The torching of the headquarters of Egyptian presidential candidate Ahmed Shafik yesterday should have been a reminder to those blithely assuming the Muslim Brotherhood might roll over and play dead (in the wake of the seeming rebuke the party received in last week’s presidential election) that they ought never to underestimate the Islamist group. It’s true that Islamist candidates got less than half of the votes cast in the first round of voting and the emergence of Shafik–a secular former military officer who was a surprise second place finisher just behind the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi–showed there was a significant constituency for an alternative to the party that received three quarters of the vote in the parliamentary elections last year. But as Eric Trager writes in the New Republic, reports of the Brotherhood’s demise were and are greatly exaggerated. With Morsi and Shafik set to face off later this month in a runoff, the Islamists are still in an excellent position to win the presidency and complete their stranglehold on power.
Trager points out that the Brotherhood has an overwhelming advantage in organization, as it is the country’s only true national party with grass-roots cadres who are deeply committed to its triumph. With many Egyptians disgusted with the runoff’s choice of an Islamist or a Mubarak retread, the odds are very much in favor of the Brotherhood’s otherwise uninspiring candidate coming out on top. Though the Obama administration and much of its cheering section in the press have tried in recent months to downplay the nature of the threat the Brotherhood poses to regional security and U.S. influence, the completion of the party’s conquest of Egypt will be a watershed in America’s Middle East policy.
Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly too late for the United States to do anything to alter this outcome even if President Obama wanted to. Those who have criticized the administration for its abandonment of Mubarak during the initial Arab Spring protests may be hoping that Shafik will win and therefore stop the country’s drift toward extremist Islam. But outside of minority communities such as the Christian Copts who rightly fear for their fate under a government dominated by the Brotherhood, it’s not clear that most Egyptians would tolerate a retread from the old regime. In fact, Shafik may turn out to be the perfect foil for the Brotherhood, because he could move many secularists to support the Islamists rather than countenance a return to the Mubarak era.
That will mean an end to hopes for the emergence of a genuine democracy in Egypt, as it is unlikely a Brotherhood government will allow itself to ever be voted out. As Trager writes:
When only one group can organize effectively in a newly competitive political environment, single-party domination becomes practically inevitable—with potentially devastating consequences. After all, the dominant party can nominate just about anyone, and win. And if it uses its power to prevent potential competitors from emerging, it can also get away with just about anything.
The consequences for the peace treaty with Israel are obvious. President Obama may think he will have more “flexibility” to impose his ideas about Middle East peace in a second term. But unless something happens in the next three weeks to derail the Brotherhood, the basic strategic equation of the region will be altered in favor of the Islamists and their Hamas allies rendering any further talk about the peace process a fantasy.
Contrary to the common, bumper sticker wisdom, sometimes War Is The Only Answer. n nSadly so.
Though this article is correct about democracy's future in an Islamist Egypt, elsewhere I still see glib sanctimony about the "human rights" crisis in Syria. "Killing his own people" is a fatuous sentiment. Both sides in a civil war or rebellion kill their own people! Mr. Lincoln "killed his own people". n nBad as Assad is, the alternate is, yes, the Islamists. Perhaps Contentions writers know something about Syria's opposition that we don't. From here it looks like the secularist opposition are no more potent in Syria than they are in Egypt. Which means that the pundits, in urging the overthrow of Assad, are also urging an Israel flanked by Islamist fanatics dedicated to its annihilation. n nEgypt's current problem began with the murder of Anwar Sadat, who dared to reform. Mubarak was only about holding on to power, with no reforms. Egypt's political system did not change or evolve during Mubarak's rule, and like most autocracies, was too self-absorbed to think about a successor. I see no American policy towards Egypt that would have effected the changes necessary to prevent today's debacle, short of regime change, and how often has that worked out? n nThere's a lesson here: Will trumps reason every time. The will of a savage, benighted, atavistic movement, like the Islamists and their cousin Nazis, defeats virtuous moderation unless unevenly matched, like in WWII. n nMight makes right? No, but it does render right irrelevant. A just war is as savage as an unjust war, a lesson our feckless, self-absorbed, sentiment-ruled, media-addled society seems unable to wrap its collective brain around.
Pr. O was all along in favor of the MB. Just as he was against Israel. Tell me who your friends are and I will know who you are.
Maybe the Egyptians need to borrow the old bumper sticker from Louisiana: VOTE FOR THE CROOK – IT'S IMPORTANT n nI fear we are going to look back at the Obama presidency as the time when the middle east was irreparably lost to the Islamists. n nIn the longest run this might be OK as the truth will out, but I don't want to think about how many innocent people will suffer and die as a result. It's likely to be: women and minorities hardest hit, but this time it will be no joke.
Okay, enough. Those so called academics who came up with The US Estimate that concluded Iran was not building a nuclear bomb need to have their bodies re-configured so your genius torso are turned around 180 degrees and you all walk butt first, back ass dudwards, like John Edwards, walt and mearshimer.r n Whether it is a virus or malware, Mr. Tobin is correct, we are waiting patiently for these matters to be resolved before we have children because I for one will not raise children in a world in which Iran has nukes.
Israel will be prepared to re-take Sinai, when the time comes….and it will come sooner than one may think.