) support Mubarak, 3) support slow, orderly change/reform, or 4) keep our big mouths shut. If we do #1 we say to every head of state with whom we do business but has a less than perfect record as a democrat that they can't count on us. If we do #2 we say to every lover of freedom and democracy that American ideals as just so much BS propaganda. Obama has thus chosen option #3 but has been pursuing it awkwardly. As a result, our Mubarak-like friends are still concluding that we're unreliable and supporters of human rights everywhere still see us as hypocrites - with the mushy middle we're reaping 80% of the worst effects of the two firm positions. Okay... maybe just 50%. Our closest allies in Europe etc. probably see it as the proper choice (though their respect for Obama's skills can't be growing).

Personally i really fail to see how we can't go with 1) if we take ourselves, our cultural values and our rhethoric seriously that we've articulated since 9/11. We can't just go around arbitrarily calling the Iranians or NK evil when we really just mean that they should act somewhat rational so that we can work with them and ignore what seem to be genuine public uprisings, because they might put us in an uncomfortable spot,
You might argue that we could go with 3) if we really meant it and took a very close look and applied pressure to make sure that the outcome is indeed reform and not just a switch of the figurehead of the regime.
And don't tell me that the US and Europe don't wield alot of oompf with those kleptocratic autocrats, because they don't have their fortunes invested in sandals, camels and sand. Tell them they can keep their money and spend it in France if they bugger off or we take it all. More likely than not they are all on a plane within 72 hours.
Right now we look like a$$es.

Minister X wrote:What about keeping our big mouths shut? In its most pure form this means saying nothing but "no comment" in response to any and all questions. Not "we are monitoring the situation" or any lines that include words like "but" or "however"... just nothing. It would look very odd but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be best. We could still operate behind the scenes in some ways if we were careful. Biden could still phone Suleiman. Aid dollars could continue to flow if we wanted them to, or we could close the tap if we wanted. And I think the protesters would probably be much happier with this option than the current mushy middle one.

Seems to me what we have to do (and that means the US and Europe seperadly) is to square our respective strategies for the next 2 decades and then adjust our rhethorics accordingly. I don't think putting ones perceived national interest before the interest of the Egyptian people or anyones else is necessarily immoral. What i find so disgusting is that we seem to support those popular movments and then just let them down when things get dicey. The Shia revolt after Gulf 1, the green revolution in Iran and now the Arabs. Just what comes to mind right quick.
Arming the autocrats armies and police forces is speaking loud and clear and it would give a very specific meaning to the silence.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon, it seems that Wisner made some poor remarks in Europe, but we really don't know how effective he was in Egypt.

True. But perhaps the Egyptian State TV broadcast his comments (I don't know if they did, or if other media there have)? As much as he may have tried to cajole Mubarak to go, if he gave Egyptians the impression that the US might want him to stay, it could affect things.

Faxmonkey wrote:What i find so disgusting is that we seem to support those popular movments and then just let them down when things get dicey. The Shia revolt after Gulf 1, the green revolution in Iran and now the Arabs. Just what comes to mind right quick.

I could not agree more. First on your list should be Hungary 1956. I adopted the silence option (for the sake of argument) in part because I hate seeing us not deliver on these promises.

Yesterday I reported bad news. This morning: excellent news. After doctors and lawyers appeared en massé in Tahrir, the military has taken command of the entire situation, promising the protesters that all their demands will be met. The US CIA chief expects Mubarak to step down today. NBC also reports that he'll be gone by tonight in Cairo at least figuratively). There are probably better reports and no doubt the news is changing constantly - by the time you read this it will be obsolete.

The move appears to be a coup at least in part. It's not clear yet to me if the military expects Suleiman to take over or has other plans, but their rhetoric is very pro-demonstrator so unless they are pulling a vast "fast one" it looks like they're endorsing a meaningful shift in how Egypt is governed.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

Unfolding at an exciting pace now

This is tangential, but how does Clapper still have his job?

Largely secular?

Eschewed violence?

I am not convinced we will see an MB takeover of Egypt. However, if Mubarak vacating (as he reportedly is) does not slow this down, we could see a further deterioration, maybe even a power struggle. If that happens, all bets are off.