IMHO, from everything I’ve heard, there’s a good chance that even with a new government in Egypt, the Camp David Accords will hold. I really hope so. But it will probably take some delicate diplomacy and mediation by the White House and I have to say that I am not terrifically impressed with their response so far. It hasn’t been bad (except for Joe Biden saying he wouldn’t call Mubarak a dictator, a very weird moment), just sort of tepid.
No one benefits from a return to war footing, and hopefully a new Egyptian government would see that. Right now, it’s hard to say who would lead that government (the Muslim Brotherhood is not a shoo-in at all) so speculating, while fun, is ultimately kind of pointless at the moment.
And the idea that al-Qaeda or the Taliban will come in is laughable. Especially the Taliban - girlfriend, do you even know where the Taliban is? Hint: Afghanistan and Pakistan aren’t anywhere near Egypt.
I’m sure. I have known people from or with ties to each country, and I’m certainly not unsympathetic to the concerns. I was really responding to Tom’s pious rebuke of even sven, suggesting that ending American backing of a dictatorship was tantamount to throwing lives away. It’s not. The Camp David Accords were all to the good, and I’m glad President Carter was able to help make them happen. But responsibility for Egypt’s governance must rest with the Egyptian people. Responsibility for Egyptian-Israeli relations must rest with the legitimate representatives of the two peoples. The benefits of my country’s involvement are long past.
I think it will take leadership from Israelis and Egyptians (after the Egyptians have sorted things out in their own country). Obama could prove to be modestly helpful as a facilitator at some point, but no American involvement is necessary, and the best outcome doesn’t involve us at all.
Well, I figured that leadership from the Israelis and Egyptians went without saying.
I know some people will disagree with me on a moral standpoint here, but from a pragmatic viewpoint, the US government will absolutely want to take a leadership position in this situation. Middle East peace has been a major American foreign policy issue for decades and to simply back out and not try to act as a broker would be bad for our position as a power in the region. IMHO, the US has generally not done a particularly job at this, but it’s unrealistic to think that Obama is going to sit this one out. It would make him look weak in the foreign policy arena from a domestic standpoint. Can you imagine what they’d say about him on Fox News if he takes a back seat on this one?
I’d be impressed if we were solving the problems. But if the only thing keeping that peace going is an aging anachronistic dictator, then really all we’ve done is shift the problem to another generation.
I agree that the whole “US just pulls out of the Middle East” is a fantasy, but I think we should see some of the writing on the wall here. What we have going now is not going to last forever. We can’t continue to pretend like our Cold War arrangements still make sense. It’s ending.
There are lessons we can learn from Africa’s first round of decolonization- if we hold on to power until the last possible second, and do not build up local institutions in preparation for the transfer of power, all that is going to do is make the transition a lot uglier. There are things we can do now that can prepare countries for true independence. We need to get over our fear of communism…oh, excuse me…Islam, and start making a plan for when we are no longer in charge.
The argument that achieving certain foreign policy goals can require a deal with the devil is subject to critique in many ways, but I certainly don’t think “pious” is the right description.
You may have meant to call me “pompous,” which on rereading is a fair criticism. My apologies to even sven for my tone.
Just going from what I have seen on CNN and other newscasts, it seems that the masses are not particularly pro nor anti Western (American)…more of an internal uprising against a leader who has lost touch with the common folk.
The best case scenario would be to have Mubarak hightail it out of Egypt, let there be some free elections and go from there. I believe that is the wish of the vast majority of those out on the streets as well.
I always thought it would be interesting to have whomever is in charge in the US at the time of one of these protests demanding the US get out to agree, and also announce that any funding will also end, complete with an actual accounting of exactly how much funding would also be leaving at the same time.
Though right now, I would be fully in agreement with Obama coming on TV broadcast from a general meeting of the UN reading a lovely prepared speech along the lines of 'Well obviously the world believes that it can make do without any input from the US, so as of <insert date> any American presence other than a base located there by treaty or an embassy will be removed. We will also be canceling any funding, loans, grants or any other form of financial or material aid. This will allow us to fund many needed infrastructure projects that have needed funding that was not until now available."
The rest of the world would be seriously inconvenienced when they discover how much funding or material aid would be removed, no more bribes, no more resources that could be diverted from famine or disaster areas … no more projects to have money or supplies skimmed from. Perhaps even seize any funds or materials still on US soil …