Nearly a year ago, as the uprising in Egypt was gaining traction, I wrote:
The Muslim Brotherhood (or “Ikhwan’) differs from militant Islamist factions like al-Qaeda not in its goals, which are more or less the same, but only in its strategy: it has no moral or philosophical aversion to violent jihad, but considers it unnecessarily provocative, and therefore counterproductive. As such, it can make an ostentatious public display of distancing itself from terrorism, and so it is embraced by gullible Westerners ”” for whom the only imaginable threat from Islam is terrorist violence ”” as a “moderate’ Muslim organization to be supported and embraced. This suits the Ikwhan, whose avowed strategy is to sabotage secular democratic societies from within, just fine.
The Obama administration, however, which has made “outreach’ to the Muslim world a priority (even going so far as to make NASA’s “foremost’ mission helping Muslims “feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering’) clearly feels the the Muslim Brotherhood is an outfit it can do business with. We should not be surprised to see ”” in fact we should be astonished not to see ”” the Ikwhan seizing the opportunity now taking shape in Cairo, for which it has worked and waited so long. We should also not be surprised to learn that they will do so with the overt or covert support of the United States: so broad is the Brotherhood’s influence in Egypt that it is almost unimaginable that they will not take the reins, and you can be sure that Foggy Bottom and the Oval Office have already made the appropriate calculations.
For my trouble, I was berated in the comment thread for having made, under the bewitchment of “confirmation bias”, an assertion that was “unsupported by fact” and unable to “withstand even the slightest amount of scrutiny”.
A lively eleven months have passed since then, and we have yet to see any flowering of secular Jeffersonian democracy in the region, despite the lavish and effervescent optimism with which the initial disturbances were greeted by most observers here in the West. As was suggested at the time by those of us who have rather less faith in the universal appeal of Western ways, and a more sober understanding of the history of the area and its people, the likeliest outcome of these populist upheavals would be a transition to Islamic governance, with a concomitant erosion of Western interests in the region, and deepening existential peril for Israel.
Now, as Andrew McCarthy notes here, The Hindu reports that the Obama administration has turned to none other than Yusuf al-Qaradawi — the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal ideological theorist and dawa-jihad strategist — to negotiate the terms of our accommodation with the Taliban.
More confirmation bias, no doubt (after all, it’s just the Hindu, not the New York Times). We’ll just have to see.
25 Comments
I predict, Malcolm, that you will continue to be berated by the insufferable Left no matter how often their ideology is demonstrated to be completely wrongheaded. For they cling to a vision that stems from human ignorance and stupidity.
I don’t recall berating you.
And TBH, I’d only qualify your assessment by replacing the word human with “willful.”
I only hope Egypt’s military is able somehow to temper what I worry is the inevitable. Libya springs to mind.
Well, Henry, one thing I will say here is that the cheering last January didn’t come only from the Left — a great many on the Right seemed giddy with excitement as well. To neoconservatives in particular (of which I used to be one myself, before the scales fell from my eyes) it seemed that oppressed multitudes of the Maghreb were finally getting their chance at the greatest prize of all: to become just like us.
JK, regarding Libya: among my circle of friends is a career intelligence operative, soon to retire. I asked him recently what he thought was the most dangerous recent development on the anti-terrorism front, and he said that in his opinion it was without question all that missing Libyan weaponry.
JK,
I accept your qualification for “willful ignorance”. As for “stupidity”, I’m afraid that it is the default human condition, as Big Al Einstein once quipped.
Malcolm,
You are correct in pointing out that stupid giddiness is not the exclusive domain of the Left, but they do hold the overwhelming majority stake.
It would appear Malcolm, there is a consensus among operators.
You are mischaracterizing the comment thread from last year. The link you provided to an unsourced Isreali article is unsupported by fact, not the speculation that the Muslim Brotherhood would ascend to power. To believe the article, one would have to accept the notion that one of the very first things Obama did in office was to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood. Given the crashing economy and everything else which was going on at the time – combined with the fact that there is no corroborating evidence – this strains credibility.
