Egypt? So What’s The Big Deal?

It has been tortuous to watch President Obama and his Administration try to express a US position towards Egypt.  One moment he’s for policies which would restore the Muslim Brotherhood to power.  The next moment he seems content with the Generals.  Like a Professor, President Obama seems to be able to see both sides of the issue but can not utter his choice.

Foolishly, the Bush Administration started this mess when they encouraged more freedom of expression for Egypt.  When former President Mubarak finally got around to allowing more free expression, the Arab Spring had arrived.  With the genie out of the bottle, history’s course was not predictable.

“Free and fair” elections were held and the Islamic Brotherhood won narrowly.  The election was hardly over when the newly elected President, Mohamed Morsi declared he would exercise extraordinary powers until the Constitution was changed (in a way that provided these powers).  Included in the Constitutional changes were the entry of Sharia law and an implicit role of Islam in State affairs.

The Brotherhood pointed out repeatedly that they had won the election and that provided them the right to change the ways things were done.  Morsi championed democracy while he twisted it to create a Islamic fascist State.  Hmmm.

The Egyptian military are not “awareness robbed” individuals.  They know that only with sectarian governments where the military can predict the course of events will the military’s privileged lives be safe.  Look at Pakistan, Iran, and Egypt.

So back to President Obama.

His position does not differ that much from former President George W Bush.  “We are not interested in an elections results, we are interested in the process used in an election”, or words to that effect, the President said.  Who could find fault with this endorsement of democracy?

The Bush and now Obama position simply does not reflect current reality.  If Egypt were experienced with open democracy, the rule of law, and commercially, the owners and leaders of major businesses achieved their positions through meritocracy, and the Egyptian concept of government could accept inclusiveness  (protections for minorities), one could argue Egypt was more than ready for democracy.  But we have just seen that Egypt is not ready.

Some will argue that returning to a strong man ruler will not prepare Egypt either.  On the other hand, President Morsi’s path would sink Egypt further and further into an Islamic and fascist State.  So what’s a President suppose to do?

The issue President Obama should be focused upon is the greater Middle East and a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  This is the key to creating a Middle East playground where the more dysfunctional States (Syria, Iran, Iraq) can mature.

Saying this differently, the problem is not Egypt, it is the greater Middle East.  This Muslin region is divided by ethnicity and religious secularism.  The region can also boast of some of the lowest educational levels and huge income inequality.  The answer for Egypt is the answer which is best for the region.

The President must hold his nose and support the Generals.

Troubled Times

It’s August.  This is the time for summer’s last flings.  Time for picnics and the beach.  And it’s so pleasant in Washington with Congress on break.  But, as the news reports indicate, all is not good around the world.  In fact in some spots life is down right miserable.

From Pakistan to Tunisia (including Sudan, Somalia, and other middle African countries) life is down right tenuous.  Why there and not here?

In these lands there is much killing.  Guns are plentiful.  Explosives, however, are used to boost the numbers. Bombs are so effective since others can be caught by surprise.  Suicide bombers are the method of choice.  Apparently there is a limitless number of eager volunteers.  You might say these life enders are just dying to make a point.  But what point?

Suicide is not unique to the Islamic world.  The US actually records higher numbers of suicides each year than any country in the Islamic world.  What seems to be the difference is that Americans (and Westerners in general) commit suicide for personal reasons.  They choose to end their own lives and do not choose to disturb anyone around them.  Only in the Islamic world do we find people who willingly self destruct at the behest of someone else.  And unlike many Buddhists who self immolate in recognition of some cause, these Islamic suiciders seems sure that taking as many other lives as possible is a worthy idea and will bring them accolades when they enter paradise.  Hmmm.

So what advice should the US be giving countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?  Should the US be sharing Thomas Paine’s writings?  How about explaining the US Constitution and how it is constructed?  Or, possibly the “Western Cannon” might find fertile ground.

Hmmm.

