Egyptian military chief Gen Abdel Fattah al-Sisi speaks to the people after the coup. Photo from AP. Image from The Telegraph.
The liberals’ slaughterhouse
The Egyptian coup, for now, marks a dead end for political Islam, and a vindication of those like Al Qaeda who reject the path of democratic elections as a deadly trap.
By Tom Hayden | The Rag Blog | August 28, 2013
When Secretary of State John Kerry described Egypt’s military coup as restoring democracy, it was a classic example of the periodic bond that exists between liberals and military dictators against those they perceive to be the dangerous classes. Their reasoning is that their version of democracy can only be restored when their enemies are eliminated, even if the enemy has won an election.
Think of the CIA overthrows of Iran’s Mohammad Mossadegh (1953) and Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz (1954), or the clandestine U.S. overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile (1973) and of Algeria’s slaughter of Islamists in the nineties when they were on the brink of electoral victory.
Think of the persistent discrediting and attempted coup against the elected Chavistas in Venezuela, the coup against Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, and the U.S. ouster of Jean-Bertrande Aristide in Haiti.
These are not isolated instances, but a pattern that has lead to the bloodshed in Cairo today. Movements inimical to Western interests cannot be allowed to peacefully come to power through elections. If they do, they will be targeted for destabilization or worse.
The Egyptian coup, for now, marks a dead end for political Islam, and a vindication of those like Al Qaeda who reject the path of democratic elections as a deadly trap. It also pleases Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, who was strongly opposed by Morsi. Assad said that the Brotherhood is unfit to rule. (New York Times, July 5, 2013) The Israelis were “quietly pleased” with the coup too [New York Times, Aug. 17] The monarchs of Saudi Arabia and the Emirate are deeply satisfied.
In Egypt, thousands are being slaughtered by a military fully funded and trained by the United States government. The Egyptian generals’ coup — which, shamefully, has not been named a coup by our government or mainstream media — was welcomed with joy, even delirium, by many in Egypt who failed to win the elections, in particular by Egypt’s secular liberals and progressives. Did they think that tanks and bayonets could construct a liberal society?
The generals clearly used the liberals — and a mass popular base of frustration — while planning to proceed with the mass slaughter.
Mohamed Morsi and the Brotherhood are authoritarian in nature because of 80 years of brutal prosecution by Egyptians rulers with U.S. support. But they cannot be faulted for playing by the rules of Egypt’s electoral system, one in which Morsi won nearly 52 percent of the vote.
Morsi’s worst excess was his failed attempt to circumvent the Hosni Mubarak judiciary and place his constitutional reforms on the ballot. That was a power grab away from Mubarak’s judges in the direction of a democratic election. The history of Chicago politics is littered with far worse.
Morsi represented a shift toward the Palestinians diplomatically and politically, but not militarily, and a softer policy toward Sinai’s tribal insurgents. He supported jihad against Syria’s Assad, but avoided prosecuting the Egyptian generals, even protected the military’s budget from parliamentary oversight.
In losing the election to Morsi, the secular liberals were to blame for their own divisions and marginal electoral status. The Facebook Generation wildly overestimated their support. They confused a media strategy with a political one, believing that the spectacle of bravely occupying Tahrir Square would not only appeal to CNN viewers but Egypt’s millions of voters who lived and worked far from the Square.
Their radical strategy of “occupying space,” copied by many around the world, galvanized media attention to the spectacle, but led to a deeper polarization while draining resources and attention away from broad-based organizing to explain and protect the cause. Their implicit critique of Mubarak and the Brotherhood as being essentially the same has proven to be a disastrous mistake in judgment.
President Barack Obama could have sent a clear and immediate signal to the generals through Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel: we will not support you. This is a coup and, under American law, our $1.5 billion in military aid will be suspended. Period.
Had Obama done so, perhaps the generals would have blinked, or delayed their intended massacre. Or perhaps they would have gone ahead with their slaughter funded by the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who recently gave the military junta $8 billion in emergency aid.
U.S. officials argue that Egypt’s military is a strategic ally for reasons that deserve congressional hearings and urgent reexamination. First, defenders of the coup say that the Egyptian military, from Mubarak to the present, has been a cornerstone of the War on Terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Egyptians permitted air space and the the expedited use of the Suez Canal as conduits for American troops and equipment.
Unmentioned is Egypt’s willing collaboration in U.S. rendition and torture programs. Those are good reasons to re-examine the US-Egyptian partnership because torture turned into a global scandal and the wars themselves into trillion-dollar quagmires. Those in the American national security establishment who concocted these follies should take responsibility for their disastrous thinking but remain protected and immune from personal consequences — which only guarantees that the folly will be perpetuated.
|An Egyptian man walks between lines of bodies wrapped in shrouds at a mosque in Cairo. Photo by Khaled Desouki.|
The other rationale for supporting Mubarak and the current coup is that a repressive crushing of the Brotherhood is good for Israel. Since the 1979 Camp David Treaty between Israel and Egypt, the Egyptian military has been paid $1.5 billion annually to abandon any military support for the Palestinians.
The Israelis lobbied Obama and Congress to keep propping up the Mubarak dictatorship, which Obama resisted. But the Israelis also are closely tied to Gen. Sisi from his previous role in charge of Egypt’s intelligence services. In recent days, according to The New York Times [Aug. 18], Sisi “appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and [U.S.] diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.”
That’s because Tel Aviv believes that AIPAC controls the UC Congress. [When Sen. Rand Paul offered an amendment on July 31 opposing U.S. aid to the coup generals, the Senate turned it down on an 86-13 vote, with leading senators echoing an AIPAC letter, the Times noted.
