« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Stability or Freedom?

By: Robin Smith (Diary)  |  February 1st, 2011 at 06:47 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“Washington issued around 10 contradictory statements within a 24-hour period” was a statement from an Asharq Alawsat article regarding the situation in Cairo, Egypt.  Without question, the convoluted nature of this moment is problematic. However, sending mixed and confusing signals paves the road only with good intentions, not a commitment to solutions.

A few things that haven’t been in press accounts that do matter in the response our nation should provide:

1.  In a May 2009 Washington Post article, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when asked whether U.S. aid to Egypt would be linked in the future to democracy or human rights, the Pentagon chief answered that “foreign military financing” for Mr. Mubarak’s autocracy “should be without conditions. And that is our sustained position.”  This is a departure from terms accompanying aid in the past.  Specifically, in 2008, at least $45 million had to be designated for programs for “Governing justly and democratically” to “civil society” groups independent of the Mubarak government and military.  Safwat Girgis, director of one of these groups that promotes rights of women and the disabled and facilitates communication with Egypt’s Christians was denied funding, noted, “Obama wants to democratize the region the way the leaders of the Arab countries want, not the way the Arab people want.” These efforts to “promote human rights, hold the government accountable and promote reform” ended with the 2009 budget and no-conditions policy.

2.  The Muslim Brotherhood, mentioned frequently as a terrorist organization involved in supporting the uprising against the current autocracy, has stated its desire to form an Islamist state in Egypt, the Arab world’s largest nation.  Al-Alam, an Iranian newspaper quoted a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that he would “like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel” and that the “Suez Canal should be closed immediately” with the “flow of gas from Egypt to Israel” halted.  An Islamist state has as its supreme law, the Qur’an driving Shariah Law.  This is important in that “freedom” in an Islamist state is very much unlike the self-determination that fuels America and other free nations.  Instead, it’s defined as perfect submission to Allah’s representative on earth, the Islamic state.

Current American leaders have stated support of “democracy” and “freedom” while putting no conditions on the very pipeline of money feeding the Egyptian economy.  If America’s goal is stability, we should remain neutral, place no conditions on the almost $2 billion annually awarded since 1979.

If America’s goal is a move toward freedom for the people of Egypt, conditions must be placed on each dollar awarded with the irrevocable mandate that no aid will be sent if the Muslim Brotherhood, a proven terrorist organization, is in leadership:

a.      Egypt must have fair elections free of corruption and intimidation with meaningful participation of citizens to form a representative government

b.     Egypt must recognize property rights of its citizens to break the cycle of poverty

c.      Egypt must restore and maintain open communications for citizens, such as the internet and all telecommunications

The vehicle for success in a transitional government would be using the Turkish model leveraging the respected strength of the Egyptian military to establish order and authority with a parallel course that permits candidates to emerge in a cooling-off period.  This time allows exposure of predatory groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, who have designs to corrupt an authentic national movement that could result in lasting reforms

 

The solutions are difficult and will be long-ranging in nature.  However, America can lead to the path of liberty by focusing on the people and not exclusively the political leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Spiral

    We can cling to the fantasy of a new Mustafa Kemal Ataturk magically appearing on the scene, willing to act as a Westernizing dictator during a 100 year transition towards representative government in Egypt.

    We must use our influence to (a) move Egypt towards free and fair elections and (b) minimizing the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both (a) and (b) will not be easy, but they are necessary if US interests in that part of the world are going to be advanced.

    • izoneguy

      After the Brotherhood takes control….

      Too bad for Obama that the House is now controlled by Republicans.

      If we get even a wiff of the Brotherhood I say – no mo money to Egypt.

      • Spiral

        Egypt under Mubarak has had one of the most anti-Israel, anti-US media outlets in the world. Mubarak’s regime has allowed all of this to go on, even as Murbarak’s regime puts non-militant, pro-representative government activists in jail.

        But what did US Congresses and US Presidents do for the past 30 years in response? Give Mubarak more money based on the fear that Mubarak’s regime was better than the bogeymen waiting in the wings.