I feel comfortable that Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain (who visited Egypt yesterday) thought that (1)after first helping Senator Graham’s upcoming Senate election campaign that (2) they could explain how the US would resolve a situation like the current Egyptian military take over.  Hmmm.

It is just striking that those who backed (and still back) the Iraq invasion and occupation are firmly convinced that Egypt will be different.

My guess is that they are correct, but just not now.  Maybe in 50 or 100 years.  Until Arabs clearly confine their chosen religion to their private lives and restrict the exercise of its ideology amongst themselves and do not interfere with others, communications will be limited to who holds the biggest stick.

Disclaimer.  Not all Muslims would choose to be a suicide bomber.  Not all Imams would teach or ask their followers to act this way.  And, for sure there is a thin line between some military actions where soldiers are sent into action where death is almost certain.

 

Old News

Syria is no longer front page news.  The killings and woundings continue.  They just don’t seem so newsworthy anymore.

The forces loyal to Bashar al Assad seem to be gradually regaining much of the land lost to the insurgents.  Syrian killing Syrian, Shiite killing Sunni (and vice versa), and a country decaying before the our eyes is no longer  qualify as new information.  With no end game in sight, this war’s 15 minutes of fame has come and gone.

And besides, there is Egypt.  The rich Egyptian fabric of social confusion offers much new to write about.  Like many third world countries, the discrete but powerful military is a cut of society all to itself.  The brass may speak of civil order, but behind those words is the unmistakeable intention to remain in power and in control of their way of living… (regardless of what some clerics say Allah wishes).

In Egypt, there are secularists and Islamists.  Some see modernity as the curse and others see the Koran as positive if balanced with western dress and technology.  The poor, like the poor everywhere, want bread and a place to live.  The young want jobs and then they will worry about Islam (isn’t it, Allah helps those who help themselves?).

Many Egyptians distrust the US and envy the paternalistic approach US foreign policy has taken.  On the other hand, those who hold the strings of power realize that US aide is essential to keep Egypt from blowing up in civil war.  The US quietly supports the Egyptian military and the military hold the reigns of power (new type of democracy?).

The intrigue of establishing an interim Egyptian government and the squashing of the inevitable street demonstrations will fill front pages and evening news reports for weeks to come.  Lost in this attention will be the gradual Assad consolidation of power.  The justice or lack there of concerning the continued rule of Assad will be lost.  Many Americans have thought it just sounded so right to want the insurgents to over throw a minority government.  Hmmm.

My guess is that when President Obama goes to sleep at night, his pragmatic mind dreams of Egypt finding some stable compromise between the Muslim Brotherhood and an Islamic but religiously impotent government.  More of what Mubarak brought but this time without Mubarak.

Instead of counting sheep, President Obama thinks of Syria settling down with Assad at the helm.  This outcome is not ideal since there will continue to be Iranian influence (fueling Hezbollah for mischief in Lebanon and Israel) but the Sunni religious extremists who populated much of the insurgents don’t portend a great future either.  The President dreams that Iraq is too complex to even worry about, but an insurgent victory in Syria almost certainly would foretell of new Sunni versus Shiite trouble in Iraq.

What a mess the Middle East seems to be.  If there was anything in modern experience which is reminiscent of “pandora’s box”, the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq certain makes my list.  Oh, for the good old days.

 

A Mixed Bag

Senator Lindsay Graham is standing today in what he thinks is sunshine.  The Senate is holding hearings on the Benghazi Consular tragedy.  Lindsay of the “let’s get into Iraq” fame is taking time out from his campaign recommending the US get involved in Syria also to rag on the Obama Administration’s handling of State Department personnel’s safety in lawless Libya.  What a busy man.

Graham who is running for reelection in 2014, is reasonably consistent… sometimes  His motto involves a strong military and “leading from the front”.  Other times, when things go wrong, Graham is all over the Administration’s implementation carefully avoiding any discussion of what go the US into the situation in the first place. Like Iraq, Benghazi is a brilliant example.

President Obama limited US involvement in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafy, no troops on the ground or planes in the air.  In the aftermath, Libya became a largely lawless land.  Without stationing troops on Libyan soil, the US was limited in what protection it could provide any US citizens including State Department officials.

