The Egyptian Crisis Continues to Unfold

As events unfolded in the Middle East from late January to early February 2011, it quickly became apparent how little U.S. political leaders knew about history. One could change the name, "Egypt" in current news stories and replace it with Iran (circa 1979) and the story line probably wouldn't be much different.

There's a regime in power in Iran (the Shah) that wasn't quite democratic enough. Because we believe in democracy, we believe that everyone should embrace it and we push for reforms. Those reforms undermine the leader we have supported for years and one who provided political stability within a larger geographic region. Suddenly the democratic movement wins out and a friendly power is toppled. Within months, more powerful forces that have a strong anti-democratic bent ascend to power. They eliminate the democratic reforms and install a much more rigid and autocratic regime than was ousted. Political leaders in Washington scratch their heads, incredulous that democracy didn't work out as planned.

A decade or so later, we work to topple another "bad guy," but one who kept the growing Iranian power in check. Shortly after eliminating that power in Iraq, which was pro-West, even if not democratic, we had to go back into that country to try and remove a rebellious force that was definitely not democratic.

As a result, Iran grew stronger, while we became bogged down in insurgent battling among disparate religious groups in neighboring Iran. Instead of being forceful when it came to nuclear ambitions, we opted for appeasement. The result was not much different than what transpired in Europe leading to World War II.

Things are not much different in Pakistan and Afghanistan where we again point fingers at our allies because they aren't "as perfect as we are."

Yet, when democratic forces rose up against an autocratic regime in Iran, following "free elections" in 2009, we did little to support their efforts and freedom was crushed. Was the Chinese student uprising in 1989 any different? Not really. We watched hopelessly as the student protest was quickly suppressed.

And now we have Egypt, which even with its autocracy and poverty, is among the most progressive states in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, Egypt is clearly set to follow in the footsteps of Iran. One can see all the markings. Unemployed or underemployed young men rioting in the streets; democratic idealists pushing for political reform, but without a viable majority to make the reform work; and a global news media espousing the virtues of the protestors. That means that once Mubarak was ousted (and it was obvious that he would be), power will eventually have to be shared among political forces with very different agendas. The pacifists, while morally right, will be no match for those determined to rule with an iron fist. Already the Muslim Brotherhood is in the fray and will soon be exerting far more influence than Washington imagines.

If I had to make a prediction (and I am not a political expert), I would say that by the end of 2011 a much more Islamic nation will replace the Egypt we know today. That nation will soon eliminate the rights of women, much as has happened in Iran. The democratic principles that the undercover militant protesters espouse will be replaced by state speak. Israel will have little choice but to take further unilateral action to defend itself as Washington places yet another sacrificial lamb on the altar. After all, Washington will want to befriend the new Egypt to be "on the right side of history."

Pandering to what is politically expedient, appeasing belligerent nations, and turning on friends and allies (even if they aren't perfect) only empowers those determined to overthrow democracy. Not recognizing that individual countries are not isolated entities is equally folly. The world is really inter-connected, and even more so with Facebook and Google at the ready.

And telling another world leader, "it is time to change what you do," or "it is time to step down" is something that U.S. presidents, regardless of political party affiliation, easily support. Yet, what would they say or do if China, for example, told them to "step down." They'd quickly dismiss the request by noting that other countries should, "stay out of our business." It is clearly another "do as I say, not as I do" scenario.

I wrote to my local newspaper, the Naples Daily News, in late October 2008 urging voters to be careful what they wished for when it came to ousting sort-of Republican George Bush and replacing him with an alleged pacifist and extreme leftist. The known beast was better than the unknown, in my humble opinion.

Until Washington learns from history, I'm afraid we will be doomed to repeat it, over and over again...until it is too late to recover from our errors. I only hope that some in positions of power quickly recognize this disastrous approach to dealing with other nations. Our history, and the history of the world, depends on it.

© 2011 H. Michael Mogil