Is Obama moving too slow in Egypt
The New York Times writes about the Obama administration's strategy:
'But, considering it lacks better options, the United States has strongly backed him [Omar Sulieman] to play the pivotal role in a still uncertain transition process in Egypt. In doing so, it is relying on the existing government to make changes that it has steadfastly resisted for years, and even now does not seem impatient to carry out.'
It seems like the administration's gambit is to move as slow as possible while still pushing for some reform. Some observers, like Max Bergmann, are less patient:
'The problem for the United States is that the regimeâ??s survival in Egypt would reinforce the central gist of Al Qaedaâ??s central claim against the West: that change is impossible in the Middle East because the United States will prevent it. Therefore, Al Qaeda insists that to create change in the region they must strike first at the US and the West to get them to stop interfering in the Middle East. In other words, if we are seen as culpable in killing the protests, we are playing directly into Al Qaedaâ??s narrative.Maybe the negative blowback of the regimeâ??s survival will be minimal, but it seems foolish to assume that the current unstable status quo, will be less destabilizing than a prompt transition to â??real democracy.â?Â
'
I actually think it's quite possible that a "prompt" transition to real democracy would be considerably more destabilizing than the status quo, if the institutions that support democracy can't handle the rapid transition. I think Bergmann is right to warn of the consequences of standing by the Egyptian regime as it comes out on top of the protesters, which is why over the medium term, the U.S. should be rethinking the gobs of taxpayer dollars it showers on Egypt in the name of keeping a peace which is in Egypt's best interest to keep anyway.
(AP Photo)