On January 28th, as the ground was shifting in Egypt, our crack strategic-analysis team here at waka waka waka saw a critical opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood, and predicted that the Ikhwan would step smartly into the breach. We wrote:
Nature abhors a vacuum, and although the newspapers have so far reported that religious groups appear not to have played much part in the uprising, anyone who has paid any attention to Egypt’s modern history will know that the principal opponent of the secular Egyptian dictatorship is, and has always been, the Muslim Brotherhood ”” the patient, hydra-headed global Islamist organization (its front groups include Hamas in Gaza, and CAIR in the US) that has been awaiting its chance in Egypt for decades (and which of course has never forgotten the execution of its chief political theorist, Sayyid Qutb, by Nasser in 1966).
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.
At the time, this aroused skeptical indignation in some of our readers. However, five months having passed, we note this item in today’s news:
U.S. recognizes Muslim Brotherhood
As Philip K. Dick said: “Reality is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.”
6 Comments
The article states that the United States is “resuming contact” with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that no contact has yet been made. This is, of course, exactly what we should be doing. It is in the national interest to have diplomatic relationships with the world’s major players, whether it is Mao, Mubarak, or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Your post speculates that the Brotherhood will have the “overt or covert support of the United States” and that they will “take the reins.” This is quite different than what (little) has happened thus far, and there is nothing in the article which suggests that either speculation will ultimately be realized.
Right, no sign of the Muslim Brotherhood taking up the reins of power in Egypt.
And of course, diplomatic recognition by the US lends no support or legitimacy to this Islamist organization.
Correct on both counts.
Whether the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately takes power in Egypt is anybody’s guess. In a democracy, they have as much right to compete for power as anybody else. If they do assume power, however, it will not be because the American government is initiating contact with them.
Also, diplomatic recognition comes in two flavors: formal and informal. The latter implies an acceptance, although we have formal relationships with many unsavory players. The nascent relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood is an informal relationship, which does not imply any endorsement at all. We have an informal relationship with the humor challenged Kim Jong-Il, but we certainly don’t endorse the things he does.
No, there’s more to this than that. We do not recognize Hamas, because Hamas is a “terrorist organization”. Meanwhile, we are willing to legitimize and deal with the Brotherhood, because they “renounce violence”.
But of course the two organizations have exactly the same aims — as one would imagine, given that Hamas is a creation of, and faction of, the Muslim Brotherhood. The “renunciation of violence” by the parent organization is based on no ideological consideration whatsoever, and there is not the least sliver of ideological daylight between the Ikhwan and Hamas. It is simply a tactical choice, calculated to make the Brotherhood seem a more appealing, “moderate” partner. It’s a classic good-cop-bad-cop arrangement.
As you say, whether the Muslim Brotherhood rises to controlling power in Egypt is “anybody’s guess”. I made my guess a while back, and I’m sticking with it.
Let’s just see how things go from here.
From FPRI (page 22 of the study)
“Centrists have created a discourse that is grounded in Islam, but does not rely on
one particular theological understanding of Islam. They attempt to incorporate as many
Muslims into a broad coalition that shares a single Islamic political identity. Although Centrists are more tolerant of diverse opinions than Wahhabists, unlike liberal Islam, Centrism does not rule out traditional interpretations or Wahhabism. Often Centrist scholars such as al-Qaradawi will present the hard-line Wahhabist or Qutbist interpretations as one among many valid alternatives. Furthermore, although Centrists present their arguments in the language of theology, Centrism is not purely theological. It is a collection of religious-based arguments made to justify political ends. The result is a political identity that in many ways is similar to other modern
political identities. For example, similar to nationalism, which relies on a shared ethnic heritage, the Centrist Muslim Brothers emphasize a common Islamic history and identity.
“Similar to nationalist movements, the Brotherhood also reinterprets history and politics through the lens of its ideology….”
http://www.fpri.org/pubs/Helfont.SunniDivide.pdf
Andy McCarthy has commented on this also.