- The Egyptian Army will do what the people want and move towards democracy. They will do this because they will know that this is the way for them to retain the most status in Egyptian society, and they have demonstrated a keen sense of status preservation in the last few weeks.
- Democracy will bring a bunch of splintered, weak liberals into government. It will also bring the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB might well win a plurality, but not a majority. They will likely take the Turkish road, and it will not be a short road.
- The Army will not be keen to see a war with Israel - not least of which because it would mean the end of American military cooperation and aid, from which the Army derives a good bit of its status. Of course, some hotheads might consider war with Israel the path to greater status - but when their American military attaches let them know all their American made equipment will get the stuxnet treatment if the event of war (I mean, c'mon Egypt, you _know_ the Israelis wrote a bunch of the avionics code in your F16s... right?), they might well be dissuaded.
- As long as the Army respects their "victory", and moves things along in the direction of "democracy", the people of Egypt will return to their regularly scheduled programming of bread, circus and delusional paranoia - but no war.
What could possibly go wrong?
Many things, obviously - but if there is a danger, it is more likely long term than short term.
The struggle now will be between the MB and the Army - but it will be a slow grind, because the Army has seen this script play out in Turkey and they might want to avoid that fate. And the MB will be reluctant to take on the Army because of the respect and status the Egyptians have for the Army. And the MB is nothing if not patient.
But then, so are the Israelis.
We fast paced Occidentals have a word for patient peoples staring each other down decade after decade. We call it "peace". We're wrong, of course, it's just a slow paced cold war. But then glass is a liquid.
If the Army splinters, and the course of events on the ground requires the US to withdraw aid and cooperation from the Egyptian military, then all bets are off, of course. Ditto if this revolution thingie cascades into KSA and the Gulf, and Jordan - but I seriously doubt it will.
I'll just re-post my likely delirious comments from over on "Anne's Opinions" blog.
Let's just say I am hoping for a positive denouement to the Egyptian revolution which certainly appears to mimic Gustav Freytag's "dramatic arc" analysis of classic drama. Link
Can US politicians from the Oval Office, and sundry agencies (virtually all of which had not clue one this was coming) to the Capitol dome and Congressional blabbermouths ... can they just shut up and wait a bit before more oral drivel?
We (the USA) are in grave danger of proving we are in fact the national incarnation that girl in high school who had the "round heels."
This is beautiful Fay, thank you for posting it. Lewy14, I think you're pretty accurate re the real situation on the ground (as opposed to all the media's wishful thinking). And Aridog, thanks for your comments, both here and at my place. :)
Thanks to all the other commenters from here too. You are spicing up my commentariat very nicely. X)
Personally I think the situation is to complex and the evolution too early to do either.
But Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 were predicated on a single powerful idea: that the "status quo" we had been preserving to date had failed utterly and the risks of a major shakeup we less than the risks of keeping things the same.
I don't think that was an unreasonable idea at the time, and I think it's still too early to know how it will play out in the end.
I think the problem with Bush's vision, or at least how it played out in the end, was that democracy was conflated with elections. I don't know how much thought or effort was put into first creating a just society with personal freedom, tolerance of religious and other minorities, no corruption, etc. Elections should have come at the END of all of that process. Instead they became the be-all and end-all, which turned out to be one man, one vote, one time.
Even if the elections were more regular than that, because society itself wasn't reformed, the only people up for election were corrupt old dictators or Islamist extremists. The moderate opposition were still being imprisoned and persecuted, just like under the old regime.
So in the end Bush's idea was sound but the execution wasn't. I don't know whose fault that was, but that is the view from the ground.
annie, I think you're referring to the PA/Hamas debacle - yeah, that didn't work out so well as a success case for "free and fair elections". Agreed.
There are plenty of cases where corrupt and bloody dictatorships - operating for decades and supported by the US - have evolved (slowly and sometimes fitfully) into societies governed by consent and enjoying a rising prosperity:
Taiwan. South Korea. Chile. The Philippines. Heck, throw in Indonesia for a large Muslim country.
I'm not sure we've ever evolved a set of "best practices" to engineer the transition. In fact I don't think it can be done.
The thing is, that social reform in advance of elections is extremely difficult to do when attempted by a foreign power. This isn't just a question of competent execution, it's fundamentally paradoxical:
- the more effort you spend overtly, the more you are accused of "foreign meddling" and the more you end up undermining the people you are trying to support. Credibility and legitimacy are in inverse relation to your ties with meddling superpowers. It's pretty universal.