As for Jefferson democracy: within a few months of their successive revolutions, there were free and fair elections in Tunisia and Egypt. Sounds like democracy to me.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood: they have as much right to compete for power as anybody else. If they can pick up the garbage and keep the electricity on, they’ll stay in power. If not, someone else will get voted in.
Nor is there anything amiss if the Obama administration is dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood. They did, after all, gain a plurality.
I don’t think anyone predicted a smooth and effortless transition, given that there were no democratic institutions and the new governments are being created ex nihilo. Unhappy things inevitably occur in times of great turmoil, and progress occurs in fits and starts. However, it is way to early to pass any kind of judgment. The nascent democracies in the Middle East will succeed or fail on their own, which is as it should be.
Your contention is that Egypt would be in a better place if Mubarak was still in power?
As regards Western interests in the region, the struggle against global jihad, and the security of our principal ally Israel, yes, of course it is. I see no reason for people over here to get all dewy-eyed about democracy if it’s just a stepping-stone to Islamism (as, for example, both Turkey’s Erdogan and Qaradawi himself have said).
That said, Mubarak was toast: he was old and sick, and had lost the favor of the military, who have in turn lost their own control of events, as always happens when authoritarian governments attempt to liberalize in an effort to retain power. There wasn’t much we could have done to prevent all this; I just think it was naive to cheer it on, as the outcome is going to be something very different than what we might have wished for. Democracy in and of itself guarantees nothing: in particular, it can very quickly vote itself right out of existence, just like this.
Well, I’ll just point out that one of the first things Mr. Obama did do upon attaining the Presidency was to make a fawning speech to the Ummah in Cairo, and — in a move calculated to sting our then-ally Mubarak — to invite the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to attend. (I suppose it’s possible he might just have invited them via Facebook or something, though.)
“If not, someone else will get voted in.”
No, they will stay in anyway. The mullahs in Iran will never say, “looks like we lost to the better people; now it’s their turn.”
So your contention is that it is preferable to have a tyrant like Mubarak than to have an Islamic democracy which operates with the consent of those governed?
Preferable in terms of what? As far as the rest of us are concerned, the world was a safer place with Mubarak in control than it will be with Islamist regimes in power throughout the region. And as far as Israel’s security is concerned, the “Arab Spring” is shaping up to be an unmitigated disaster.
If I may flirt with Godwin’s Law here: Adolf Hitler (whom Mr. Qaradawi, by the way, has praised as an instrument of Allah sent to punish the Jews) also came to power with overwhelming popular support. For the rest of the world, though, it all turned out to be something of a problem.
It would be nice, I agree, if everything all fell neatly into clear-cut moral and ideological categories, but sadly, the real world is not so simple.
What in the world is an “Islamic democracy”?
A compliant dictator like Mubarak is preferable for Western and Israeli interests in the Realpolitik sense, at least in the short term. You could make the case that American support for the Shah of Iran, for example, was helpful while he was in power, but worked against our long term interests.
As President Obama said in Cairo as he kicked off his apology tour: “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.”
Whoops: that was Condi Rice speaking in Cairo in her apology tour. My bad. But I think she frames the question properly: we can support despotic governments in countries with oil or strategic importance because it suits our interests, or we can support democracy. But not both.
So the question is which path is preferable in terms of which one is consonant with American principles.
Well, what principles, then? Human rights? Women are likely to have their rights severely curtailed in an Islamist Egypt, and Christians now fear for their very lives, as the persecution they experience everywhere in the Islamic world predictiably gains momentum in the wake of Mubarak’s fall.
It just isn’t so simple, Peter. You betray the prevailing assumption of both liberals and neoconservatives: that “American principles” are equally well-suited to all peoples everywhere; that trapped inside every pious Libyan or Afghan tribesman is a modern American just yearning to be set free. I used to believe it myself.
I agree: it isn’t simple. I don’t know how you balance the evil of Coptic persecution against the evil of jailing the opposition.
I think the guiding principle should be universal support for democracy, except in cases where the government allows things which shock the conscience.
I’m under no illusion that under every turban is a Yankees fan waiting to breathe free. They have different values than we do, and they would structure and operate a government much differently.
