Why People Dislike Islam - Egyptian Edition

I've posted before regarding the contrived term of Islamophobia, which is used in an attempt to smear critics of Islam. Dislike of Islam is quite rational. There are a never-ending series of examples why. Most of them involve the actions of Muslims, who give the entire religion and its adherents a bad name. The latest comes from Egypt, where radical Muslim mobs have been attacking Christians, and enforcing their version of proper Islamic behavior on fellow Muslims.

Ultraconservative Islamists, known as Salafis, have taken to streets and mosques with fiery rhetoric. Stores selling alcohol have been attacked and a man accused of befriending prostitutes had an ear cut off by radicals. Muslim crowds stopped trains and protested in April against the appointment of a Christian governor in the southern region of Qena. ... Gunfire erupted. Coptic homes and shops were attacked and gasoline bombs hurled. A group of Muslim men reportedly broke off later and headed toward the Virgin Mary Church. They burned it and clashed with parishioners for hours.

This sort of vicious intolerance makes Islam look bad -- and such actions are hardly restricted to Egypt. You can find plenty of examples of other religious groups acting badly, but if you add them all together, the incidents won't come close to the sheer number from Muslims. This, not an imaginary "Islamophobia," is the primary reason why Islam has a bad reputation and some look upon Muslims with suspicion or outright dislike.

Fall of Middle Eastern Dictators Equals Victory for Al Qaeda?

That's the argument of former CIA man Michael Scheuer, who dismisses Western cheerleading and happy talk about the Middle Eastern revolutions as "self-defeating applause from the Facebook-obsessed, Twitter-addled West." He points out that along with the destroying Israel,

Since bin Laden declared war against the United States in 1996, al-Qaeda's main goals have included the destruction of the Arab world's tyrannies

The falls of these dictators, particularly in Egypt "amounts to an enormous strategic step forward for al-Qaeda," that comes with "virtually no investment of manpower or money by the terrorist network." As I've pointed out myself, the idea that these tyrannies are going to be replaced by liberal democracies is based primarily on wishful thinking.

the role of Islamist groups will become larger - and over time perhaps dominant - if only because the populations in play are almost entirely Muslim and because Islamist groups have the most effective nationwide infrastructures to replace the old guard. ... it will be easier for media-savvy Islamist groups - whether peaceful or militant - to proselytize, publish and foment without immediate threat of arrest and incarceration. ...

Scheuer also notes that large numbers of militant Islamists have now been released from prison.

In Egypt alone, the news media are reporting that at least 17,000 prisoners have been freed. Many of those released are not thieves and murderers, but Islamist firebrands that the regimes had jailed to protect their internal security ... al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are now being replenished by a steady flow of pious, veteran mujaheddin, each of whom will never forget that U.S. and other Western funds helped keep them jailed by Arab tyrants.

Scheuer's argument is much more convincing and grounded in reality than the naivete and wishful thinking that prevails across most of the political spectrum in the West. I largely agree with him particularly in the case of Egypt. He is correct that these tyrants were doing much of our dirty work for us, killing and imprisoning radical Islamists while keeing a lid tamped down on broad-based popular Islamism. Where his argument is weakest, in my opinion, is that he generalizes across multiple countries. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia are not the same, and sharply different conditions prevail. Ultimately though, his analysis is just another prediction that we will have to wait on events to confirm or falsify. Hopefully he's wrong. But I fear he will be more accurate than not.

Hoping for the Best in Egypt

Now that Mubarak is out, it will probably take awhile to determine the ultimate outcome from the perspective of U.S. policy and our relationship with Egypt. At the moment the military is in charge. It has extensive ties with the U.S. As long as the generals hold the reigns, barring some sort of unforeseen radical shift, there shouldn't be any major changes in our relationship with Egypt.

Will the Egyptian military make good on its promises, release its hold on power and allow truly free elections? Maybe. But it's also possible that it will retain significant control over the country, allowing only a facade of democratic rule -- more than Mubarak, but less than most desire. If true democracy does take hold, all bets are off. I don't believe there is much the U.S. can or should do to influence the process in Egypt. It is far from clear that a democratic Egypt is in the U.S. interest, given many of the attitudes present among the population, and that fact that we are already strongly associated with the decades of authoritarian rule.

I understand the celebrations in Egypt. If I had to live under the Mubarak regime I'd be happy it was gone also. But that doesn't mean his fall is a good thing for the U.S. Maybe the wishful thinking of Obama and even many on the right will be proven correct, and a friendly, free and democratic Egypt will take the place of Mubarak. I'll believe it when I see it. Right now all we can really do is wait and see, and hope for the best.

Supporting the Egyptian Protestors is Bad U.S. Policy

As the situation in Egypt continues to evolve, there have been repeated calls for the U.S. to stand forthrightly on the side of the protestors. This position finds support on both the left and right. For example, here is Elliot Abrams, who served in foreign policy positions for both the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations.

President Obama's words of support for both the demonstrators and the government late Friday, after speaking with Mubarak, were too little, too late. He said Mubarak had called for "a better democracy" in Egypt, but Obama's remarks did not clearly demand democracy or free elections there. We cannot deliver democracy to the Arab states, but we can make our principles and our policies clear. Now is the time to say that the peoples of the Middle East are not "beyond the reach of liberty" and that we will assist any peaceful effort to achieve it - and oppose and condemn efforts to suppress it.