In hind sight it is difficult to say with certainty that the US could have done anything to prevent Benghazi.  There are a lot of suggestions but there is no concrete certainty.

Graham and others are accusing the White House of a “cover up”.  Hmmm.

A cover up’s motive is hard to figure.  The GOP has claimed the White House deliberately mislead Americans so that President Obama could be reelected.  Hmmm.  (That is not what exit polls indicated).

Never the less it is difficult to explain why Ambassador Susan Rice claimed (from White House talking points) that Benghazi was a “spontaneous demonstration gone wrong”.  Anyone watching news reports knew this was bogus.  When it was revealed the talking points were changed prior to Rice’s comments, there was little credibility to be found in the claim that Rice’s comments were watered down for “security” reasons.

Fast forward to today.   The most obvious reason for continuing to study Benghazi is Hillary Clinton.

The GOP would like to tar her with responsibility and convince Americans that she would be not tough enough to be the next President.  Hmmm.

I just wonder why the GOP thinks that they can condemn Clinton because of deaths in Benghazi while at the same time suggest President Obama should be more assertive in Syria?  Does the GOP not see that the path to Syrian intervention also includes risk to both American military and Diplomats?

I keep forgetting that logic is not necessary in being a member of Congress.

The Syrian Mess

Syria is engulfed in a civil war.  In a New York Times Opinion column yesterday, Bill Keller gave 5 reasons why the US should intervene.

Keller was careful to distinguish Syria from Iraq but his arguments were hardly convincing.  To be sure if there was a path for the US to raise its finger, point, and magically the Syrian turmoil would vanish, then there might be a case to be made.  It just is not that way.

Keller premises his column on the humanitarian disaster underway.  He reasons that doing nothing amounts to the same or probably greater danger to Syrian citizens when compared to arming the insurgents.   Hmmm.

Keller stretches his point even further.  He believes the US can interfere without troops on the ground.  In other words, the US can have its cake and eat it too.  Hmmm.

Keller correctly differentiates Syria from Iraq.  He points out that the US invaded and occupied Iraq, and then a civil war broke out.  In Syria, the civil war is already in progress.  Hmmm.  Some difference.

Writing from the “progressive side”, Keller’s argument serves to underscore black swan.  It is what we don’t know that will most likely hurt us.  If aiding the Syrian insurgents would lead to a democratic, western friendly country that would act responsibly in the region, then it is most reasonable for the US to act.  The elephant in the room is that there is no way to know for sure what type of government would emerge.  There is, however, every reason to believe any future Syria insurgent government would be Islamist driven and friendly to Iran.

There is no indications to date that the US encouraged Israel to strike at Syria targets this past week.  If the Israeli targets were in fact Iranian made missiles en route to Hezbollah, this action can be understood in simple child psychology terms.  Punish the behavior, not the person.

What behavior has either the Syrian government or the Syrian insurgents done to hurt America’s interests?

 

Jeb’s The Most Qualified Of All Of Them…

Barbara Bush, wife and mother of former Presidents George H W Bush and George W Bush, when asked about the potential Presidential run by her son, Jeb Bush, intoned that Jeb was the most qualified of the Bush family.  The timing was ironic since it coincided with the opening of former President George W Bush’s library.  Her words have a ring of truth.

“W” has walked a very discreet path since leaving office.  He has wisely stayed out of the political discourse.  His absence has allowed the dust of history to settle a bit.  But the library opening makes it unavoidable to revisit the 2000-2008 period.

Hubris is too small a word to describe the Bush first term crowd.  Abject failure marks the rest.

Lead by Dick Cheney (not Bush), and backed by the wide neoconservative and military-industrial factions, the Bush Administration made one bad decision after another.  Walking away from the Kyoto protocol, canceling the ABM treating, deemphasizing government by selecting ineffectual agency heads, and then losing interest in Afghanistan (forgetting about finding Osama ben Laden), and invading and occupying Iraq, got the Bush team off to a dubious start.

