Commentary Magazine


Topic: Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi

What’s the Alternative in Egypt?

Today’s announcement that Egypt’s ruling council of military leaders has given its stamp of approval to General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi’s intention to run for president was an ominous sign that the country had come full circle in the last three years. The Arab Spring protests that began in 2011 toppled the military dictator, Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled the country for three decades. But after their brief experiment with democracy that resulted in a brush with an Islamist dictatorship led by the Muslim Brotherhood, the generals and perhaps even a majority of Egyptians aren’t taking any chances. With the Brotherhood crushed by a military crackdown, el-Sisi’s “electoral” victory is a certainty. After the hopes that the Arab Spring raised and all the suffering and sacrifices made over the course of two protest movements—one to oust Mubarak and another, even larger, to bring down Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government—it now appears to have all been for naught.

As our Max Boot noted earlier today, the military government’s intolerance of any dissent—whether from the Islamists or liberals—is deeply worrisome. As Max writes, terrorists operating from Gaza could exploit the developing chaos. The increase in violence throughout Egypt, as well as the persistence of the Wild West atmosphere in the Sinai where jihadi groups are still operating as they did during the year of Muslim Brotherhood rule, raises serious doubts about the capacity of the military to restore stability. But acknowledging these facts doesn’t mean that the U.S. should go even further than the Obama administration has already gone in distancing itself from the Egyptian government.

The key question to ask about America’s policy toward Egypt isn’t whether the U.S. approves of military rule; we don’t. But the question becomes whether a decision to further restrict aid to the military would make matters even worse, both for the Egyptians as well as for Israel. The answer to these questions is clear. There is no alternative to the military that would not be far worse for Egypt and U.S. interests, and any American move to undermine el-Sisi would only increase the chances of a disaster there.

Read More

Today’s announcement that Egypt’s ruling council of military leaders has given its stamp of approval to General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi’s intention to run for president was an ominous sign that the country had come full circle in the last three years. The Arab Spring protests that began in 2011 toppled the military dictator, Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled the country for three decades. But after their brief experiment with democracy that resulted in a brush with an Islamist dictatorship led by the Muslim Brotherhood, the generals and perhaps even a majority of Egyptians aren’t taking any chances. With the Brotherhood crushed by a military crackdown, el-Sisi’s “electoral” victory is a certainty. After the hopes that the Arab Spring raised and all the suffering and sacrifices made over the course of two protest movements—one to oust Mubarak and another, even larger, to bring down Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government—it now appears to have all been for naught.

As our Max Boot noted earlier today, the military government’s intolerance of any dissent—whether from the Islamists or liberals—is deeply worrisome. As Max writes, terrorists operating from Gaza could exploit the developing chaos. The increase in violence throughout Egypt, as well as the persistence of the Wild West atmosphere in the Sinai where jihadi groups are still operating as they did during the year of Muslim Brotherhood rule, raises serious doubts about the capacity of the military to restore stability. But acknowledging these facts doesn’t mean that the U.S. should go even further than the Obama administration has already gone in distancing itself from the Egyptian government.

The key question to ask about America’s policy toward Egypt isn’t whether the U.S. approves of military rule; we don’t. But the question becomes whether a decision to further restrict aid to the military would make matters even worse, both for the Egyptians as well as for Israel. The answer to these questions is clear. There is no alternative to the military that would not be far worse for Egypt and U.S. interests, and any American move to undermine el-Sisi would only increase the chances of a disaster there.

While concerns about the situation in Egypt spiraling out of control are far from unrealistic, the situation there should not be mischaracterized. Any increase in violence should be deplored, but it’s far from clear that either the Brotherhood or terrorist elements that might be aligned with it or based in Hamas-ruled Gaza is capable of destabilizing the country, let alone toppling the military. The Brotherhood has been taken down not only by the ruthlessness of the military crackdown but by the realization on the part of the Egyptian people that Morsi’s Islamist government was a greater threat to their future than a return to a Mubarak-style authoritarian regime. Tens of millions of Egyptians took to the streets to call for Morsi’s overthrow and largely applauded when the military complied with their wishes.

They may not be cheering the military’s crackdown on liberal critics quite as enthusiastically. But as much as we may deplore this development, if there is anything Americans should have learned about Egypt and the Arab Spring in the past three years it is that the expectation that democracy was possible was an illusion. The choice was always between the military and the Brotherhood. Neither is palatable but those of us who, however briefly, held onto the hope that Egyptians could go down a path that might lead to genuine democracy must admit we were wrong.

That admission requires us to be both realistic about what is possible in Egypt and vigilant against any American measures that could exacerbate an already bad situation. In the past three years, the Obama administration has gone from one blunder to the next. First it championed Mubarak. Then it dumped him. Then it embraced the Brotherhood and warned the military not to interfere with its rule. It reluctantly accepted the military coup that ended that unfortunate chapter last summer, but has since cut back on aid to the military, further reducing U.S. influence in Cairo.

While chagrin at the turn of events in Egypt is understandable, it cannot be used as an excuse for any action that would weaken the military government at the expense of its Islamist foes. The administration as well as its critics who support the idea of the spread of democracy must understand that, among many bad options, the Egyptian military is the best.