        But it was Mubarak’s regime that made non-militant representative government in Egypt less likely. So now, after all that money we gave to Mubarak, after all the anti-Israel, anti-US rhetoric paid for by US taxpayers, we are still left with the task of trying to prevent a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt.

        Our pro-dictatorship policy in the Arab world hasn’t panned out too well, especially when one realizes that our “allies,” Egypt and Saudi Arabia, generated most of the 9-11 terrorists.

        • Spiral

          not for Egyptions who wanted representative government and an end to repression. And now we wonder why the Muslim Brotherhood is the best organized group in Egypt on the eve of Mubarak’s demise.

          • Doc Holliday

            they have to divert the people’s anger away from them and towards someone else. BTW, our press is anti-American and anti-Israeli too.

          • Spiral

            Yes. Mubarak’s dictatorship co-opted the anti-Israel anti-US rhetoric and jailed pro-respentative government activists in order to survive.

            The real question is why the US taxpayer should have to subsidize anti-Israel, anti-US rhetoric.

            You mentioned the anti-Israel, anti-US attitude of the US press. But with the exception of NPR and PBS, we have a non-subsidized press. And people who are supportive of Israel and the US have the opportunity to establish media outlets to give the opposite point of view on Israel and the US.

            In Mubarak’s Egypt this has not been the case. And many of the 9-11 terrorists were created by Mubarak’s policies. Yet we funded Mubarak. A bad policy.

          • Doc Holliday

            to any great extent. Yes, he has mistreated prisoners and probably hardened their hearts. But they get no pass from me when they think killing Americans is a good way to protest Mubarak.

            Look, I am no Mubarak fan, but people better wake up and realize many of these countries have a majority of people who support Sharia and Jihad. The Arab governments that are considered our best allies such as Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, have the most anti-American populations.

            I know some claim that the people hate us because we support dictators, kings, etc, and there is some truth to that. But I think there is an even greater truth that we are lucky some of these countries have strongman secular governments. I know that sounds bad, but reality can be a bitch. I don’t want the Jordanian government to fall, I don’t even want the Yemeni government to fall. The problems with these governments is corruption more than even a lack of freedom. It is the corruption that really turns the people against them, freedom comes after corruption is at least reduced.

            Look at Turkey today. Who would prefer the secular, not exactly free Turkey of years gone by to the growing power of Islamic radicals in that nation?

            Mubarak must go, but until things cool down, and new constitution is written, and corruption is reduced, Egypt needs the secular forces in the military to at least keep control in the background. If not, we will see the Muslim Brotherhood take over and get a new version of the Taliban.

          • Spiral

            We must admit that giving Mubarak billions of dollars over the years, while Mubarak clamped down on pro-representative government activists and allowed anti-Israel, anti-US media to flourish, was a failed policy.

            Egypt is not an oil rich nation. So, we could have used our foreign aid money to influence that government to pursue a more pro-US course, one that would empower those pro-representative democracy activists, not the Islamists.

            Now, after all that money has been spent, after 9-11 terrorists from Egypt killed Americans by the thousands, we somehow believe that Mubarak was a great US ally.

            Regarding Turkey. What is not mentioned is that a military dictatorship will not last forever. One has to prepare for they day when representative government arrives in a nation like Turkey or Egypt. We can’t pretend that dictatorship represents a long-term strategy. So, if we have to do business with dictators, that does not mean we should not prepare for the day when the people demand their right to representative government.

            Again. The 9-11 terrorists came from supposedly pro-US dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We need to open our eyes and realize that we aren’t getting much out of this deal.

          • Spiral

            That’s what I mean by choosing a bad policy.

            We can wage war against the Taliban, as we have in Afghanistan. But it’s our so-called friends like Mubarak that we really need to keep an eye on.