Israel may think its security interests are protected by the coup and the violent demise of the Brotherhood. But that is short-term thinking at best. If the Arabs are killing each others, goes the neocon refrain, it’s good for Israel.
Now, however, Israel faces a civil war which might spill over the border, including an insurrection in Sinai. The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks seem only to be a public relations gesture designed to prevent the Palestinians from taking their quest for sovereignty to the United Nations in September. With wars flooding through the Middle East, and with the Palestinians themselves divided, progress towards a Palestinian state seems blocked.
The future is completely unpredictable for now. The generals will continue their war to exterminate the Brotherhood, unless checked by internal resistance and outside pressure. Instead of an avenue forward for political Islam, the future appears to be Algeria where only military massacres prevented Islamists from taking power through democratic elections.
Algeria today, like Egypt, is a mainstay of the most extreme repression, including torture, in the arsenal of the War on Terrorism.
How long can this go on? No one knows, but it can be a very long time, a surge of renewal for the sagging War on Terrorism. Much depends on liberalism rethinking itself. Mohammad el-Baradai, the liberal who became Sisi’s vice president with American support, has resigned after the latest army massacre of Brotherhood members. Perhaps more defections will follow, though the damage has been done.
The Brotherhood, which survived underground for 80 years, is likely to regroup and resist. Widespread sabotage, assassination of police and army officers, and rural guerrilla warfare are probable scenarios, unless the U.S. acts quickly to suspend military aid, which is required under American law.
A suspension of aid — coupled with warnings to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates — seems the only way to stop the generals. Instead of the failed liberal strategy of “working from within” to reform the military dictatorship, only the opposite course offers possibilities: a suspension of U.S. aid coupled with the release of Brotherhood prisoners and a UN-sponsored conference aimed at reviving a constitutional process.
Obama is more likely to continue ignoring American law than pursue a showdown with the Egyptian military. His Cairo speech, call for Mubarak’s resignation, and acceptance of Morsi’s election indicates that the president believes in a political role for Islam, contrary to many of his close advisers and allies.
For now he is described by the establishment as being in a “no win” situation [New York Times, Aug. 18] . Events still might force his hand, but not if liberal voices continue believing that democracy still lies just ahead beyond the mountain of bodies.
[Tom Hayden is a former California state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice, and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His latest book is The Long Sixties. Hayden is director of the Peace and Justice Resource center and editor of The Peace Exchange Bulletin. Read more of Tom Hayden’s writing on The Rag Blog.]
I wonder if we are ever going to read articles about truth commissions, or war crimes charges for Obama’s Assassination Squads, Drones, Arms dealing throughout the middle east, and Cover-Ups. Code pink sit-ins? A protest, aka the Bush library, or maybe a media event, aka Cindy Sheehan? I dont think so. Guys like Tom will write a few nasty paragraphs about “how could HE do THAT” and hold his nose. But action?? protests?? Never happen.
The thing I hate most about the left, happens to be the exact thing I hate most about the right. The prominent and visible actors are all hypocrites. Truth doesnt matter, its always about winning the political battles. Lying, dissembling, distorting, using different standards all are virtues as long as it helps your “side”, whichever one that happens to be.
We have the government we deserve. The governed are only disgusted by the “others” teams follies, but everything that “our team” does can and will be justified, even if we have to roll our eyes and gloss over much to accomplish it.
One thing I learned while hanging out at the rag blog, is that the side I was formerly “on”, is no better than the side I mocked and disdained. Both use the same tactics but in pursuit of different goals. I was the person I just described. Makes me wonder if that whole functional anarchy thing might actually be better than what passes for government today. Something has to be.
2theDHS, I could be wrong, but your not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference attitude seems to be a classic copout. For instance, you judge the article’s author for not protesting or organizing protests, but have you bothered to look closely into how successfully active and involved he is and has been for 50 years in supporting people’s grass-roots issues? I’d bet not, because if you had, you’d already know you’re wrong about Hayden and many others who’ve devoted their lives to upgrading actual democracy. Many others you could be absolutely correct about, I’m sure, but your reflexive condemnation seems to reflect more a despair or a pose more than anything else. Are you yourself actually doing something constructive? One would hope so. So we won’t think of you as the hypocrite or waste-of-time you call others, would you account for your positive actions for positive change? Give us your plan, one that could possibly work, and your comments might just be considered more than puerile trash talk.
Point taken. However you are deflecting. Nothing you wrote in your comment changes the fact that there is a double standard, for both sides, and its purpose is to advance an agenda, or deflect an agenda. I know little about the author, but I do know the left was very visible in its protests and protestations about Pres Bush for the same policies as the current administration. That is because, in my opinion, its about posturing and messaging and appearance to advance an agenda.
But you are correct, I don’t find a dimes worth of difference between the right and left. I recognize that most of the people I “see” in media are busy crafting their messages to best advance their agenda or reputation. When its about your side “winning”, then any good which befalls others is simply a by-product of the competition. while I love a spirited debate as much as anyone, my goal is not to “win” a discussion, its simply to add to it.
I leave the posturing and dissembling and parsing of words to others. I simply do. I “do” with a bunch of volunteers from every political view and all faiths, and no faith.
We house those who have none. we provide transportation for those who have lost theirs. We feed those who cant buy food. We keep their cell phones on. We arrange for them to get contacts or glasses. We dont care about their race or politics or faith or beliefs. We laugh with them, cry with them and love them. We don’t measure how much that advances our agenda because we have none.
That doesn’t make my better than anyone else in any way. But it gives me freedom. The freedom to help others without measuring who they are or who notices.
So here is my plan. Go and serve someone else today. Do it without measuring and without keeping score. Don’t think about how your action might add to or detract from any ones agenda or how it might appear to others. Repeat that tomorrow.