The chickens came home to roost when Iraq disintegrated into civil war, Afghanistan lapsed into an un-winnable mess, Hurrican Katrina demonstrated the need for government services (and the problems when they do not work), enhanced interrogation showed America to have abandoned their principles in favor of torture, and the low interest in regulatory oversight blossomed into the Financial Sector melt down and the closest reunion with depression since the 1920’s.

The Bush library lays out some of these events in hopes future generations may see them differently.  Philosophically, I am not sure what else “W” could have done.  There is, however, much to be learned from the George W Bush Presidency.

• We need people who want to be President and are willing to work at it.
• We need people who will lead and not be lead by a small element of his/her staff.
• We need government services (including regulatory agencies) to work as designed.
• We need policies that reflect our national priorities, not those of special interest groups.

Even though each of the last several Presidents has received sharp criticism from the loyal opposition, the “on the ground” results of Bush policies when compared to that of those of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (to date), point out what the Country does not want.

Admittedly, this is not necessarily an endorsement for Clinton or Obama’s policies but in comparison they look giant.

Boston’s Turn

Yesterday was Boston’s turn to feel the hurt of cowardly actions.  For reasons we do not know, and by persons unknown, there are three dead, victims of a “do it yourself” bomber.  We must be patient until law enforcement officials crack the case.  Only then will we learn the who, the how, and the why.

The perpetrator(s) might of had some reason, some statement, some revenge they wished to achieve.  Those responsible could have been supporters of a well know cause, or they may have been just someone who felt they had been wronged.  Or, like the Aurora, Colorado mass killing, the Boston tragedy may have just come from the hands of someone who had lost their mind.  In time we may know this.

Revenge and getting even will have to wait.  While there is comfort in believing this crime will not go unpunished, who to punish and how to punish cannot be selected now. That process will have to wait.

Pictures and news reports showed a grand side of Boston.  While smoke still billowed, dozens of first responders ran into the bomb zone to aid and rescue those injured.  Where someone was willing to take other’s lives, others were willing to risk theirs freely in order to mitigate the extent of the tragedy.

So, maybe the killer was someone who strongly believed something.  Maybe this person was overcome with the strength and righteousness of their belief.  Maybe their view was so strong they could not help but kill others.  Maybe.

In situations like this, I cannot help but think about Hindus and Buddhists who wished to protest the most egregious oppression.  Self immolation is a sad and dreadful way to end ones life.  Never-the-less, self immolation is about a single person’s statement.  It does not take life of another.

Yesterday wasn’t just Boston’s day.  In Iraq, over 50 car bombs exploded taking countless lives.  I am sure that when the facts behind the Boston tragedy are known, just as in Iraq, innocent victims will have died for no purpose.  Self immolation looks better all the time.

Heart Of Darkness

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the US military will sign an agreement with Niger.  The agreement could be the first steps into another decade of overseas military involvement.  How deep an involvement and at what costs (human and monetary) is unknown.

This is the type of announcement that often goes unnoticed.  It’s only a small country and for the most part there is no shooting there.  Further we are reading about the French intervention in Mali and their early success in turning the tide of war against the radical Muslim insurgents.  The tendency is to let this announcement pass.  Let’s wait and see.

One cannot know the future, and it is often extremely difficult to make sense of the past.  Entering into military agreements in the heart of Africa, however, is no small deal.  The lessons of Afghanistan (protracted war and no possible victory in sight) and the even more unimaginable invasion and occupation of Iraq (regional destabilization and the freeing of insane religious hatred) should make us cautious on where our military treads.

Three questions.  (1) How does military intervention in Africa serve our national interests?  (2) What are our goals and how will we know they have been achieved?  (3)  What costs will we accept and how will they be paid for?   And, how will the US exit Africa if the costs become too high or our national interests are no longer served by presence in Africa?

If these questions seem frivolous, substitute Iraq or Afghanistan in place of Africa.

