Danged if I know whether this would be smart, or not:
The Egyptian government [...] announced it had begun deliberations on whether to ban the [Muslim] Brotherhood, a long-outlawed organization that swept to power in the country’s first democratic elections a year ago.
Such a ban — which authorities say is rooted in the group’s use of violence — would be a repeat to the decades-long power struggle between the state and the Brotherhood.
For more than a month since the July 3 military overthrow of Morsi, Brotherhood members and supporters have attacked and torched scores of police stations and churches, in retaliation. Shops and houses of Christians have also been targeted.
...that third paragraph is why I'm wondering whether it would be smart to ban the group. The Muslim Brotherhood, lacking any domestic Jews to persecute*, have settled for blaming Coptic Christians for being responsible for everything that's gone wrong for them, with the usual mob violence and property destruction that we've come to expect from hardcore Islamist "activists." One wonders whether formally banning the Brotherhood will have any real effect on their future terrorist activity. And, no, I'm not going to weasel out of it and say 'potential' terrorist activity: church-burning counts.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: I'll offer advice on how the Obama administration should change its Egypt policy just as soon the Obama administration lets the rest of us know just what that policy is.
*And, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is far too fond of living to too-openly attack the foreign ones right next door.