- if you do it covertly, well, nothing stays secret anymore, and it all just looks worse. Italians resent the influence over their elections post WWII. Think they're going to thank the CIA for kicking a few million in cash over to the Christian Democrats and keeping them out of the Soviet block? Think they spare a thought to how that would have worked out for them? Nope. It's just how people are. Throw in Wikileaks et al, and the likelihood for bad blowback is overwhelming.
- if you outsource the effort to private third parties, you get their agenda - one NGO that does a lot of work in the area of building civil society is Open Societies - funded by George Soros. Do you trust him? No, me neither.
Like I said, the PA/Hamas thing failed. Lebanon circa March 2005 was more hopeful, but Hezbollah, Syria and Iran weren't kept far enough away and now everything has rolled back, and worse. Iraq could have turned out better, but it could have turned out worse, too.
Ultimately my realpolitik sense is that what is required isn't a "just society with personal freedom" etc but a capacity for rational self interest on the part of ruling elites in these places. The elites are often splintered and feuding, but if they can be persuaded that keeping a lid of sh*t creates a much bigger pie than bloody struggle over crumbs, then the place has hope - which is my hope for Iraq. Same with Egypt. My current sense is that the institutions there are capable of rational self interest, even if they aren't exactly "enlightened".
Lebanon is a pure superpower / regional power turf struggle - as Martin Kramer has written, the US goal is to decouple the Gulf from the Levant. Iran's goal is to couple them. I don't get the sense that the Obama administration has any coherent strategy or even believes in having one, but I do get the sense there are people lower down who know the play and are delivering lines to the lead players in stage whispers from time to time. (God bless stuxnet! If I knew the developers, I'd buy them a latte. Of course, if I knew the developers, they'd have to kill me, but at least I would have gotten to buy them a latte.)
As for the Palestinians, I think Israeli society is evolving faster than Palestinian society. I think the next move is from the Israelis. What it will be I have no idea, and what it should be I have no opinion. If that changes I can be counted on to share. ;)
But there is one opinion I will share: once the people are in the streets in the kinds of numbers we saw in Egypt, there is nothing the US or anyone can do to prop up anyone (or topple anyone, in the case of Iran). Even putting your thumb on the scale, so to speak, to try to tip the balance, is dangerous - you never know how the scale is constructed, where the fulcrums are - and there are more than one - and they shift, quickly. So, obvious nonsensical idiots like Clapper aside, I don't begrudge Obama and his crew for being equivocal - the playbook in these situations is to race to the head of the parade and pretend to lead. Almost jumped the gun last Thursday. And now, if the Egyptian army doesn't completely blow it, nine out of ten of the people who marched last week will be back "asleep" in a week or two, resigned to whatever "new normal" there is...
Lewy, I agree with you (if I understood you correctly) that it's not "our" (the West's) job to create a just and civil society in these dictatorships. But we do need to find a way to somehow encourage the growth of such societies in these trouble-spots, if only in order to prevent blowback on ourselves.
Re the Palestinians, interestingly enough the West Bank Palestinians have indeed begun evolving some kind of civil government. there's still plenty of corruption and it's nowhere near perfect, but it does give me hope. It would seem that they have been influenced by their proximity to Israel. In a similar vein to the above, I don't think Israel should interfere directly, but our existence as is, with our developed civil society, is hopefully an inspiration to them.
Also Israel's easing of restrictions in return for a lessening of terrorism has raised the standard of living both security-wise and economically for the Palestinians, which gives them even more incentive.
Which of course ruins all the preconceptions of the anti-Israel crowd. ;)
Also Israel's easing of restrictions in return for a lessening of terrorism has raised the standard of living both security-wise and economically for the Palestinians, which gives them even more incentive.
I'm not disagreeing here, annie. But what influence do you think 'the wall' had on this development? I see it as forcing the Palestinians to more inwardly focus as they aren't bombarded (no pun intended) with the daily propaganda of assaults on Israel and concomitant blood lust. Therefore the citizens move away from that distraction and look at their daily lives in a more personal manner. Or something, can't quite find the words.
The people who represent all that is right and just in the world.
ReplyDeleteMatt x
ReplyDeleteMay Hashem continue to protect and bless Israel and all her people.
ReplyDeleteMy heart and prayers are with you all.
I'm not that worried, honestly.
ReplyDeleteI'll be brave and make a few predictions.
- The Egyptian Army will do what the people want and move towards democracy. They will do this because they will know that this is the way for them to retain the most status in Egyptian society, and they have demonstrated a keen sense of status preservation in the last few weeks.
