The pharaoh strikes back

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Thursday, February 3, 2011 - 3:55 PM Share

The last day or two demonstrates that Mubarak has no intention of going down without a fight. At the same time, Egypt's Prime Minister has expressed regret for the loss of life and is pledging an orderly transition. Where does this leave us?

First of all, the events in the past day or two confirm a point I've made before: revolutionary upheavals are very hard to predict and the final outcome often isn't determined for weeks or months or even years.  I was obviously wrong about the potential for contagion from the original Tunisian catalyst, but not about the fact that authoritarian governments are often able to ride out these storms. I'm not saying that Mubarak will (and as I said a couple of days ago, I think the regime is fatally compromised even if he does hang on), but the past day or two reminds us that the regime is not without resources. To repeat myself further, the danger is that the onset of a significant violence will create a situation where extremists on both sides feel empowered, resulting in far more extensive damage to Egypt's social order.

From a U.S. perspective, I'm with FP colleague Marc Lynch.  If Obama goes wobbly at this point, he'll look even weaker than many people in the Middle East already assume he is.  Given that Mubarak is beginning to do exactly what Obama asked him not to do, now's the time to distance ourselves even further. Obama should announce an immediate suspension of military aid to Egypt, while ordering the Pentagon to send a quiet message to Egyptian military commanders that aid will resume as soon as Mubarak steps down. We are playing the long game here, and need to take clear steps to ensure that we are not seen as complicit in dictatorial repression. Here I'm standing by my earlier remarks about the likely strategic consequences

From the perspective of the Egyptian leadership-and especially the new Vice President, Omar Suleiman, how do things look? Nobody is sharing any secrets with me, but I can still speculate.   I caught part of an interview that Suleiman gave on Al Jazeera English (which has been indispensable throughout this crisis), and I thought he was doing his best to sound reasonable and to hold out the prospect of substantial reform but in an orderly manner. The problem, as I noted yesterday, is that neither Mubarak nor Suleiman (a long-time Mubarak associate who runs the intelligence services) has much (any?) credibility as a reformer. If Suleiman really wants to lead an orderly transition via constitutional reforms and September elections, therefore, the smartest thing he could do is to get Mubarak to leave power now, take credit for having done so, and then to govern openly and explicitly as a caretaker. That's just about the only way that Suleiman could gain a bit of credibility and legitimacy, and it might just make it possible to conduct a reform effort that could command broad acceptance.

One last point. In today's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne says that Obama's handling of this crisis will ultimately be judged by whether we get an anti-American/anti-Israel outcome or not.  In his words, "Obama will be judged by results. If the Egyptian uprising eventually leads to an undemocratic regime hostile to the United States and Israel, the president will pay the price." I think he's right as a matter of practical politics, but this view also reflects the widespread assumption that the United States government has the capacity to determine the outcome of unruly political processes of the sort we are now witnessing in Egypt. This is silly: Nobody is in control of events there, nobody knows how it will turn out, and it's quite possible that we'll get either a good outcome or a bad outcome no matter what the United States government does. That doesn't mean the USG shouldn't try to shape events to the extent that we can, but we should not forget that our capacity to mold them is inherently limited.  

I'm all for holding leaders accountable, especially when they do foolish things entirely on their own initiative (like invading Iraq). But we would do a better job of judging our leaders' performance if we acknowleged that presidents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, EGYPT, HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, MEDIA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

JOHNBRAGG

9:38 PM ET

February 3, 2011

Even a Boltonite like me...

...was a little taken aback by Mubarak's open, public disrespect of Obama. Presidential and American credibility is at stake here. Action--an aid cutoff, a public demand by Obama that Mubarak step down--is required.

That said, signs are that the regime isn't interested in a transition. Suleiman has an interest in sounding moderate now, when the protestors hold the square. But once that pressure is relieved, what reason will Suleiman and the police see to change the election rules? Ayman Nour's old cell will serve just as well for ElBaradei.

Max Boot is fond of saying "The Shah always falls." To an extent, for Americans, everybody knows that dictatorships always fall, eventually.

I don't think that the Egyptian rulers know that.

 

PETER N W

10:21 PM ET

February 3, 2011

Unbelievable

"we would do a better job of judging our leaders' performance if we acknowleged that presidents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent."

If only you had had the professionalism and the independent judgment needed to afford President Bush this same courtesy while he was in office. I am guessing you will make up for it with the way you are "all for" holding President Obama accountable for his performance.

Can't wait for your comments on Rumsfeld's new book given your new-found discovery and appreciation of the fact that Republicans as well as Democrats are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Can't wait.

 

NEOLEFT

11:19 PM ET

February 3, 2011

Suleiman has no part to play

Sorry Mr Walt, but the fact that Suleiman was anointed by Mubarak amounts to a kiss of death.

Robert Fisk reported earlier this week that he was sitting with some anti Mubarak protesters with a tank platoon. When he told them the news that Mubarak had appointed Suleiman, they all laughed.

