The More Things Change--The More They Stay The Same

Both Veep Biden and the Nice Young Man From Chicago have lost themselves in the stratosphere of oratory today following the long anticipated departure of Hosni Mubarak.  That the old man would leave was never in doubt, only the details of timing, details which would be and were determined solely by the supreme command of the military.  The arrogance of the Obama/Biden duo in both proclaiming the end of the Mubarak era as being of world historical importance equal to the fall of the Berlin Wall (and, by heavy handed implication, the result of US policy) is both breathtaking and totally false.

The movement of Mubarak from the presidential palace to his private compound on the Red Sea is not even as dramatic as the events of 1952.  The overthrow of the Egyptian king in that year by a consortium of army officers was not only better theater than the street festivities of the past eighteen days, it was also a very real break from Egypt's past.  The retirement of Mubarak is no such gap between past and future.

It is important to understand something which has quite evidently eluded all the Deep Thinkers surrounding the Clueless Guy in the Oval.  The violent deposing of King Farouk by the Young Officers--a group which included future strongmen Nasser and Sadat--marked the end of Egypt's centuries as a colonial backwater exploited by European powers as well as the Ottoman Empire.  It was a reclamation of national dignity, national identity, national pride.  Nasser and Sadat rode this revolutionary camel for all it was worth over the next thirty years with the result that Egypt became a major player in the non-aligned movement as well as a skilled exploiter of cold war rivalries.

Egypt emerged from the coup as the aspiring leader of a united Arab mega-state.  The dream never became a reality for reasons inherent to nationalism and national egoism alike, but Egypt did become a good simulacrum of the regional hegemon, the go-to state whenever something needed to get done in the region.  Not a bad accomplishment for a state which did not have and still does not have a solid economic base, but does have a very large, often fractious population and no tradition of democracy.

Despite having been defeated in three of the four wars it fought with Israel, and nearly losing the fourth one after a brilliant beginning, the army has carried the luster of the 1952 revolution intact to the present day.  It is this which gives the military its special role in Egyptian politics.  It is the 1952 overthrow of the dissipated king coupled with the splendid success of the opening days of the Yom Kippur war which allows the army to smoothly assert control today regardless of the precise wording of the constitution.  The military has unique status, unique power, and unique responsibility.  It is exercising the first two in pursuit of achieving the third.

The responsibility of the army is to preserve the apparatus of state from subversion.  This means the armed forces have the task of preventing a takeover of the mechanisms of government and state by such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood.  Put in general terms, the armed forces have the sole responsibility of assuring order.

Note the word use was "order," not stability.  As laid out the other day, stability can emerge only over time in a way which is organic to the society and polity and only when citizens have sufficient personal liberty to engage in the never ending task of creating stability.  The best the army can do is provide (or impose) order on a day to day basis.

Of course it is the maintenance of order which has been at the root of every Egyptian government since 1952.  None of the several regimes have made the slightest attempt to foster conditions compatible with the slow and painful evolution of stability.  Nor is that reality going to change with the departure of Hosni Mubarak.  No matter how much Mr Obama or anyone else may clamor for democracy, for an "orderly" transformation, there will be no change in the basics of the Egyptian system of government.

The painful truth is that there is only one way in which the basics of the Egyptian system will change.  That one way involves the armed forces losing the will or ability to maintain order.  Should that happen, the way will be wide open for fundamental revolutionary change.  The least unlikely scenario in the event the armed forces bobble their job is a violent bid by the Muslim Brotherhood for power.  Should that happen, the Brotherhood will come out on top.

The same outcome is likely should the foreign advocates of "democracy" gain sufficient influence on the Egyptian military to force elections.  In the event of an election the Muslim Brotherhood will win power hands down.  The years of social, medical, educational, and economic services efforts by the Brotherhood have bought it great perceived legitimacy.  Nor are the majority of Egyptians opposed to the austere view of Islam held by the Brotherhood.  Quite the contrary, the majority of Egyptians support shariah in all its brutal aspects, are in favor of gender inequality, view Islam as the only true faith, oppose Christianity, and are hostile to Jews to the highest degree.  There is nothing in the Brotherhood's manifesto which is abhorrent to the typical Egyptian man in the street.

For the US, for Israel, for the civilized states generally, the best outcome of the recent events in Egypt will be a continuation of the "spirit of 1952."  That is simply a continuation of business as usual as it has been conducted for the past sixty years.  A few cosmetic changes would be nice, as would an emphasis on the creation of jobs for Egyptians, but there should be no rush, no pressure, no insensible demands for democracy.  There are times and places where order is the best which can be hoped for over the short to medium run.  Egypt today is both time and place where order must be promoted even at the cost of postponing the stimulus of stability for some more years.

The best advice for the hyperbole prone administration is this: Chill out.  The time for high blown and unsupportable oratory is most definitely not now.  Sure, a few genuflections before the totem of democracy are OK, but don't take it seriously--particularly in the back channel talks with the generals in charge of daily life.  You have to let those fellows know that you understand where they are coming from and support the goal of keeping order preferably without body counts.

Most of all, the denizens in and near the Oval would be well advised to not break their arms patting themselves on the back.  The US was massively irrelevant to most of the events of the past three weeks as can be seen by the absence of burning American flags or "Death to America" chants.  Heck, even the nervous money guys of the world overlooked US T notes and dollars as safe haven investments--and that sort of defines American irrelevance, doesn't it?