- Democracy will bring a bunch of splintered, weak liberals into government. It will also bring the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB might well win a plurality, but not a majority. They will likely take the Turkish road, and it will not be a short road.
- The Army will not be keen to see a war with Israel - not least of which because it would mean the end of American military cooperation and aid, from which the Army derives a good bit of its status. Of course, some hotheads might consider war with Israel the path to greater status - but when their American military attaches let them know all their American made equipment will get the stuxnet treatment if the event of war (I mean, c'mon Egypt, you _know_ the Israelis wrote a bunch of the avionics code in your F16s... right?), they might well be dissuaded.
- As long as the Army respects their "victory", and moves things along in the direction of "democracy", the people of Egypt will return to their regularly scheduled programming of bread, circus and delusional paranoia - but no war.
What could possibly go wrong?
Many things, obviously - but if there is a danger, it is more likely long term than short term.
The struggle now will be between the MB and the Army - but it will be a slow grind, because the Army has seen this script play out in Turkey and they might want to avoid that fate. And the MB will be reluctant to take on the Army because of the respect and status the Egyptians have for the Army. And the MB is nothing if not patient.
But then, so are the Israelis.
We fast paced Occidentals have a word for patient peoples staring each other down decade after decade. We call it "peace". We're wrong, of course, it's just a slow paced cold war. But then glass is a liquid.
If the Army splinters, and the course of events on the ground requires the US to withdraw aid and cooperation from the Egyptian military, then all bets are off, of course. Ditto if this revolution thingie cascades into KSA and the Gulf, and Jordan - but I seriously doubt it will.
This is beautiful post Fay. I've been very worried for Israel. It's not just events in Egypt; much of the muslim world is in political turmoil.
ReplyDeleteLewy, you make some very good points, and I hope your analysis is right. Between Egypt and the Saudis, perhaps they can keep a lid on things.
I'll just re-post my likely delirious comments from over on "Anne's Opinions" blog.
ReplyDeleteLet's just say I am hoping for a positive denouement to the Egyptian revolution which certainly appears to mimic Gustav Freytag's "dramatic arc" analysis of classic drama. Link
imgw:"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freytags_pyramid.svg"
Whoops ...try this "image" ...
ReplyDeleteimgw:"http://mmckible.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/800px-freytags_pyramid.png"
Next question :-L
ReplyDeleteCan US politicians from the Oval Office, and sundry agencies (virtually all of which had not clue one this was coming) to the Capitol dome and Congressional blabbermouths ... can they just shut up and wait a bit before more oral drivel?
We (the USA) are in grave danger of proving we are in fact the national incarnation that girl in high school who had the "round heels."
This is beautiful Fay, thank you for posting it. Lewy14, I think you're pretty accurate re the real situation on the ground (as opposed to all the media's wishful thinking). And Aridog, thanks for your comments, both here and at my place. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks to all the other commenters from here too. You are spicing up my commentariat very nicely. X)
Oops. That was supposed to be a smiley at the end. I wrote it backwards. D'oh! :x ;))
ReplyDeleteEgypt: blame Bush.
ReplyDeleteOr credit him, as the case may be.
Personally I think the situation is to complex and the evolution too early to do either.
But Bush's actions in the wake of 9/11 were predicated on a single powerful idea: that the "status quo" we had been preserving to date had failed utterly and the risks of a major shakeup we less than the risks of keeping things the same.
I don't think that was an unreasonable idea at the time, and I think it's still too early to know how it will play out in the end.
I think the problem with Bush's vision, or at least how it played out in the end, was that democracy was conflated with elections. I don't know how much thought or effort was put into first creating a just society with personal freedom, tolerance of religious and other minorities, no corruption, etc. Elections should have come at the END of all of that process. Instead they became the be-all and end-all, which turned out to be one man, one vote, one time.
ReplyDeleteEven if the elections were more regular than that, because society itself wasn't reformed, the only people up for election were corrupt old dictators or Islamist extremists. The moderate opposition were still being imprisoned and persecuted, just like under the old regime.
So in the end Bush's idea was sound but the execution wasn't. I don't know whose fault that was, but that is the view from the ground.
annie, I think you're referring to the PA/Hamas debacle - yeah, that didn't work out so well as a success case for "free and fair elections". Agreed.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of cases where corrupt and bloody dictatorships - operating for decades and supported by the US - have evolved (slowly and sometimes fitfully) into societies governed by consent and enjoying a rising prosperity:
Taiwan. South Korea. Chile. The Philippines. Heck, throw in Indonesia for a large Muslim country.
I'm not sure we've ever evolved a set of "best practices" to engineer the transition. In fact I don't think it can be done.
