Noah Millman asks another question in his Egypt post that deserves an answer:

And then there’s the question of whether the coup will succeed in the medium term. If it does, what are the odds that we will keep it at arms-length? And if we re-embrace a military regime after a decent interval, what, from an ethical perspective, will we have achieved by making a show of distance?

I suppose it depends on what Millman means by “succeed” here, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that it means that the military has driven the Muslim Brotherhood underground, restored some semblance of public order, and consolidated its control over the country. In that scenario, he is probably right that the U.S. wouldn’t keep Egypt at a distance indefinitely, but if it didn’t that would represent a reversal of the previous decision. I suppose it’s always true that a policy decision doesn’t achieve very much if it is overturned later on, but that isn’t an argument against it. The point here is that the U.S. shouldn’t just be “making a show of distance” by suspending aid, but should be genuinely distancing itself from the Egyptian military. Is that likely to happen? Since Washington has been trying to avoid doing the bare minimum required so far, I doubt that it is, but it seems clear to me that it should.

The answer to this could also depend on what “re-embrace” and “decent interval” mean. Would the U.S. be “re-embracing” a military junta or a civilian government, and are we talking a period of months or years? In the event that the military withdrew from politics and Egypt held free and fair elections, it might be acceptable or even appropriate to re-establish some form of the earlier relationship. If the “success” of the coup means the consolidation of a military regime worse than Mubarak’s, then the U.S. should keep its distance as much as it possibly can.