However, I do think that the principles in the Declaration of Independence are universal, applying to Muslims equally to Christians and everyone else.
So far Malcolm ends simply with, “It isn’t so simple, Peter.”
I note Peter, you included this, uhmm, enlightening sentence: “The nascent democracies in the Middle East will succeed or fail on their own, which is as it should be.”
One should keep in mind what’s obliquely referred to in that Facebook thingy (this Arab Spring thingy itself said to be “A Social Media Revolution.”
The thing to keep in mind is the world’s interconnectedness – the question one must bear in mind is, does a Nation (in this case us, the US) have the duty “to meddle” in the affairs of other Nations when History’s As Is Most Likelys begin raising their intemperate heads?
To quote Rocky Rococo: maybe yes, maybe no.
The question is far too broad, and covers far too many circumstances, to warrant a binary yes or no answer.
Finally, a thread that gets beyond anecdotal-based bickering and confronts the fundamental divide between the two dominant worldviews.
At the core, IMHO, the principal difference concerns how humanity is organized. The utopian view is “outside-in”, to coin a phrase, which assigns loyalty in the following priority order: humankind; nationality/ethnicity; regional association; local association; family; self. For the non-utopians, it’s the reverse.
Personally, I think the utopian view is noble but naive. Like it or not, humanity has evolved with an “inside-out” loyalty structure. Self-preservation is paramount; family loyalty is next in the hierarchy; then the various political organizations, etc.
It would be nice if we could all just get along. But we haven’t; we don’t; and we never will, if you are willing to face reality.
I’m on the road for a few hours. More later.
“The question is far too broad, and covers far too many circumstances, to warrant a binary yes or no answer.”
Have to respectfully disagree Peter, this particular post’s content makes specific the Nations in discussion are confined to the one region. That being of course, the Middle East.
One could “loose the chains” and extend beyond the periphery out to such Nations as Pakistan and India (among some others) but as for me, I’m restricting to the generally accepted confines of those affected by the Arab Spring. North Africa to the Persian Gulf. Although it would be handy to include Iran – whose own meddling appears to be an extremely fine example from which to buttress a position.
But I’ll restrict even more – if only to narrow your “broad” – using Egypt’s neighbor Libya. (Don’t know whether Malcolm’s archives can be searched for my previous mentions of what have come to be known as “The Sinjar Files” – but I’d recommend anyone unfamiliar to become familiar.)
The gist – West Point’s CTC pre-Arab Spring came out with two analyses. The first analysis held strictly to the captured files following the 2005 raid in Sinjar Iraq. Although in actual numbers, the foreign fighters by numbers was dominated by Saudis, as a percentage of population the majority of those aligned with AQ in Iraq were Libyans.
The second CTC analysis documented the jailhouse conversion of the Libyan AQ fighters who at the time were being held in Gaddafi’s prisons. Those AQ fighters conveniently repudiated “official” AQ doctrine plus they promised to lay down their arms and to actively support the then established regime.
Jailhouse conversions being what often jailhouse conversions turn out to be – there (despite what I qualified early on in TBH’s opening comment) was an ignorance in the West’s media about just who these Libyan rebels we were about to support actually were. History tells us that for an entrenched regime to be removed by force of arms – the opposing forces must be organized.
People familiar with the Sinjar stuff thought they had a pretty good idea. Given what’s occurred since I at least, am confident who, once the initial mad dashing forward and backward by the then “Libyan Freedom Fighters” were (and are).
The quick installation and declaration by the new Libyan government that it was to be Islamist did nothing to comfort me.
I’d go on but for my poor arthritis enfeebled typing fingers – but just leave this – look back near the top and note what Malcolm related the soon to retire Intel Operator stated.
I think we did the right thing in Libya. I think we did the wrong thing in Iraq. Two countries in the same region, but you can make a principled argument to “meddle” in one and leave the other alone.
Just personally Peter, I’m of the opinion staying the hell out of either of those you mention would’ve been the wiser course.
However. Where the other NATO powers were itching, I’m afraid we had little choice other than to help them scratch.
Just wish we’d all used hand sanitizer first – the rash looks infected.
Er, make that “both.”