The thing is, that social reform in advance of elections is extremely difficult to do when attempted by a foreign power. This isn't just a question of competent execution, it's fundamentally paradoxical:
- the more effort you spend overtly, the more you are accused of "foreign meddling" and the more you end up undermining the people you are trying to support. Credibility and legitimacy are in inverse relation to your ties with meddling superpowers. It's pretty universal.
- if you do it covertly, well, nothing stays secret anymore, and it all just looks worse. Italians resent the influence over their elections post WWII. Think they're going to thank the CIA for kicking a few million in cash over to the Christian Democrats and keeping them out of the Soviet block? Think they spare a thought to how that would have worked out for them? Nope. It's just how people are. Throw in Wikileaks et al, and the likelihood for bad blowback is overwhelming.
- if you outsource the effort to private third parties, you get their agenda - one NGO that does a lot of work in the area of building civil society is Open Societies - funded by George Soros. Do you trust him? No, me neither.
Like I said, the PA/Hamas thing failed. Lebanon circa March 2005 was more hopeful, but Hezbollah, Syria and Iran weren't kept far enough away and now everything has rolled back, and worse. Iraq could have turned out better, but it could have turned out worse, too.
(continued...)
Ultimately my realpolitik sense is that what is required isn't a "just society with personal freedom" etc but a capacity for rational self interest on the part of ruling elites in these places. The elites are often splintered and feuding, but if they can be persuaded that keeping a lid of sh*t creates a much bigger pie than bloody struggle over crumbs, then the place has hope - which is my hope for Iraq. Same with Egypt. My current sense is that the institutions there are capable of rational self interest, even if they aren't exactly "enlightened".
ReplyDeleteLebanon is a pure superpower / regional power turf struggle - as Martin Kramer has written, the US goal is to decouple the Gulf from the Levant. Iran's goal is to couple them. I don't get the sense that the Obama administration has any coherent strategy or even believes in having one, but I do get the sense there are people lower down who know the play and are delivering lines to the lead players in stage whispers from time to time. (God bless stuxnet! If I knew the developers, I'd buy them a latte. Of course, if I knew the developers, they'd have to kill me, but at least I would have gotten to buy them a latte.)
As for the Palestinians, I think Israeli society is evolving faster than Palestinian society. I think the next move is from the Israelis. What it will be I have no idea, and what it should be I have no opinion. If that changes I can be counted on to share. ;)
But there is one opinion I will share: once the people are in the streets in the kinds of numbers we saw in Egypt, there is nothing the US or anyone can do to prop up anyone (or topple anyone, in the case of Iran). Even putting your thumb on the scale, so to speak, to try to tip the balance, is dangerous - you never know how the scale is constructed, where the fulcrums are - and there are more than one - and they shift, quickly. So, obvious nonsensical idiots like Clapper aside, I don't begrudge Obama and his crew for being equivocal - the playbook in these situations is to race to the head of the parade and pretend to lead. Almost jumped the gun last Thursday. And now, if the Egyptian army doesn't completely blow it, nine out of ten of the people who marched last week will be back "asleep" in a week or two, resigned to whatever "new normal" there is...
Lewy, I agree with you (if I understood you correctly) that it's not "our" (the West's) job to create a just and civil society in these dictatorships. But we do need to find a way to somehow encourage the growth of such societies in these trouble-spots, if only in order to prevent blowback on ourselves.
ReplyDeleteRe the Palestinians, interestingly enough the West Bank Palestinians have indeed begun evolving some kind of civil government. there's still plenty of corruption and it's nowhere near perfect, but it does give me hope. It would seem that they have been influenced by their proximity to Israel. In a similar vein to the above, I don't think Israel should interfere directly, but our existence as is, with our developed civil society, is hopefully an inspiration to them.
Also Israel's easing of restrictions in return for a lessening of terrorism has raised the standard of living both security-wise and economically for the Palestinians, which gives them even more incentive.
Which of course ruins all the preconceptions of the anti-Israel crowd. ;)
Also Israel's easing of restrictions in return for a lessening of terrorism has raised the standard of living both security-wise and economically for the Palestinians, which gives them even more incentive.
ReplyDeleteI'm not disagreeing here, annie. But what influence do you think 'the wall' had on this development? I see it as forcing the Palestinians to more inwardly focus as they aren't bombarded (no pun intended) with the daily propaganda of assaults on Israel and concomitant blood lust. Therefore the citizens move away from that distraction and look at their daily lives in a more personal manner. Or something, can't quite find the words.