Several years ago, there was all this talk about how the Arab “street” hates America. Of course, Egyptians are not simply Arabs nor are Yemeni’s simply Arabs, but the mainstream media does like to dumb things down for their readers. The basic narrative was that it was America’s support of Israel that led to terrorism and anti-American protests. These folks living in the Middle East love their countries and governments, and if only America would force Israel to disband, everything would be chick peas and pita.
To support the narrative, President Obama went to Egypt and apologized for America.
Now, however, the Arab “street” is protesting… the dictators who have really been causing the problems in their countries — poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, etc. Gee, maybe it isn’t evil America after all. The London Telegraph article on the riots can be found here. You’ll note scant coverage in domestic papers because the protests aren’t about America.
Egyptian police have been fighting protesters in intensifying clashes, and demonstrations have reported from Yemen and Gabon – a sign that defiance against authoritarian rulers in the Middle East is spreading.
The question is, will the President make a strong statement in support of the protesters? After all, they are just asking for liberty, self-government, and opportunity. Aren’t these things that we support?
The following link takes you to raw footage of an unarmed protester being shot in the street.
Alas, the “street” appears to be dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is closely tied to Hamas and other terrorist organizations.
The concern, at least as it is articulated by John Bolton, is that the Muslim Brotherhood, should it topple the current government would then move on to impose sharia law, seize the Suez canal and target Israel.
Further, the 10% of the country which is Coptic Christian, would inevitably see even more persecution from the Muslim Brotherhood than it has from the Mubarak government. (You’ll probably recall the recent attack on a Coptic church that left 23 dead.)
So while one might desire the Mubarak autocracy to breathe its last, one also might NOT wish the Muslim Brotherhood, in the name of democracy, to succeed in establishing an even more repressive and dangerous regime than the one which exists.
Reminds me, at least faintly, of Iran, the Shah and the Ayatollah Khomeni.
While concern that Egypt could turn out to be like Iran is certainly a good point, why did Iran end up the way that it did? Because we tried to keep the Shah in power for Real Politik purposes. Also, Iran can keep itself afloat by subsidizing food, fuel, etc with oil revenues — a luxury that Egypt does not share. Lastly, as in the case of Iraq, the average citizen doesn’t really seem to want to switch from a military-based autocrat to a religious base dictator. I think that the same could be said for Iran, but we failed to support the opposition in 2009.
My philosophy is that if you should always focus on the long term outcome when deciding your short term tactics. Do we believe that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness? If we believe that, we should act that way.
There is always a risk when stability breaks down. The risk would be less if we actually followed our beliefs rather than what we find practical.
Charlie,
You will get no protest from me concerning the abysmal lack of ideals in realpolitik diplomacy. The establishment of a free, democratic government in Egypt would be a wonderful thing.
Further, I agree the US should uphold the protestors who are demanding reform.
But here’s the sticking point: While the concerns of some protestors are legitimate, the danger is that the protest movement is being hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is stoked by fundamentalist religious concerns; hence my comparison to the Shah and the Atatollah.
History is replete with revolutions that started out with good intent on the part of some, only to have radicals seize the moment to redirect the revolution to their own ends, the first of which is to achieve a coup putting themselves in power.
My fear is that this is precisely the danger.
The canary in the coal mine indicating the concern about the Brotherhood is real: Israel has airlifted its entire diplomatic staff and taken them back to Israel.
God forbid we see the entire US diplomatic staff taken hostage–a repeat of the situation similar to that which happened during the Carter administration.
Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood is real. And by propping up dictators, we have helped encourage it to be stronger.
If you keep the lid on a soda bottle and shake it up, continuously, eventually it will blow. The great thing about democracy is that the pressure is released in small amounts. Could the Muslim Brotherhood take over? Yes. Could it be a lot of trouble and cause a war? Who knows. Do I support freedom & liberty? Yes. The Muslim Brotherhood does not, and eventually they will be deposed by those who support freedom & liberty.
I don’t think the Brotherhood is as strong as we might be led to believe in Egypt. From all accounts, Coptic Christians have more influence than the MB in Egypt and they are unlikely to allow a takeover by anti-Israel forces. Charlie and I are on the same page here. I have read and seen a lot on these protests in Egypt and I seem them very much like Egyptian TEA Parties. That does not translate throughout the Middle East though. The protests in Yemen are suspect, the protests in Jordan are decidedly Muslim Brotherhood led and the protests in Algeria are questionable as well. I’ve got a piece up on the region over at my place (http://deconservative.blogspot.com/2011/01/egyptian-protests-in-danger-of-being-co.html).
I would also caution people to pay attention to who is supporting the protests here in America. Fox News unwittingly uncovered some STAGGERING insight into the first people to jump on the bandwagon. I’ve got that up over in my post as well. It seems like a lot of the groups supporting these events in the Middle East right now have ties to radical Communist groups, are supporters of cop killers and are anti-military Kerryites. We need to be careful who America portrays as the supporters of these causes.
Evan,
First, I hope your son is better. These little ones can terrify us when they’re unwell, can’t they?
Second, I don’t see that any of us have to be divided into one camp or another, as we’re all terribly concerned about the situation and all of us are hoping and praying for a peaceful outcome with freedom triumphing. There are many facets to be considered–some Charlie has brought up; some I’ve brought up; and some you’ve brought up. What I’m saying is that we’re peers discussing a serious matter and don’t have to attach ourselves to one particular person in opposition to another.
I have to say, however, that I don’t see the protestors as Egyptian Tea Partiers, but as uniquely and thoroughly Egyptian Muslims of varying persuasions, with the Muslim Brotherhood a more violent segment and a catalyst with a record of seizing opportunities presented by unrest.
Let’s not forget the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, was the chief catalyst for and supporter of the effort to extinguish Israel in 1948; and that they have matastacized throughout the MidEast. They have money and a network the Copts don’t have.
Speaking of the Copts, they have been persecuted for decades and though approximately 10% of the population, are considerably weakened.
And (last post on this), to answer Charlie’s headline question, “Will America Support the Arab Street,” I’d tentatively guess the answer is “No,” especially in view of the fact the “street” in Iran was not supported–at least not openly.
Fay these protests are multidenominational and not limited to Muslims. The Copts are participating in these protests and they make up more than 20% of the population. Of 80 million Egyptions roughly 20 million are Coptic Christians.
I pointed out in my own blog post that the MB is quite anti-Israeli but I don’t see them as the driving force behind these protests.
What I mean by calling them TEA Partiers is that their aims are noble and the ideas of freedom, democracy and liberty are in keeping with the TEA Party values.
IMHO, a change in regime will be a net negative in the short term. However, I truly believe that individuals want liberty and self-determination. Over the next 20, 30 or 40 years (which in the big scheme of things is a brief period of time), that whole area of the globe could turn around.
If we continue to prop up dictators, we’ll always have dictators.