What do you say to a guy who states that he is the
well-informed pundit who knows everything about a given subject? He'll tell you
what he knows and expects to be paid handsomely. You say okay, go ahead and
tell me what you know. And he says the following:
You should see those Egyptians; they have a mind of their
own. They are a stubborn people, and when they want something, they go in the
streets by the millions and demand that they be heard and be accommodated.
Nobody can tell them what to do, and all the foreigners that tried to intervene
in their internal affairs were rebuffed instantly … in no uncertain terms.
So you want to know what sort of relationship the people of Egypt has with
their military. And he tells you they love their military. When they cannot get
the government to budge on fulfilling their demands, they call on the military
to intervene and force the government to accede to those demands or be
replaced. In fact, this is what happened five years ago in Egypt and what
continues to reverberate to this day.
So now you feel you must ask these questions: What about the
role that America
may have played during those five years? And what role should it play in the
future, if any? Oh, how sad you're asking these questions, he cries out. And he
explains that America
was unable to do a thing because there were no good options to choose from. The
fact is that there were only two options, each being as bad as the other.
So that's it, you say … end of story. Oh no, he says, you
need to know that Obama's handling of this episode was really bad. Oh yeah! Why
is that? you ask. Because Obama sat idly by and did nothing for a long time, he
says. But you said there was nothing that could be done, you remind him. He does
not respond. Instead, he acknowledges that the Egyptian military was admirable
except in one instance when it tried to scare the people … but that's not too
serious, he admits.
Now you want to know who might have said these things. He is
Eric Trager who wrote an article that came under the title: “Five years after
Mubarak's fall, lessons for Washington ”
and the subtitle: “It is now perfectly clear how the Obama administration
failed.” It was published on February 11, 2016 in the New York Daily News.
He begins the article by acknowledging that the protesters
were in the streets for 18 days before the military entered the fray. He then
advances the argument that – on the other hand – President Obama should have
instantly decided to back the revolutionaries. And he says why: “By allowing
events 6,000 miles away to outpace its decision-making, the Obama
administration placed itself in a lose-lose situation.” Already, this does not
make sense to you, but you encounter what's even worse.
It is that the author goes on to say: “which is why everyone
– the military, revolutionaries, Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarakists, and regional
allies – now regard U.S.
policy during this period as a failure.” Really? All these people are mad at
Obama because he did not jump to his feet the moment that he heard of a
revolution in Egypt ,
and sided with the revolutionaries?
Alas, you find nothing in the article that would explain
that last piece of nonsense. But you find plenty that shows how confused the
so-called well-informed pundits are about Egypt . Here is an example that
contradicts every point Trager has been trying to make:
“Washington
could either project itself as a supporter of democracy, or signal its
commitment to stability. By the time that Obama spoke, there was no good answer
to this dilemma. While the administration is often criticized for damaging its
relationship with regional allies by rhetorically embracing Egypt 's
uprising, it would have similarly hurt its reputation by supporting an Egyptian
president who was already destined to fall.”
This means that while the author is describing a situation
in which any sort of intervention would have led to bad consequences, he still
maintains that Obama was wrong in not intervening instantly. Horrendous logic.