As a concerned American citizen, I've been watching closely the events unfolding in Egypt and here are some of my thoughts: 1) I understand it is good news that the arrival of the army means the police brutality has been dampened. I also understand some of the celebration of their arrival on the streets is smart acting on the part of the protesters, designed to coopt the military and make army violence against the public more and more unthinkable. However, to the extent that the celebrations are sincere and not acting, I am worried. In my opinion, it would be a major mistake for anyone to think that Mubarak stepping down and the army overseeing a transition would be sufficient. Mubarak only has power because powerful people have consented to call him their leader. It would not be difficult for the same powerful people to create a publicly convincing process to replace him with someone who would, like Mubarak, have no policy objectives beyond maintaining his and their power -- let alone policy objectives that coincide with those of the Egyptian people. People should not give up until a transition process has been devised that gives real decision-making power to activists, civil society, and plausible public figures who are not associated with either the military or the former regime. 2) I get defensive when I read tweeters complaining that Hillary Clinton hasn't spoken yet and then, as soon as she has spoken, stating that no one cares what she thinks anyway. My feeling has been for a long time, and continues to be, that convincing Arab and Muslim publics to like anything America does is an entirely unrealistic goal. Because, at the end of the day, bad policy is only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that what the US says matters in the Middle East, and people resent that fact on its own, regardless of what the US happens to be saying. A more realistic goal would be simply to reduce displeasure with US policy to the point where fewer people think crashing planes into our buildings sounds like a cool idea. Some degree of antipathy has to be assumed. 3) On the Israel situation, I believe Obama is fed up with Netanyahu and was already maneuvering for ways to introduce a US "imposed solution" and make continued friendship with our government conditional on acceptance. It will be very, very interesting to see if the uncertainty created by Mubarak's downfall allows O to speed that up. After all, in the absence of an Egyptian dictator Israel can trust, the ONLY way to be sure the Israel-Pal conflict doesn't spin out of control is to bring the conflict to an end. On the other hand, I've been apologizing for this shit and trying to think of ways to believe peace was imminent for 10 years, and it is very likely I am wrong. And lastly: 4) People need to read between the lines better on the way our government speaks. I guarantee you that, in their heart of hearts (and yes, they have hearts) every single person in the US government wishes Egypt would succeed in creating a true democracy. OK, maybe 80% of the people in the US government. But anyway, the point is, desire and intention is only a part of the equation here. The fact of the matter is no one knows how this is going to play out. As guardians of their respective national interests, political leaders HAVE to think a few moves ahead. It is not possible to simply say, clearly, what they wish would happen because the fact of the matter is that their statements do not have the ability to create their own reality. The forces playing out in Egypt now cannot be managed by Washington, so Washington has to prepare for all potential outcomes. I believe everyone knows that, after today, Mubarak is gone. But they still have to account for the possibility that regime elites simply adapt to a post-Mubarak reality without losing real power as well as for the preferred outcome that this evolves into a genuine democracy. Either way, the US government will still have to have some sort of relationship with the new Egyptian government. It would be irresponsible, and a failure to uphold the US national interest they are entrusted with advancing, for a US foreign minister to NOT attempt to retain some ability to cope with any of the likely outcomes. Once you account for all that, I think the underlying intention -- the emerging thrust of a rapidly shifting policy -- starts to clarify itself. All American officials have been saying is that they consider the "Egyptian government" (note US officials' consistent refusal to use Mubarak's name in this context, which is a big "fuck you" to him in his hour of need) to be a partner of the US government as well as the Egyptian people. Their language and tone is clear that they are putting all the onus on the current Egyptian government to rein in the police, refrain from further brutality, and permit public gatherings and free speech. They have thrown the regime a bone by saying it would also be nice if the protesters were peaceful, but all the specific call for action is against the government. I think the best theory of what this means is: the top levels of the US government calculate that Mubarak is going to fall, and are abandoning him, but they are still limited by the lack of clarity of what happens next and the inability for the US to simply wish the preferred outcome into existence. The repeated emphasis on human rights is a declaration that the US intends to use whatever influence it has to encourage a democratic outcome in the coming 6-12 months and discourage an outcome where the same elites simply choose a new figurehead. It is broadly accepted in the US that our government made a big mistake in tying ourselves to these guys in the 70s and 80s; and with the opening up of new possibilities, the US will be working hard to avoid falling into the same trap again. I also believe the somewhat veiled threat of withdrawal of aid signals that the US recognizes a democratic outcome is realistic. That kind of threat is not at all necessary if the current regime survives in any form. Anyone with a power base in the army or the NDP is already very, very comfortable with the idea of continuing to work closely with the US. Egypt's military budget, particularly, is dependent on the US. I assume whoever baked up that threat also recognizes that expressing it is only going to piss people off, but at the same time, it sets the stage for negotiations with the soon-to-emerge, genuinely post-regime reality. A truly new government, including a democratic one, is going to have limited time to establish its legitimacy after taking power by making progress on the nuts and bolts issues people care about. Democratically elected officials will be nervous, particularly nervous after they open up the balance books and realize what a huge mess Egypt's finances are. I am sure The US knows it would be very nice for these officials to have a few billion bucks a year they can reliably count on. The flip side of a threat like this, is also ALWAYS an implied promise -- the promise that old deals can be revisited and even larger aid payments are possible with enough mutual assurances. It is a declaration that options are back on the table again. That is going to rub the people the wrong way, but it will be music to the ears of democratically elected officials and bureaucrats faced with the unpleasant task of getting crap done on the back of a system that is horribly inefficient at collecting tax revenue. Until then, the threat lets the army know that the blood of the protesters isn't cheap and the world is watching.