Abrams also writes,

Such a statement would not elevate our ideals at the expense of our interests. It turns out, as those demonstrators are telling us, that supporting freedom is the best policy of all.

Unfortunately the first sentence isn't true, and the second is an assertion based on little evidence and much wishful thinking. Abrams, and others pushing for an anti-Mubarak stance ignore some important facts and possibilities.

1. All of the U.S. alliances and friendly relationships with Arab states are with non-democratic regimes -- with the exception of Iraq. We can't forthrightly support democracy without at least indirectly undermining our allies.

2. Loyalty and consistency matter in foreign relations. The Mubarak regime was good enough to ally with and supply with massive amounts of U.S. aid, but now suddenly democracy in Egypt is supposed to be our primary concern? What kind of message would we be sending to Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian allies if we suddenly turn on Mubarak? We only support you until the first time you have major popular protests. No doubt sending that message will do wonders for the strength of our relationships with Arab rulers.

3. Democracy in other countries can have negative consequences for the United States. Democracy isn't some sort of magical, unalloyed good that we should be pushing regardless of all other circumstances. Has greater democracy in Turkey been beneficial to U.S. - Turkish ties? When the population of a country is largely hostile in attitudes toward the U.S., as is Egypt, it makes little sense for America to be promoting democracy in that area.

4. The U.S. will get no credit from the protestors even if we come out strongly against Mubarak. The people of Egypt aren't suddenly going to forget how the U.S. propped up the Sadat and Mubarak regimes for decades, just because we withdrew our support at the last minute. Such a move will be seen as a transparent, cynical attempt to curry favor with whatever government replaces Mubarak.

5. U.S. withdrawal of support could lead to greater violence. If the U.S. pulls its support from Mubarak, it is possible that he might decide to crack down harder in a desperate attempt to retain power. He'll no longer have to worry about U.S. opinion if we turn on him, suspend his aid and ally with his enemies. We need to consider the unintended consequences of such a major shift in policy.

6. And finally, Mubarak could survive. It doesn't look good for him now, but it's possible he could weather the storm and retain power. We gain nothing by wrecking our relationship with him.

Sending the Wrong Message on Egypt

After initially remaining silent with regard to the Egyptian situation, the Obama administration decided to send exactly the wrong message. According to MSNBC, the administration will "review its $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt." In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly criticized the Mubarak regime.

"We are deeply concerned about the use of violence by Egyptian police and security forces against protesters, and we call on the Egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain the security forces," ... "We urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful protests and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communication," Clinton said. "These protests underscore that there are deep grievances within Egyptian society, and the Egyptian government needs to understand that violence will not make these grievances go away."

She called for the government to,

"engage immediately" with opposition groups and others to make broad economic, political and social changes.

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me to see this level of Carteresque stupidity and diplomatic incompetence from the Obama administration. The last thing we should be doing is trying to undermine an allied regime. We should be reassuring Mubarak of our support, and making nothing more than bland statements of regret for the violence and unrest. Telling Mubarak that he should "engage" with those who want to overthrow his regime is complete idiocy, as is dropping hints that we are going to cut-off support. We are pushing him to do the things that will loosen his grip and cause his government to collapse. It's almost as if the administration wants to see another hostile Islamic republic in the Middle East. They obviously don't, but their foolish statements and attempts to triangulate make the downfall of Mubarak more likely.

Egypt and the Difference Between Personal Feelings and American Interests

In my opinion one of the main things that leads people into unrealistic and counterproductive foreign policy positions is the tendency to view issues through the lens of personal feelings, as opposed to a more detached view focused on American interests. The current situation in Egypt serves as a prime example. I'm sure a majority of Americans look at the protests/riots in Egypt and sympathize with the protesters. We enjoy our rights and freedom in this country, and as Americans we naturally feel that it would be nice if Egyptians didn't have to live under a repressive authoritarian regime. Why shouldn't they be able to choose their own leaders, instead of having a president for life supported by the military and a nasty police state apparatus?

Such an attitude is perfectly fine for ordinary Americans. But if policy makers allow these types of personal feelings to cloud their judgment, it can influence policy in a way that isn't conducive to advancing U.S. interests. As I've argued many times on this blog, the primary focus of U.S. leaders should be to protect and advance American interests. We don't elect people to look out for the interests of Egyptians. And the unfortunate reality of the Egyptian situation is this: the collapse of the Mubarak regime, or greater Egyptian democracy does not appear to be in the U.S. interest. Regardless of our natural sympathy for the Egyptian people, the fact remains that Mubarak is an ally of the U.S. in whom we have invested a great deal. If he could be replaced by a friendly Egyptian democracy, that would be great. But it is far more likely that a new political system would include strong Islamist elements, and be much less cooperative with the U.S. We need only to look toward the results of greater democracy and less military influence in Turkey, let alone what happened with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. The last thing we need right now is a large, important Middle Eastern country turning from ally to neutral or even hostile.

Spreading a False Religion

I just saw a news story that caught my attention. It's only a snippet so the actual situation is unclear. An Australian citizen, Safaa Al Awadi, took part in some sort of religious debate on television. Whatever happened caused him to be arrested by Egyptian authorities, who accused him of being a terrorist and "spreading a false religion."

This is pure speculation, but I wonder if he was advocating violence/terrorism in the name of Islam, and that's what the "false religion" charge is all about. If so, he'll probably be sorry that he attracted the attention of the Egyptian state.