I would like to “extend and clarify” my remarks on Egypt earlier today—a privilege customarily accorded to congressmen and, in this case, to bloggers. I wrote about the troubling situation in Egypt where Islamists are poised to take power. I am concerned about this because of reports, such as this one in Tablet (which I cited earlier), and in the New Republic, about the illiberal intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood—and of course of the Salafists who have emerged as major players in Egyptian politics as well. My primary argument in the article was that this development, troubling as it is, should not cause us to give up on democratization in the Middle East; in my view, there is no real alternative because unpopular autocracies cannot last forever.
Some readers appear confused, however, by this paragraph:
There is no good alternative left in Egypt: Either continue with some degree of rule by the military or cede complete power to potentially radical Islamists. In those circumstances, the least-bad option is for Washington to support the army in continuing to provide a check on unfettered majoritarian rule.
To clarify: I am not suggesting the Egyptian military nullify the results of the vote as the Algerian military did two decades ago—a decision which set off a ruinous civil war in Algeria. That would be a disaster. What I am suggesting is more of the Turkish model, with the army helping to craft a constitution that protects minority rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech, and then helping to enforce it, in order to prevent an elected government from trampling on basic liberties. Otherwise, I fear, the result could be “one man, one vote, one time.” I am fully aware, I might add, of the downside of military involvement
in politics. But in the present instance I fear, as I suggested earlier, it might be the lesser evil.
It's out of our hands, thankfully.
respectfully, Lester, nothing is "out of our hands" unless we choose to make it so. n nAnd, unfortunately, when it comes to supporting a real, democratic movement in the Middle East, Washington has badly neglected its natural and necessary role of involvement. And we are seeing the bitter consequences in Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon and Gaza/West Bank. n nI suppose there is a certain appeal to the Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan/Jon Huntsman school of foreign policy that says, "Damn the world, let them go to hell in a handbasket. We need to keep our money here at home and let them settle their own problems." But serious people immediately recognize that no matter how this approach may feel emotionally satisfying in some short-term respect, it is a juvenile indulgence. It is a foreign policy temper tantrum that says, "I'm taking my ball home because you won't play by my rules." That's fine for a 7 year old but completely unworthy for the lone superpower and a nation that the world continues to look to as a beacon of freedom and justice. n nAnd, ultimately, the juvenile approach is a false choice. Shunning the world and keeping our resources "at home" will not provide us with real prosperity as the juveniles promise. Just the opposite. Our prosperity has everything to do with the leading role that the U.S. has played over the last 70 years; our involvement in developing countries; our protection of commerce; our commitment to allies' security and stability. If we pull the rug out as the juveniles suggest, we will find ourselves in a world that will be infinitely more hostile to us, without market places to buy our goods and without friends to side with us in disputes. n nI don't advocate that we take a heavy hand everywhere and every time. In Egypt, it may be that the best U.S. policy may be to go underground and secretly support and develop forces within the military and civilian population that share our values in the hopes that Egypt will exhaust itself with the Islamist Fetish soon enough. Part of being prepared is to have people in Egypt who are ready and able to take the lead when the opportunity arises. The U.S. can't do everything, but we can do an awful lot. We need to present ourselves as an alternative to everyone in Egypt who opposes militant Islam. That may mean, in the short term, that things in Egypt will need to get alot worse. Egyptians need to be allowed to choose their path and suffer the consequences (although the U.S. has to be prepared to limit that damage when it comes to Israel or other allies).