The Naivety of the Exporting “Democracy”

They say history is the record of the victor. If that is the case, then the story of the rise and fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should become a textbook example of how NOT to promote “Democracy” and/or U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast.

The Obama administration’s rational behind pulling the rug from under long-time Egyptian ally Hosni Mubarak and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood – an organization with solid terrorist credentials was the mistaken belief that there was a material difference between the paramilitary terrorist arm of the MB and the political arm of the MB - disregarding that the only difference between the MB and the Nazi party was the symbol of a crescent instead of a swastika. The “Obama theory” was that if the MB could be “co-opted” by participating in a democratic voting process (one man, one vote) that there was a good possibility that “political Islam” would be forced to moderate it’s total world view and in a domino effect, would usher in a wave of moderation across the middle east.

The Obama “Democracy Doctrine” hit opposition from almost every U.S. ally in the region immediately. Israel, of course, had a peaceful border under PM Hosni Mubarak solidified by a treaty that was effectively enforced for over 40 years. The U.S. pressure to oust Mubarak took them by surprise and immediately raised the threat level on their southern front. Being a dutiful U.S. ally - and also with awareness that they could not/should not have any affect on internal Egyptian politics, they had to lay low and let events outside their border play out over time. In usual fashion, the Israelis prepared strategies to react to different political and military possibilities.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait on the other hand had a much different reaction to this “embrace” of political Islam. To them this was clearly a Trojan horse for the MB to organize politically and eventually force them out of power and reduce the influence of Sunni Muslims to a subservient role across the Middle East in their grandiose ambitions of Iran to be the torchbearer of Islam across the world. They immediately lobbied Washington to reverse course, but to no avail. They considered Obama an inexperienced meddler in their world and immediately started making plans which would be executed at the right time and place – hoping on events to organically take place that would give wind to their plans.

It is in this scenario that the MB took office. One of Egyptian President Morsi’s first acts was to dismiss the leadership of the Military. His second act was to re-write the constitution in such a way as to vizierate the opposition and install ultra-conservative Muslim religious laws into civil law. His arresting of opposition leaders, restriction on alcohol and turning a blind eye towards the killings and abuse of the Christian minority were also “not so democratic” and angered the “Egyptian street”. This brings to question why President Obama never protested these abuses of power. Is one man, one vote all there is to democracy? Obama’s lack of interest in the “quality” of Egyptian “democracy” delegitimized his “Nobel Prize” claim to the moral high ground when preaching human rights and pro-democracy efforts around the world. It is no surprise that there was an overwhelming organic movement to oust Morsi. If the same set of circumstances happened here in America against Democrats or Republicans, I would not be surprised to see millions marching in Washington - and our saving grace being our mature liberal democracy which has impeachment embedded and respected within our constitution.

The Gulf States of the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia saw the massive demonstrations in Cairo, saw an opening which could be exploited to their advantage, and for the first time in the 65 year history of the Middle East, these countries executed their own regional military/political strategy against the wishes of their protector – the USA. These countries would have never considered this outcome IF THEY BELIEVED that the USA really had their back. The announcement that the USA was relegating the Mideast into a second tier area of US military/political concern also signaled a lack of commitment and created a vacuum. Either the Gulf state would fill the vacuum or someone else would do it for them.

Obama’s embrace of the MB was a strategic mistake and the reverberations of damage is best exemplified in the $13 billion commitment by the Gulf states to Egypt just for the month of July. The internal U.S. debate over whether to continue the $1.5 billion in assistance is a moot issue now. Egypt is spinning away from our influence along with the other Gulf States.

Meanwhile, President Obama has Secretary of State Kerry shuttling back and forth on another “make believe” foreign policy blunder that fortunately will only spin wheels and not pose a risk. There is virtually zero chance of a peaceful 2 state solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis – and both sides know it. The Palestinians don’t have any leadership that can deliver on their side of any agreement, and the USA and the UN have no credibility in making safety guarantees after the UN abandoned their Sinai and Golan Heights posts.

The best example of democracy in the Middle East is Turkey and the recent riots and brutal way the PM Endogen pacified Giza Park was not exactly conducive to a “liberal democracy”.  It’s time that Obama makes a distinction between a “liberal democracy” where minorities have rights and a “democracy”. After all, Hitler and his socialist party were voted into power too. Would Obama not consider their record  of human rights abuses  BEFORE they executed their “final solution” an abomination of a true democracy? I would hope not.