          • izoneguy

            http://nation.foxnews.com/muslim-brotherhood/2011/02/01/report-us-held-secret-meeting-muslim-brotherhood

          • Doc Holliday

            but you are blaming the guy who did NOT knock down the towers and letting off the people that DID knock down the towers.

            btw, Hannity is basically saying everything I am saying a few minutes after I say it. I may need a tinfoil hat. lol.

            but my point is, I am not out of line here. I was introduced to the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak soon after 9/11 through the book “The Looming Tower”. This well respected book pulls no punches when it criticizes the the present Egyptian state. But it also shows the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has been at war with the west since the late 1940′s. These people want a world Caliphate based on Shariah, Mubarak did not teach them that.

          • Doc Holliday

            the key point. Some of these dictatorships or at least “democracy lite” countries are set up that way because so many of there own people are nuts. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt created the 9/11 terrorists along with Al Queda. These are the people that want to take over Egypt. If that happens, we will likely see the entire Middle East explode and our blood will be spilled, and our standard of living will get a dagger to the heart.

            Yes, we send cash to Egypt. Most of that money is to keep their pro USA military strong so that the Muslim radical population of that country does not take over. Also, Egypt has helped us with protecting Israel from the fundamentalist terrorists.

            I think Egypt can do better. If they get a true government that will give true liberty to all, then it will be an incredible watershed in the history of liberty. But the chance of that happening quickly or easily, is near nil.

            Many Egyptians want just one vote, a vote for Sharia and war with Israel.

            Remember, Democracy is two wolves and a lamb each getting a vote one what to have for dinner. Liberty is the right of the lamb not to be on the menu.

            Do the majority of Egyptians really want liberty for all? Do they want liberty for women and the Christian Copts? I have not seen anything as of of yet to make me think this is the case.

          • aesthete

            The Twin Towers were attacked under Bush’s administration, yet he was not the cause. Correlation =/= causation.

            “So, we could have used our foreign aid money to influence that government to pursue a more pro-US course, one that would empower those pro-representative democracy activists, not the Islamists.”

            That was effectively our policy under the Bush administration for 6 years. Look how well that turned out.

            “we somehow believe that Mubarak was a great US ally.”

            Better than the alternatives. If you know of anyone in Egypt with a significant political base who can govern Egypt secularly, democratically, and with an eye towards liberty, and without significant instability, I’m all ears: it’s not like I’m fond of military dictatorship. With the options that we are aware of, Mubarak (or more likely, strong military “transitional government”) is our best bet, if we even want to get significantly involved at all.

            “We can

          • Spiral

            And we the US taxpayers paid for that.

            The Twin Towers were attacked under Bush

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • JSobieski

            you might also want to read through this report on how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government in many respects.

            http://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20(Team%20B%20Report)%20Web%2009292010.pdf

          • Scope

            of what you are posting. I seriously doubt it. You would do yourself a favor if you did some research, and learned some history. For your information, Egypt has been a friend to Israel, even if reluctantly. Israel and Egypt have had their dust ups, but, nothing major. Have you looked at a map lately to see the size of Egypt compared to Israel? I doubt that too. Unlike some other ME countries, Egypt has tried to help to broker a deal with the Palistinans and Israel.

            You bring up that Mubarack hasn’t stopped the press in Egypt from talking bad about Israel, but, does that mean that you think free speech should only exist in the US?

            You don’t have the first clue of what you are talking about, period.

          • JSobieski

            Egyptian TV is attrocious. Check out www.MEMRI.org. One of their websites focuses on clips from ME tv. Vile stuff. Egyptian TV is no better than Saudi TV or Palestinian TV.

            I am no Mubarak basher, but there is no doubt that part of his calculation for keeping power was to embrace the anti-semitism of Arab Muslims.

            Egypt was never a friend of Israel. At most one can say that the Egyptian government was not an enemy of Israel. The same is true for Jordan. Its sad that Israel has so many enemies that less intense dislike becomes characterized as friendship.

          • Doc Holliday

            I bet you ten bucks the Egyptian government and Israeli government work together on counter terrorism and other bilateral issues that you never hear about. one is excusing anti-Israeli comments in the Egyptian press. But sometimes you have to throw a tiger some red meat so he won’t decide to eat you.

