Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood calls for 'day of rage'

[branford]

20. I beg to differ. As I see it, there are two primary issues:

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

What is in the best interest of the Egyptian people and what is best for America and the wider region.

Despite what Bush '43 might have you believe, a democratic election does not equal democratic institutions, protection of human rights, nor the guarantee of a subsequent free and fair election. The Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected, but that is not where the analysis necessarily ends. The MB unilaterally began to alter the Egyptian constitution and oppress the opposition. In addition to failing to address Egypt's immediate economic concerns, they appear to have been setting themselves up for an unchallenged, indefinite rule. At the risk of raising the specter of Goodwin's Law, the Germans democratically elected Hitler, and that certainly wasn't in the interest of Germans or anyone else. The military intervention was certainly not sudden or unexpected. Most importantly, a very large number of Egyptians, likely a solid majority, support the military. What we are currently witnessing is not a simple coup, but likely the beginnings of a civil war.

I would also like to note that my heart does not bleed for the MB. They aren't Quakers peacefully fighting to end discrimination or for women's suffrage. The MB has a very long and infamous history of using violence, intimidation and terrorism to achieve their goals. For instance, I cannot conceive of any possible connection between burning down over 50 Coptic churches with opposing military rule, other than intimidation and religious intolerance. I would be very careful romanticizing the MB during these troubles.

The other issue is simple realpolitik - what is good for the USA and the region. We have a long, relatively productive working relationship with the Egyptian military. The army has also historically been committed to peace and stability in the region, maintaining the treaty with Israel and ensuring secular rights for the Egyptian people. The MB is the exact opposite. I'm perfectly aware that the military are hardly democratic humanitarians, but they are a far more stabilizing force in the middle-east and serve the economic and politcal interests of our country and its allies. Of course, that does not mean we need not oppose a violent crackdown. We can seek to moderate the military and still support them over the MB, particularly if the army is supported by a majority of Egyptians.

Quite frankly, as the MB and the military are both intolerant, violent and undemocratic, I wish a pox on both their houses. Nevertheless, the military is unquestionably the party to back in Egypt, while we try to somewhat mitigate their excesses.