 

THEANTICLAUS

8:30 PM ET

February 4, 2011

SULEIMAN HAS PIVOTAL ROLE

He has the respect of the majority of Egyptians as he is considered to be free of the corruption that tarnishes the reputation of Mubarak and his other associates. He also has the respect of the military for his secular stance and ability to keep the Muslim Brotherhood down. He is a very clever and savvy man as one would expect from the head of the Ministry of Interior's security services. It is likely he who has formulated the military's measured response to the protests, although he is also the person who probably sicked the pro-Mubarak forces on the protesters. Still, he is probably the best hope for a smooth transition rather than a bloody revolution that takes thousands of lives and eventually results in the Muslim Brotherhood seizing power.

And I expect this post not to be removed, unless Prof Walt is intentionally removing all those from this blog who disagree with his assessments.

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

11:09 AM ET

February 7, 2011

dude, seek other sources

"He has the respect of the majority of Egyptians as he is considered to be free of the corruption that tarnishes the reputation of Mubarak and his other associates. "

You're a moron. He has the respect of Israel, his is considered to be a continuation of the status quo. He is known as the torturer in chief, his ties to Israel are many and well known on the streets of Cairo. I don't mind you being a blind Israeli supporter, but don't delude yourself. He is considered an aparatchik of the Mubarak regime

 

MAX SITTING

11:47 PM ET

February 3, 2011

omniscient and omnipotent dreaming

Walt's talking about the "omniscient and omnipotent" president as a symptom of imperial hubris? And this imperial hubris influences so much how the USA relates to the rest of the world that a Beltway journalist like Dionne assumes without a qualm or concern that the president can go in any country and do his imperial kick-ass magic. Has the Pentagon done a cost analysis of containing a revolution in a country of 83 million?

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

2:03 AM ET

February 4, 2011

good column, I agree

We will have to wait to see what develops, only the shadow knows. That said, I think Obama and his advisors would like to see Suleiman take the reigns with as little disruption to stability as possible.

I want to say that you may have spoken too broadly when you suggested that we threaten to cut all aid to Egypt. We should differentiate between food aid and military and intelligence assistance. I agree that we should tread lightly and be modest in our aspirations. Here's a bold suggestion, would it be too much to dock cargo ships loaded with flour and bottled water right there in the Nile ports in Cairo?

 

KASSANDRA

9:07 AM ET

February 4, 2011

Should any new regime that

Should any new regime that develops be even the slightest whiff antiAmerica/Israel, it will be declared undemocratic and Islamist by the likes of E.J. Dionne. That a regime may be democratic and proEgypt doesn't seem to come into the equation.

 

ANON_ANON

4:03 PM ET

February 4, 2011

Nice post

Nice post, Prof Walt

 

SAMUEL.SR

4:10 PM ET

February 4, 2011

Great remarks

I like your remarks about the possible outcomes of this revolution depending on Obama's decisions. However, there is another reason why the President should be careful as far as his intervention in this conflict is concerned. The truth is that the Egyptian people are fighting for some kind of economic prosperity that they have been denied for such a long time rather than democracy as such. And I am afraid if this prosperity is not achieved they may find a number of reasons to accuse the Western world and especially the US of promising something which is impossible to obtain. Frankly, the US doesn't have many friends in the region and nobody wants Egypt to turn into another Iran-like regime. That's why I think each step of the US government should be reconsidered very carefully.

Anyway, I find your articles about the development in Egypt very interesting and insightful and I am really looking forward to reading your contributions in future.

 

RAYMOND TURNEY

6:50 PM ET

February 4, 2011

Egypt's impact on Obama?

It seems to me pretty likely that if there is a significant reductiuon in the percentage of Americans without jobs, US voters will judge Obama a success and vote to re-elect him. If there is not a significant reduction in the percentage of Americans without jobs, the voters will back the Republican alternative, and things will probably get even worse. It is not clear to me that being right or wrong on the the situation in Egypt will swing even one state. Fact of life.

What I'm wondering about is whether the democratic uprising in Egypt will inspire a popular uprising in Pakistan. Pakistan has a democracy, which is not doing a very good job of running Pakistan. I'm talking about a regime that had the state owned railroad shut down freight trains for one day because the railroad's check to the state owned oil company bounced and the oil company stopped supplying diesel fuel. So they won't have a revolution demanding democracy But an Islamic democracy like Iran, defaulting to the IMF rather than squeezing the people to repay the IMF, might have a lot of appeal in Pakistan.

So we've got to watch the situation in Pakistan and not get totally obsessed with Eqypt. It's probably not a good idea to have a "diplomat" armed with a gun driving a car with a fake license plate shoot two people, like the current Raymond Davis case.

If you want more of my view of the situation in Pakistan, you can read my blog at:

http://rememberjenkinsear.blogspot.com/

If not, thanks for reading this.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More