fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

After Cairo’s Coup

The wisest comment on the coup in Egypt comes from Steve Walt who notes that “vital U.S. interests are not really engaged here.”  Egypt has no oil, its military is not equipped for fighting, and there are few ways in which whoever runs Egypt can affect the lives and well-being of Americans. We can’t really influence the […]

The wisest comment on the coup in Egypt comes from Steve Walt who notes that “vital U.S. interests are not really engaged here.”  Egypt has no oil, its military is not equipped for fighting, and there are few ways in which whoever runs Egypt can affect the lives and well-being of Americans. We can’t really influence the course of the revolution, we have no idea what it is. Walt refers to Simon Schama’s capsule description of the myriad turning points of the famous historical revolutions, and notes that in each it would have been virtually impossible for the shrewdest analyst to predict the shape of events months or years ahead. Egypt’s turmoil will eventually exhaust itself—it always does—and either the army or the Muslim Brotherhood or some other figure will emerge  on top, and a man (that we can guess: it will probably be a man) will emerge as Egypt’s leader. He will head a weak and impoverished and environmentally ravaged country, with a need for aid and tourism, will not be aggressive towards Israel, and will face years of work to restore Egypt to the levels of regional influence it had 30 years ago, if that is possible.

One conclusion to draw from this is that the United States certainly should not be backing the coup makers against the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course that is exactly what the neocons are suggesting we do, David Brooks opining that Egyptians don’t have the “mental ingredients” to be real democrats, and Commentary arguing that this time the Obama administration has a “second chance” which it can redeem by wholeheartedly backing the Egyptian military. It is mildly satisfying to see the neoconservatives’ supposed “idealistic” interest in “democracy promotion” exposed as the dishonest huckstering for military aggression it always was. But if the United States has no real interest in invading other countries to bring them democracy, it certainly does not need to antagonize Muslims the world over by embracing a military coup against a freely elected Muslim political figure. Morsi’s failings were legion, and his downfall may well turn out to be a positive thing for Egypt. But he was neither brutal dictator nor mass murderer, and the millions of Egyptians who elected him in good faith don’t need an advertisement of American hypocrisy, which is what rewriting  American law to allow a massive financial aid package for the coup makers would be. The Muslim world is in intense ferment, with rising literacy, soaring expectations, intensifying political involvement. This is mostly not an American problem, but we can certainly turn it into one by applauding, with words and deeds, a government which opens fire on Muslim Brotherhood crowds in Cairo. That would make enemies.

On the brighter side, I want to take note of the wise bipartisan letter  being circulated by representatives Charles Dent (R-PA) .and David Price (D-NC). It encourages Obama to take note of Iran’s election of a moderate president and pursue negotiations with Iran. The contrast of Egypt with Iran is telling. One nation has received tens of billions of dollars of American aid, the other subsists under an intensifying sanctions regime as American officials look for new ways to deny medicine to its hospitals.  And yet the people whose economy we are trying to destroy is apparently capable of producing Academy Award winning films and carrying out a serious nuclear energy program. Perhaps, as suggested by Representatives Dent and Price, we should be talking seriously to them.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here