Read Less

Note to Obama: Egypt Is a Zero-Sum Game

It’s not clear whether Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham really thought their presence in Cairo would help bring about reconciliation or at least an agreement between Egypt’s military government and the Muslim Brotherhood. But now that their mission has failed to influence the military to be more accommodating to a Brotherhood that clearly thinks it has no choice but to stand its ground on not accepting the coup that deposed Mohamed Morsi, the Obama administration is back where it was a month ago, pondering what to do about Egypt. With the military openly threatening more violence, the United States must once again decide whether its priority is to back the principle of democracy or back a government whose primary purpose dovetails with America’s long-term interests.

When Egypt’s interim president Adli Mansour said yesterday that, “the phase of diplomatic efforts has ended,” it was apparent that Western attempts to broker some sort of deal between the two sides of the standoff were not going to work. Since the Brotherhood may feel it has nothing to gain from backing away from a confrontation that will inevitably mean more violence, that puts President Obama in the difficult position of having to abandon the pretense that restoration of democracy in Egypt is either possible or desirable. While he along with McCain and Graham may think a solution must mean involving the Brotherhood in a new government, General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the military commander who really runs the country, has no such illusions. Sisi seems to have grasped something that many of Egypt’s foreign backers seem not to understand: the conflict between the Brotherhood and the rest of the country is a zero-sum game. Any ground gained by the Islamists or a deal that will let them inch their way back to power is a mistake that will set the country back on the same path that led to the coup. It’s past time the United States understood it too. The choice there isn’t between the military and democracy. It’s between the military and Islamist rule.

Read More

It’s not clear whether Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham really thought their presence in Cairo would help bring about reconciliation or at least an agreement between Egypt’s military government and the Muslim Brotherhood. But now that their mission has failed to influence the military to be more accommodating to a Brotherhood that clearly thinks it has no choice but to stand its ground on not accepting the coup that deposed Mohamed Morsi, the Obama administration is back where it was a month ago, pondering what to do about Egypt. With the military openly threatening more violence, the United States must once again decide whether its priority is to back the principle of democracy or back a government whose primary purpose dovetails with America’s long-term interests.

When Egypt’s interim president Adli Mansour said yesterday that, “the phase of diplomatic efforts has ended,” it was apparent that Western attempts to broker some sort of deal between the two sides of the standoff were not going to work. Since the Brotherhood may feel it has nothing to gain from backing away from a confrontation that will inevitably mean more violence, that puts President Obama in the difficult position of having to abandon the pretense that restoration of democracy in Egypt is either possible or desirable. While he along with McCain and Graham may think a solution must mean involving the Brotherhood in a new government, General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the military commander who really runs the country, has no such illusions. Sisi seems to have grasped something that many of Egypt’s foreign backers seem not to understand: the conflict between the Brotherhood and the rest of the country is a zero-sum game. Any ground gained by the Islamists or a deal that will let them inch their way back to power is a mistake that will set the country back on the same path that led to the coup. It’s past time the United States understood it too. The choice there isn’t between the military and democracy. It’s between the military and Islamist rule.

It is very much to Secretary of State John Kerry’s credit that he seemed to signal last week that the administration is finally putting away its illusions about Egypt. Kerry caused a minor stir when he said last Thursday that rather than the coup (although, like all American officials he is constrained by law from calling the military takeover by its correct name) being an attack on democracy, it was actually an effort to restore it. Since the military had acted on the request of “millions and millions” of people, as he put it, he’s not wrong about that. But unfortunately, many otherwise sensible observers in the United States remain ready to cut off aid to the military government at any sign that it is prepared to use force to put down the Brotherhood’s campaign to restore Morsi. Indeed, even Kerry said that any more violence like the killings of Islamist demonstrators by the military in recent weeks was “unacceptable.”

Some of this is a hangover from the administration’s misguided embrace of the Brotherhood while it was in power. Fortunately, the president seems to have learned his lesson on this point. But as much as the United States is right to discourage violence in Cairo, President Obama must understand that Sisi is right to fear that if he lets the Brotherhood protests continue unmolested, he is setting the stage for trouble.

The coup was made necessary because Egypt’s experiment in democracy had gone terribly wrong. The Brotherhood was able to win elections because it was the only truly organized mass party in the country. But once in power, it showed that its drive for hegemony would not be restrained by anything. Had the military not acted, there is little doubt that Morsi and the Brotherhood would never have peacefully relinquished power or stopped until they had remade Egypt in their own image.

In the coming days and weeks as the Brotherhood continues to push for Morsi’s return to power, they are hoping that the West will be hamstrung by a desire to avoid the charge of hypocrisy and cut off the military. But the U.S. mustn’t fall into their trap. There is more to democracy than voting, and any solution that risks giving Morsi another chance to consolidate power would be a disaster for Egypt and the United States. Washington must be prepared to stick with the military no matter what happens in the streets of Cairo. In a zero-sum game with would-be Islamist totalitarians, there is no room for compromise. Sisi gets this. Let’s hope Obama does too.

Read Less