A New Dress

Tonight is the occasion of the first 2012 Presidential debate.  It is also a time when the media can regenerate interest in a contest the media has already declared decided.  This is important.  In the weeks ahead, the media (mainly TV and newspapers) can reap millions from direct and indirect advertising.  And today, ahead of the debate, the media is working hard.  The question is whether the media can put a new dress on the old candidate?

First, it is important that Mitt Romney be portrayed as close in the race, and only needing a slight bump from the debate to nudge into the lead.  Next, it is important to skip over any reasons why swing voters have already decided (according to polls) to vote against Romney (or for Obama).  It is better to infer that voters still do not know the real Mitt Romney.  Lastly, it serves the media well to remind voters how many Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 are disappointed in his performance.

These three messages sets the stage for declaring Romney, at the least, a slight winner in tonight’s debate.

The harsh reality are that Romney is close, that many voters who were enthusiastic about candidate Obama are disappointed, and for Romney’s sake, it is best to keep quiet about the basis of President Obama’s post convention surge.

Left out of the considerations seems to be the last GOP Administration’s record and what happened when the policies Mitt Romney is now endorsing were actually tried.

From 2001 to 2008 America lead with conservative domestic and foreign policy, and tried to “shaped” world events.  Results, (1) two wars, with terrible losses to both Americans and those of the countries we invaded.  And worse, nothing to show for it today.  (2) Doubling of the national debt when taxes were reduced and no offsetting spending cuts were implemented.  (3) Less regulatory action gave carte blanch to the financial industry to gorge themselves on other people’s money.  After ruinous bets, the entire global financial system nearly collapsed.  And for many, (4) the shame of enhanced interrogation encouraged by neoconservatives brought the US international reputation to a new low.

While these are all relevant, it seems swing voters are really voting their personal interests.  Let GM die?  Restart the economy by putting money into rich people’s pockets first?  Take my Social Security and Medicare without describing a much greater plan of shared American sacrifice?

Elections are inexact events.  To Romney or Obama supporters, the facts favoring their candidate are clear.  To the undecided, “TV presences”, just how presidential the candidates look, can sway the voter.  And, until the election booths close, there is a chance that world events can stampede voters.

The hype for tonight is sadly about keeping the Super Pacs engaged and the advertising dollars flowing.  Without stunning reversals of already established positions, it is hard to see why poll numbers will change.

But that’s why we have horse races.

Bump In The Road

The new buzz phrase being tossed around these days are President Obama’s words describing the recent disturbances, largely in the Muslim world and especially in the Middle East, as “a bump in the road”.  “The US should be shaping events, not responding to them”, is the conservative line.  So do they have some success examples?

I remember how the US shaped events with its invasion of Iraq.  To the chorus of rabid neocon supporters, the US watched as its pre-emptive invasion disintegrated into a civil insurrection.  And Iraqi civil unrest was not the only consequence.  The already existing Afghanistan war went into “sleep mode”.  The Taliban did not possess the capability to beat US forces but they certainly made it clear that there would be no military solution. So is this what shaping the future looks like?

Not too long after the Iraq invasion, the US spoke directly to Egypt’s Murarak Regime.  “You need to open your elections to more democratic processes”, the US said.  In a very short time, it became clear that democratic elections would lead to regime change, and with this change, the elimination of a government friendly to the US and at peace with Israel.  The white flag flew over the Bush Middle East foreign policy.

The “bump in the road” is probably an understatement.  Rather, recent events are more typical of a road full of potholes.  The job, however, of fixing pot holes is a local responsibility.  Some countries will fix these holes one way, others a different way, and some will just leave the holes where they are.

The path a third world country takes to reach the status of a modern, free and open one is never direct.  When one considers the enormous challenges poverty, lack of education, and  religion plays, it is naïve for anyone to think they can shape events.

What can be done, however, is to chart a path which reflects America’s best interests, and one that can stand the test of time.  Modernity is undeniable and these third world countries will be forced to join the modern world.  Forced, not by others, but by their own citizens.

It is time to keep our powder dry.