            I also think you are overstating the free speech thing is Egypt. We are not talking about the Gestapo here. Most who are in Egyptian cells ARE Muslim Brotherhood radicals that want to wage Jihad in Egypt and then abroad.

            If you can find an Egyptian Thomas Jefferson that the people will support, I will be with you. Maybe the people could take a survey course of 2000 + years of Western Civilization and learn the true meaning of liberty and freedom.

          • JSobieski

            I am just saying that the definition of “friend” should be more narrow than people who kind of cooperate with you behind closed doors, but allow the public to be constantly aroused by really vile anti-semitic media.

            The government of Egypt does control the TV and newspapers. Yet, it makes absolutely no effort to at least dampen anti-semitism. To the contrary, its pretty clear that the secular government of Mubarak embraced anti-semitism domestically to keep groups like the Muslim Brotherhood somewhat in check.

            If Egypt is a friend of Israel, then the French are in deep passionate love with the US.

          • Doc Holliday

            well they do love Jerry Lewis. I don’t like Arab press anymore than you do. But where we worried about Tunisia a month ago? did with think man those Tunisians are an anti-American threat? Now, we are on the Egypt, what is next Saudi Arabia? You know, losing Egypt to the radicals would be almost be as bad as losing Saudi Arabia. Sure Egypt does not have oil, but they do have the Suez Canal. They would encircle Israel with enemies, they would open up a new front.

            I think we can do better than Mubarak, and that does not mean that jagoff Al Baradei. What we need is the military to stabilize the situation, promise reform and deliver it to the people. But anyone who wants to include the Muslim Brotherhood in a “coalition” is a freaking nut. That would be like setting seats in Congress aside for the KKK and Black Panthers. Actually, it would be worse, since the last two mentioned are mainly just clubs for losers. the Muslim Brotherhood is an imminent danger.

            And tell me this when did the last revolution in the ME turn out ok? How did that Iran thing go? How did the Lebanese “Cedar Revolution” go? How did opening up spots for Islamists in Turkey go?

          • Spiral

            Saudi Arabia. There’s another great “friend” of the United States. They use their oil money to fund radical mosques in the US, Europe, Australia and elsewhere.

            And yep. Many of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia too.

            Isn’t it time we reconsider our policy of supporting these awful regimes?

          • JSobieski

            In terms of Egyptian society, he definitely let the anti-American and anti-Israel impulses flurish, while showing no tolerance for the few true western looking Egyptians.

            Mubarak essentially had a dark bargain with the Muslim Brotherhood. He did nothing to prevent violence against the Copts, or to mute anti-western media. He did however censor pro-US media.

            This is no different than what the Saudi’s do, and the Saudi’s are a Sharia state.

          • JSobieski

            The Shah of Iran was orders of magnitude better than Mubarak.

            The error in US policy over the years is in my view not getting a better deal from people like Mubarak. Frankly, he would have been better off if he coopted some of the true blue western-looking reformers.

          • Doc Holliday

            and WESTERN reformers to comment. I do know the most powerful entity in Egyptian society is their military. You could say that about almost every country but I don’t just mean the military’s ability to kill. the institution itself has the most political power and is respected by those non terrorists. An argument could be made that Mubarak did a good job of keeping his most powerful entity mostly secular.

            I want Mubarak to leave, I want Egypt to have a better leader. But I won’t trade that for a new enemy state that could take us to ww3.

          • aesthete

            I can see a very good transitional military-backed government arising from the chaos: the military is seen as much more trustworthy than Mubarak or the cops (who are mostly flunkies and brutes hired for their utility to Mubarak). IMO, that is the best that we can hope for in this situation.

          • Doc Holliday
          • JSobieski
          • Doc Holliday

            lasted what, 50 years? That should be enough time but radical Islam seems to be impossible to stop. As the Turkish military ceded more power to the electorate, the electorate voted more and more for Islamist leaders. then you get the purges of the military. I am not saying Turkey is gone, but they have regressed over the last decade or so. And this is WITH a booming economy. that is why it takes generations to extricate radical Islam from the people, even if it can be done.

