President Barack Obama’s Friday evening statement on the
situation in Egypt reminds us of George Orwell’s comment that
sloppy writing leads to dangerous political thinking.
“Good evening,” said the president (ritually, if, under
the circumstances, inaccurately). “As the situation continues to
unfold, our first concern is preventing injury or loss of life.”
Our first concern?
Egypt has been our most important ally in the
Arab-speaking world. The United States gives $1.3 billion in
military aid to Egypt annually, and has given $28 billion
in economic aid since 1975. We’ve done that for a reason. The
Middle East is a metaphorical salad of dominoes waiting to fall and
a powder keg waiting to blow. Islamist extremists plot, and live to
plot, the end of the Great Satan and its consequence, chaos. Egypt
has been a realpolitik force in opposition to that
plotting.
But according to the president, our first concern
is preventing injury (sprained ankles?) and loss of life. Maybe
that’s just a sop to the vegans and animal rights folks (the 2012
election looms). But a president facing the prospects of Armageddon
starting, and in the nature of Armageddon, ending, on his watch
might nudge other concerns into first place.
The president called on the Egyptian authorities “to
refrain from any violence against peaceful protesters.” The mind
reels. What could the president have meant? Had he not seen the
coverage of the riots in Cairo? How do you have a peaceful riot?
How do you have a peaceful riot in the Middle East? These folks are
not the Women’s Christian Temperance Union — and come to think of
it, there was nothing peaceful about the WCTU or its most famous
member, hatchet-wielding Carrie Nation.
“At the same time,” continued the president, “those
protesting in the streets have the responsibility to express
themselves peacefully. Violence and destruction will not lead to
the reforms that they seek.” A few minutes later, the president
said, “Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian
people.” The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, had sounded
the theme earlier in the day: “There’s no situation that — this is
certainly not a situation that will be solved by
violence.”
Where to begin? Either the protesters will succeed,
however success is defined, and therefore will have succeeded by
resorting to violence. Or the Mubarak regime will survive, however
that is defined, because its violence was more violent than the
violence of the protesters.
Whether the situation is “solved” depends on where you’re
throwing your bombs from. Whoever wins this struggle will have
succeeded through the use of more or better targeted
violence.
“Now ultimately,” said the president, “the future of Egypt
will be determined by the Egyptian people.” What did he mean by
that? “Should be determined by the Egyptian people?”
Maybe. But “will be”? It hasn’t been for decades — if ever.
Ultimately, as Keynes remarked, we’re all dead. And for a lot of
Egyptians this week, “ultimately” may come rather sooner than they
had expected.
What should the president have said? There were two
options. One is: nothing. Never underestimate the advisability of
saying nothing. The United States has few good options in this
situation. Keeping quiet may preserve whatever our best option
is.
The second option would have been to teach — but the
president is not good at teaching, as he demonstrated in his State
of the Union speech. And teach whom? He could have outlined, for
the American people, the dilemma: realpolitik vs. idealism.
Kissinger vs. Bush. Perhaps Kissinger vs. Bush for Dummies. But how
likely is it that that lecture would help the United States win the
hearts and minds of whoever wins the tanks and guns in
Egypt?
Besides, the president may not have thought through that
dilemma (after all, his State Department took the wrong side in
Honduras!), so he’s coasting on liberal shibboleths.
Violence is bad. Violence is counterproductive. Floss after every
meal. But that is dangerous thinking, which, pace George
Orwell, can proceed to, as well as from, sloppy writing.
To think that violence is always bad is not to know, as
American soldiers know, along with the millions of people in far
off lands that their bravery has liberated down through the years,
that violence can be the handmaiden of freedom.
Freedom for the Egyptians, however, is still years away,
as it is for millions of their pitiful fellow Arabs, whatever is
midwifed by the current violence. And however great the interest of
the Egyptian people is in their own freedom and human rights, it is
eclipsed, even if they don’t realize it, by the national security
interest of the United States.
