Letter 2 America for August 27, 2013

Dear America,

The Egyptian general who led the military when it ousted Mohammed Morsi is named Abdel Fattah el-SiSi.  His biography is much like that of any other military man, and as a dedicated member of the military of his country, he rose through the ranks after a military education that included a stint at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, which educates military people for leadership rolls.  In an interview on the subject of the general, his advisor at the college spoke of a paper el-SiSi wrote that was "not for publication," an option that was available to the writer apparently as it was el-SiSi who so specified.  But the advisor was asked about el-SiSi's nature as it relates to his current position of leadership in the Egyptian army and in consequence of that leadership, his role in the formation of a new Egyptian government.  The advisor's sole comment was on that paper, in which el-SiSi pointed out that in Egypt, a wholly secular government was an impossibility, which sounded like a revelation to the advisor...that religion was seminal in the governance of Egypt, if not all Arab states.  Of course that begs the question of how much useful preparation el-SiSi could have gotten in this country since the concept of religious inspiration in any form other than the opening prayer of a legislative session is foreign to us, but for better or worse, he took that course here as well as others in Egypt's equivalent institutions.  He may have taught his mentors here more than he learned from them, but it is beginning to look like his mentors never spread the message.

The political buzz on Egypt focuses on our military aid and whether we should suspend it during the tenure of a military-backed regime.  Senator John McCain seems to be the shrillest voice advocating such a course in accord with an American statute that prohibits aid to military governments who rule as a consequence of coups.  Of course, the debate on the subject includes a fair amount of semiotic caviling on the subject of whether what happened in Egypt was a coups, and I suppose that should be the starting point of the decision making process, unless you want to consider the events in terms of their potential portents and decide what to do on that basis, which is the path I would choose if anyone asked me.  Because, while el-SiSi is certainly a military man, he is not a potential junta leader if his history...including that paper I mentioned...is any indicator.  He is a pragmatist who recognizes that there will be a significant amount of fundamentalism in any government that can succeed in Egypt...perhaps even to the point of being seminal in the promulgation of the next national constitution and the related statutes.  Thus, if el-SiSi remains in effective control, what will emerge from this political tumult will be a government that straddles the fine line between theocracy and democracy, and that is the best we can hope for.  So why antagonize him by threatening him, and doing so to no effect since the other Arab states are willing to make up for whatever we deny him, and have said so publicly.  And what if they don't make up the difference?  If one of the potential consequences is that the military will fail to restore order in Egypt because of lack of resources we will be at least partially culpable, and we risk getting our just deserts in such a case as the country that emerges could be a seriously fundamentalist enemy not just for Israel, but for us too...maybe another foe like Qadaffi's Libya, which sponsored terror attacks against western powers, including the U.S.  Someone should ask McCain if that is a risk he wants to take, because that is really the salient question that our foreign policy should be based on in this case.  Usually you hear a lot about protecting American interests, and it isn't an endearing aspect of American foreign policy when it leads to interventions, sanctions and support of proxies who share our interests.  But in this case, it is the only prudent course, and in the bargain, American silence on the subject of Egypt would probably be welcomed by the rest of the world.

Can we, as a nation, keep our national mouth shut, or will we once again insist on inserting our collective foot in it in full view of an already critical world.  A billion and a half is chump change in this scenario, and withholding it is all we will do if we do anything at all, so why do it.  Besides, no one will come to accept the notion that the United States doesn't take sides in the domestic affairs of other nations just because we do withhold the money, but if we give it as we always have, even when Mubarek was in the kind of despotic control that withholding the money is supposed to demonstrate an aversion to, we will be doing nothing outside the status quo.  In other words, we can't gain anything by holding the money back, so again, why do it.  As these popular movements and governmental reactions proliferate in a region that was volatile to begin with, it is important for the United States to chose a policy philosophy that will serve us more or less universally, and the right way to go seems to be that chosen in Libya when there is something akin to consensus among regional powers, but it is something less apparent when only internal affairs are involved and there is no activist movement among the nations of the region.  In those cases, we can take no action to best effect, and that means in the case of Egypt doing what we have always done there: giving their military the aid they need to be the bulwark against fundamentalism in the Middle East, more or less in concert with our only other reliable ally, Israel.  With Syria appearing to be an uprising in which consensus has evolved, we can take concerted action with impunity because we will not be alone and hope that the outcome works in our favor without running the risk of appearing to be imperialists.  The corollary is what should be our Egyptian policy: the boat was rocking and someone stepped in to stop it.  That is an effort that we might not be well served to actively support, but it is one that can only serve our interests and that we cannot be vilified for not taking a role in.  We should just pretend that nothing is happening in Egypt and contend with Syria where we have colleague states, so to speak, and an oppressor who is universally recognized as such.

Your friend,

Mike