            Don’t misunderstand my comment, it is the Turkish model that is needed. This seems to work better in diverse countries ala Indonesia and is more risky in countries with small persecuted minorities like Turkey (Kurds) and Egypt (copts).

          • JSobieski

            Turkey had a genuine home grown leader dedicated to imposing securalism, and look where it is now. Moreover, the forces of fundamentalism in Islam are far strong now than they were when Turkey was being re-engineered.

            My point is that there aren’t a lot of good options. If I wasn’t a religious man, I would be lacking in hope.

          • Doc Holliday
          • Spiral

            Hussam Fawzi Jabar, an Egyptian cleric, said “”Hitler was right to say what he said and to do what he did to the Jews.” In Egypt most clerics are state funded employees.

            Then you have a 2004 piece titled, “The Lie About the Burning of the Jews,” from an official journal of Mubarak, Al Liwaa Al-Islami.

            And we are supposed to conclude that Mubarak was really good at keeping radical Islam under wraps. Actually, Mubarak did a lot to keep the pot boiling.

          • Doc Holliday

            I could give you communist quotes from Catholic Priests in this country and quotes that sound like Ronald Reagan from other priests. Both are “funded” by the same organization.

            I am tired of arguing this. If you think Mubarak caused 9/11 then you just don’t know the history of radical Islam, you just don’t know how long it has gone on. The goals have not changed, only technology has changed and made them more dangerous.

            I can’t think of any Muslim nation leaders I would actually like, other than perhaps some of the Jordanian princes who are Special forces badasses. this is not about Mubarak, it is about what is coming next. I am starting to think you look forward to something that is likely to end up terrible for this nation.

          • Spiral

            The US gave Mubarak billions of dollars of aid. And in return Mubarak funded all kinds of vile anti-Semitism. Meanwhile Mubarak jailed anyone who supported representative democracy.

            Egypt’s economy is a basket case, which is fertile ground for the Muslim Brotherhood.

            At least General Franco of Spain gave Spain good economic policies so that when Franco died, Spain was well prepared for representative government.

            Mubarak is leaving a tinderbox behind as his legacy, a legacy paid for by US taxpayers.

          • Doc Holliday

            you don’t know who much worse it could have been if the Sharia loving masses had their choice. Another reason we gave money to Egypt is they signed peace accords with Israel, what ME state other than Jordan has done that? Giving money to Egypt allowed us to give money to Israel without starting another war.

            You keep implying that there are all these people in Egypt that want representative democracy. From what I can tell, what they want are jobs. Hence my continuous mentioning of corruption. And Mubarak has been part of that. Hell, even bad wheat harvests and inflation are a major part of that.

            we shall see what happens in Egypt, we shall see if dear leader can handle the issue. I want the best for the Egyptian people and I want them to have true freedom and liberty. But if the result is another Iran, the hopenchange wont mean a damn thing.

            nice debate sir, I have said enough here, goodnight.

          • izoneguy

            Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is against America – period.

            According to a translation of an article written by Abu Ayman al-Hilali, a senior al-Quadaaeda leader and ideologist, the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany, and Australia are “enemies” and attacks against their civilians are justified. Since Western governments are engaged in a war against Islam, he argued, the civilian voters who elect those governments cannot be considered non-combatants and are legitimate targets for terrorists. These fundamentalists have defined their enemies and then justified killing them.

            Violent fundamentalists see power as indivisible. They primarily come from societies where power is indivisible and wish to replace that power. Does this make these movements an ideology rather than a religion? What is clear is it not democratic. Democracy is about sharing power. Fundamentalists abhor sharing power; after all would God share His power?

          • Spiral

            The question is how the US should deal with Islamic fundamentalism. Clearly, under our current policies our “allies” like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have produced the 9-11 terrorists.

