What Should the U.S. Root for in Egypt?

Hosni Mubarak is a dictator, despite whatever a clueless vice president says.  But while he may be an S.O.B, he’s our S.O.B., and it could be that the interests of the U.S. diverge from the interests of the Egyptian people.  Certainly if Mubarak gets replaced by a Sunni version of Iran’s Islamic theocracy, that would be A Bad Thing.

But how likely is that?  The chart above, from Nate Silver via Andrew Sullivan, is encouraging.

Egyptian popular opinion toward the United States has substantially improved over the course of the past 2 to 3 years, to the point that a new leader would probably not gain any points by expressing anti-American sentiment.The BBC World Service conducts an annual survey in 28 countries, in which it asks participants how they feel about each of the others. The BBC has interviewed Egyptians as part of its survey since 2007.

Egyptian sentiment toward the United States has improved dramatically since the survey began. In 2007, just 11 percent of Egyptians said they viewed the United States as having a “mostly positive” influence, versus 59 percent who said it had a “mostly negative” influence. The numbers were even worse the next year: 16 percent positive, but 73 percent negative.

The election of President Obama created a major change in opinion, however. In 2009, positive opinions about the United States rose to 40 percent against 48 percent negative. And last year — the first survey conducted after Mr. Obama’s well-received June 2009 speech in Cairo — positive opinions became the plurality, at 45 percent, against 29 percent negative views, figures comparable to those for survey participants in the United Kingdom and France.

Whether Obama’s Cairo speech was “well-received” depends on who is doing the receiving, but it seems clear that the replacement of Bush with Obama has had a strong positive effect for American popularity in Egypt.  And while other conservatives have found fault with Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis, I don’t see much to criticize.  This is not  the good-versus-evil riots in Iran in 2009, when it took Obama five embarrassing days to unambiguously side with the protesters over a regime that has been at war with us since 1979.  Not only is Mubarak a long-standing U.S. ally, he’s not nearly as oppressive as the mad mullahs in Tehran. It makes perfect sense for the U.S. to adopt a neutral stance regarding Egypt.

While the Egyptians may favor Obama over Bush, Bush will deserve some credit for any positive outcome in Egypt.  Max Boot:

But whatever happens, one thing is already clear: as Pete Wehner has already noted, President Bush was right in pushing his “freedom agenda” for the Middle East.

When he pushed for democratic change in the region, legions of know-it-all skeptics — including Barack Obama — scoffed. What business was it of America to comment on, much less try to change, other countries’ internal affairs? Why meddle with reliable allies? Wasn’t it the height of neocon folly to imagine a more democratic future for places like Iraq or Egypt?

Turns out that Bush knew a thing or two. He may not have been all that sophisticated by some standards, but like Ronald Reagan, he grasped basic truths that eluded the intellectuals. Reagan, recall, earned endless scorn for suggesting that the “evil empire” might soon be consigned to the “ash heap of history.” But he understood that basic human desires for freedom could not be repressed forever. Bush understood precisely the same thing, and like Reagan he also realized that the U.S. had to get on the right side of history by championing freedom rather than by cutting disreputable deals with dictators.

Hm… Comparing Bush with Reagan… where have I heard that before?

2 thoughts on “What Should the U.S. Root for in Egypt?

  1. Strongly disagree. Reagan’s words didn’t mean anything except to zealots and bad historians. Reagan didn’t invade Lebanon over the Beirut bombing. Didn’t invade Saudi over the Khobar Towers bombing. So that was the true direction of Reagan’s policy: restraint and non-interference. And Reagan’s words had no effect on Russia either. It was the elevation of Gorbachev, taking his actions almost immediately, not based on any words, and trying to take his actions back, obviously not influenced by any words.

    And I didn’t see the Tunisians or Egyptians asking for an American invasion, so far from anyone’s realm of thought that the Iraqi invasion couldn’t possibly have been a positive influence. The best reason I’ve heard so far is the courage and unity from social networking.

    I think there is some more cooperation from the military in both cases too. I think that the military are surfing, gaining more social responsibility, and seeing the possibilities of a more open society, and they are showing restraint. As opposed to China.

    There are other cases too: the economic growth of the Arab Emirates and Libya from having lawful societies…

  2. Of course, the United States and other powers have sought to use these local rebellions for their own purposes. Revolutions are not made in a vacuum. But excluding these foreign powers in considering the history of revolutions in the 20th century won’t help anyone understand the Egyptian situation. Why? Because foreign powers will make every attempt to see that the Egyptian situation resolves itself in a way that affirms their perceived interests. So, unless you’re willing to predict that no foreign power will covertly or overtly intervene in Egypt, you point in this matter is self-serving. But, naturally, examples exist undermine your assertion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>