You're so vain, you probably think these protests are about you

Posted By Blake Hounshell Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 1:28 PM Share

As the unrest in Egypt continues, and Washington wonks are beginning to weigh in, I'm starting to see a familiar pattern: The discussion is shifting from what's happening on the ground -- which is still in flux -- to what the United States should or shouldn't do about it.

The Washington Post weighed in last night with a rather predictable criticism of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's first statement on the protests, and now Politico is channeling some of the complaints by outside observers who say that the administration should be speaking out more aggressively in support of the demonstrators.

My colleague Marc Lynch has already weighed in on this topic this morning, but here are my two cents: It's not about us. Indeed, what's been refreshing about the events in Tunisia and Egypt has been that very little of it has anything to do with the United States. For the most part, the demonstrators aren't chanting anti-American slogans; they're calling on their own corrupt, sclerotic rulers to stand aside. And that's a very healthy phenomenon.

Instead of having Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama say some magic democracy words, I'd much rather see the United States think hard about its system of support for these autocrats. Can the U.S. credibly call for freedom in Egypt when it's subsidizing the Egyptian military to the tune of a billion and a half dollars a year? Is Egypt really so helpful when it comes to the "peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians? Can we live with the Muslim Brotherhood in power, or closer to it? If the answer to these questions is the same as it's been for the last few decades, it's probably best to keep our big mouths shut.

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, EGYPT
 

TOMGARA

1:49 PM ET

January 26, 2011

Saying nothing is an option, but...

Thinking hard about its system of support for these autocrats may be a good idea. Keeping your big mouth shut may be a good idea. But not thinking hard, not keeping your mouth shut, and opening your mouth to say the Egyptian government is stable and trying hard to meet the needs of its people is surely the worst option, and pointing that out doesn't seem unreasonable, or vain.

And I don't have my finger on the pulse of Arab publics like Marc Lynch does, but is there any respectable theory that claims a statement supporting the rights of Egyptians to protest their government and calling on the government to respect that right is a BAD idea?

 

PECHORIN

8:31 PM ET

January 26, 2011

Yes, a bad idea.

It's a monumentally bad idea, precisely because we've done so much, for so long, to support the Mubarak government.

If we sit back to see what happens, we'll be able to transition to a post-Mubarak government as a credible diplomatic actor, explaining that we backed Mubarak without ever being very happy about it because those were the prevailing conditions of the time. Egyptians can understand that; it's not as though average people in the country haven't made their own unhappy bargains with the regime on the basis that it would be foolish to do anything else. As long as these populaces understand the United States for what it is, a highly constrained actor with some praiseworthy values that must inevitably take a back seat to day to day business, then we've got a firm foundation for effective negotiation or even friendship with any new government that would emerge.

But if we start talking about our support for democratic change, or even criticizing the Egyptian government we do so much to support, then we look hypocritical and people will get angry very fast. Ie. If Hillary (or Bush) cared so damn much about democratic change in Egypt why did they keep writing the checks? That's something that can't be resolved so long as the U.S. keeps propagating this self-defeating fantasy that we have substantial influence in domestic Arab politics.

Basically, we want to manage people's perceptions so they don't view the U.S. as being mainly or partly responsible for their predicament. The more we talk about what we want to do, or see happen, the more people think we've got the ability to do those things and their non-realization is a result of American dishonesty.

 

CLAY FORSBERG

2:00 PM ET

January 26, 2011

Well said Blake. Jumping into

Well said Blake. Jumping into the fray ... one way or the other, is hypocritical. We are a country that stands for democracy, yet we support a dictator. Also, we are not living in time when foreign involvement is automatic. Communication and transparency is ubiquitous. There's no "pulling the wool over everyone's eyes" anymore.

What about "letting the chips fall where they may" and working with the winner. Not only is involvement costly, it may well be immaterial. After all, wasn't it our influence, directly or indirectly, that seeded the rebellion in the first place.

If we truly believe in what we preach and how we act, then a new democratic regime may be better than what currently exists.

 

USAMA2

5:44 AM ET

January 27, 2011

America had cordial relations

America had cordial relations with the Ottoman sultanate until WWI. For anyone who thinks America can't stand "Islamists".

Then again, it is said that once you get a thirst for killing people and oppressing them, it's hard to let it go.

 

MELHOSHY

6:45 AM ET

January 27, 2011

What Hilary Clinton SHOULD have said...

Instead of continuing complicity in repressing a people through equating both sides, it WOULD have been nice to hear Clinton say: “We urge Arab regimes to exercise restraint & refrain from violence in support of the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people”

Instead of: "We support the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people & urge all parties to exercise restraint & refrain from violence"

 

ALWE7DA

7:47 AM ET

January 27, 2011

You "can live" with whoever

You "can live" with whoever we damn well vote into power once we've removed the corrupt puppet governments that the US supports both financially and militarily.

If we vote the Muslim Brotherhood in, then that is our prerogative, and you will damn well accept that.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More