            Not a good policy, I’d say. Mubarak puts pro-representative democracy activists in jail while letting his state funded press blather on about how Hitler did the right thing to the Jews and Saudi Arabia puts people in jail for celebrating Valentine’s Day and Christmas. Not a good policy.

            You correctly point out the evils of fundamentalism. But it seems unrelated to the question of how the US should formulate its foreign policy.

          • gekster

            Where do you get that from?

          • Spiral

            If you are a pro-representative democracy activist in Egypt, you get put in jail.

            If you spew anti-Semitism, anti-Israeli propaganda, you get hired by the government funded media.

          • JSobieski

            not necessarily ballots and elections.

        • Scope

          Get a clue.

          • Spiral

            Yes. There are lots of US media outlets that are anti-Israel.

            But here we have freedom of speech and the press.

            In Egypt, when the state controlled media and state funded clerics provide the public anti-Semitic rants, you can’t say that Mubarak is a great friend of Israel or the US. Mubarak simply was trying to stay in power for his own benefit.

          • JSobieski

            Nothing.

    • aesthete
    • JSobieski

      Polls in Egypt suggest otherwise. Free and fair elections may simply result in HAMAS 2.0.

      My gripe isn’t with pursuing a Mubarak type arrangement, I just think people are overplaying the “friendship” of Mubarak to Israel

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        earlier has led me to be much more circumspect about what is and has been possible in terms of maximizing liberty and peaceful states in the Muslim world and the security of the Free World no matter what we do. I see a much lower ceiling than I did a week ago.

        I’m too tired to expound much on this tonight and my new view is still evolving, but I will return to this soon.

        I would say that the peace we have had with Egypt since Camp David is a major accomplishment and that Mubarak may well rank very high, relatively speaking with other similarly situated allies of the US.

        And yes, I do think that his departure most definitely increases the chances, exponentially of Egypt becoming an Islamist state of the worst order.

        • Scope

          this day-to-day account of the Egyptian Revolution by an Egyptian-

          http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_story_of_the_egyptian_revo.html

          I’ve heard every kind of story about what is really going on in Egypt, from every Arm Chair General out there, I do want to believe what this guy is saying, but, if it’s true, it may already be too late to save Egypt from the Muslim Hood, but, maybe not. Can you imagine any kind of capitalism in Egypt? That would be a dream come true.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

      And that is creating a durable infrastructure for representative government, which in turn can unlike survive under a rule of law. Unfortunately, past dictatorship makes for difficult for people to have faith in a rule of law, as their experience is that laws and courts are merely a pretext for the powerful oppressing the weak.

      And the historical question that we haven’t solved yet is that while we can graft a structure of representative government, preserving it is very difficult. Nicaragua is a recent case history, and there are plenty of others.

      While your two goals here are laudable, there are serious risks of

      1) rigging of the elections (a specialty of Mubarak but one which folks like the Muslim Brotherhood would be equally willing to do when it would serve their purpose – that is, free elections when you’re going to win, rigging when you’re not)

      2) Trojan Horse parties that come to power with promises of respecting democratic institutions, and then dismantling them once they gain power in order to perpetuate their rule under the guise of democracy. (Hugo Chavez, for example)

      3) Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, given that superior firepower still prevails most of the time, at least in the short-run (and we all may be dead before the long-term arrives) and that the MB has the second strongest source of firepower in the country, ironically, it probably will rest with the army as to the success of the representative government.

      Which will require that rare successful marriage between military and representative government.

      We have another such experiment already underway in Tunisia.

  • izoneguy

    More predator drones.
    These barbarians want to live in the stone age so let’s help them get there faster.

    • JSobieski

      The Muslim world is susceptible to shame. We should use that our advantage. The Western world has resulted in scientific, technological, and economic progress. A sustained media campaign over decades (think Radio Free Europe during the Cold War) is the way to fight this.

      The worst thing we can do is simply deny that there is an underlying problem ideologically . . . which seems to be what we have been doing since 9/11.