The crisis in Egypt has exposed the divisions that separate
neoconservatives from other hawkish conservatives (I’m not exactly
sure which label to put on this latter group). People often
confuse these two groups as one in the same, because they both are
generally supportive of aggressive military action, skeptical of
international institutions that undermine U.S. interests, strong
defenders of Israel, often advocates of regime change, and so
forth. But this other group is much more skeptical of democracy
promotion.
A perfect way to demonstrate this divide is to look at John
Bolton, who has often been misidentified as a neoconservative
because he supported many of the same policies, but he has always
eschewed this label – in Iraq, for instance, he’s said we should
have toppled Saddam and then pulled out once we captured him. He
was not on board with the nation building part. Not surprisingly,
when it comes to Egypt, as many neoconservatives are cheerleading
the protesters,
Bolton has said:
I don’t think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are
necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, “one person,
one vote, one time.” The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t care about
democracy, if they get into power you’re not going to have free and
fair elections either….
Let’s be clear what the stakes are for the United States. We
have an authoritarian regime in power that has been our ally. We
don’t know at this point what the real alternatives are.
He also said that
the U.S. “better advised to remain silent” on Egypt.
I find myself more in agreement with Bolton on this one. Sure,
it would be great if somehow a new, Western-style democratic
government emerged that was friendly to the United States, but
that’s only one of many possible outcomes stemming from the current
chaos, and probably the least likely. Other possible outcomes are
that the Muslim Brotherhood gains power as Hamas did in Gaza, or,
at least attains more influence than it had under Hosni Mubarak. No
matter what happens, there’s a good chance that the resulting
government will be less friendly to the U.S. And the very minimum
we can say is that we don’t really know how this will all turn out,
and whether it would be good or bad for the U.S. is very much in
doubt.
I differ from neoconservatives in two important respects – I’m
not going to cheer the protests for the sake of cheering any groups
that rise up against a despot without knowing what the result will
be, and I don’t think that there’s much – if anything – America can
or should do at this point to ensure a more favorable outcome. It
was mind-boggling this week when I asked Sen. John McCain about the
prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood being included in the
government, and he said to me, “I think the United States should
take every step to make sure there is a free and fair and open and
transparent election, and that won’t happen.” So, not only is
America going to ensure free and fair elections, but if we do so,
the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood is going to suddenly
disappear.
The neoconservative view is that U.S. support for tyrants in the
Middle East has fueled resentment of America among the people, and
that by encouraging democracy – even with force if necessary – we
can reverse this trend, and have friendly, free governments in the
region. It’s nice to believe that this could be the case, and I
understand the temptation – I was taken in by the idea after the
invasion of Iraq. But I think it’s too oversimplified.
Right now, many are saying that the chaos in Egypt shows that we
can’t support autocrats, because in the end, they aren’t a source
of stability. It may be true that Mubarak is no longer a source of
stability, but for 30 years, he’s led the most important Arab
nation (which controls the oil-transporting Suez Canal) and has
kept its government about as friendly to the United States as can
be hoped for in that region, he’s helped us in the war against
terrorism, provided a check on Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and
has maintained the peace treaty with Israel (the two countries were
at war in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973). Now, certainly, his record
on human rights is atrocious, so I’m not going to defend him on
that front or root for him to brutally crack down on peaceful
protesters. But at the same time, I’m not going to cheer for the
protesters just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy especially
when the result of the protests could quite conceivably be a
government that’s still autocratic, but also anti-American. And one
that helps support terrorism rather than fight it.
With Iran, I was actively cheering on the protesters, because
that regime is already autocratic, anti-American, and Islamist and
it sponsors terrorism – it’s hard to imagine how things could
possibly get worse. But with regards to Egypt, there’s not much to
do right now other than sit back and hope for the best.
