Skip to main content

The Brotherhood Delusion - Morsi consolidates his dictatorship while the Obama administration tells itself bedtime stories

The great 19th-century satirist Ambrose Bierce defined a revolution as “an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.” He would understand events in Egypt very well.
In the signature revolution of the Arab Spring, the country turned its back on a secular dictatorship only to fall into the arms of what looks like a budding Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship. Meet the new pharaoh, same as the old pharaoh. Except Egypt’s old form of misgovernment may soon look progressive by comparison.
Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi’s decree neutering the judiciary is the latest act in his steady consolidation of power. While he assiduously builds a dictatorship, the Obama administration just as assiduously tells itself bedtime stories. It’s a perfect division of labor — he goes about his empire-building with a clear-eyed realism; we consider it through a gauzy lens of delusion.
Since the end of Hosni Mubarak, the air has been thick with descriptions of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi as moderates. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular.” If he had been speaking of the Church of England, he might have had a point.
Unfortunately, the Brotherhood’s credo is: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way.” Morsi summarized his program during the campaign as “the sharia, then the sharia, and finally the sharia.” (Unlike President Barack Obama, at least he had an agenda.) After Mubarak’s fall, we fooled ourselves about the level of support for the Brotherhood. We fooled ourselves about the Brotherhood abiding by its promise not to run for the presidency. We fooled ourselves about what a Morsi victory would mean for democracy. Why stop fooling ourselves now?
Morsi staged his latest power grab on Thanksgiving Day in the immediate aftermath of working with Obama to get a cease-fire in hostilities between Hamas (a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot) and Israel. A New York Times piece reported that in his talks with Morsi, “Mr. Obama felt they were making a connection.” How sweet.
“He was impressed with the Egyptian leader’s pragmatic confidence.” And who can resist the lure of pragmatic confidence?
“He sensed,” the paper continued, in a gushing tone, “an engineer’s precision with surprisingly little ideology.”
This is the most embarrassing man-crush misjudgment of a noxious foreign leader since George W. Bush claimed to have peered into Vladimir Putin’s soul.
Obama famously disdained Mitt Romney. But the devotee of an Islamist organization about to stage a self-coup? Now, that’s a man he can work with.
The business about an engineer’s precision is priceless. What did the president expect? Morsi to try to convert him to Islam and harangue him about Malia and Sasha not wearing head scarves?
Morsi didn’t get where he is today without rationally calculating his interests. He probably has many crisply precise conversations every day; that doesn’t make his ultimate goal any less unreasonable.
The administration’s reaction to Morsi’s decree has been, “Well, golly, we hope everyone can talk things through.” In its mealy-mouthed noncondemnations, the Obama administration does no favors to the real moderates in the streets of Egypt pushing to get Morsi to back down.
But delusion is hard to give up. We always want to believe that other people are just like us and have, at bottom, the same practical concerns. It’s simply not true of fanatics. “This revolution was not about the price of watermelons,” Ayatollah Khomeini once told an aide worried about inflation.
Obama is subject to a more personal fantasy, which is the belief that he is uniquely suited to convince people hostile to us that we want to be their friends. This might make for nice phone calls, but it won’t change the convictions of a Mohamed Morsi.
If our leverage in Egypt is limited, we should still be using every bit of it to resist Morsi’s power grab. The first step is to let go of delusions — and perhaps read more Ambrose Bierce.

Read the full story here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Siege - A Poem By Ahmad Faraz Against The Dictatorship Of Zia Ul Haq

Related Posts: 1.  Did Muhammad Ali Jinnah Want Pakistan To Be A Theocracy Or A Secular State? 2. The Relationship Between Khadim & Makhdoom In Pakistan 3. Battle for God; Battleground Pakistan - a time has finally come to call a spade a spade 4. Pakistan - Facing Contradictory Strategic Choices In An Uncertain Region 5. Pakistan, Islamic Terror & General Zia-Ul-Haq 6. Why Pakistan Army Must Allow The Democracy To Flourish In Pakistan & Why Pakistanis Must Give Democracy A Chance? 7. A new social contract in Pakistan between the Pakistani Federation and its components 8. Birth of Bangladesh / Secession of East Pakistan & The Sins of Our Fathers 9. Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ? 10. Balochistan - Troubles Of A Demographic Nature

India: The Terrorists Within

A day after major Indian cities were placed on high alert following blasts in the IT city of Bangalore, as many as 17 blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, capital of the affluent western Indian state of Gujarat . Some 30 people were killed, some at hospitals where bombs were timed to go off when the injured from other blasts were being brought in. (Later, in Surat, a center for the world's diamond industry, a bomb was defused near a hospital and two cars packed with explosives were found in in the city's outskirts.) Investigators pointed fingers at the usual Islamist suspects: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Bangladesh- based Harkat-ul Jihadi Islami (HUJI) and the indigenous Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But even as the police searched for clues, the Ahmedabad attacks were owned up by a group calling itself the " Indian Mujahideen. " Several TV news stations received an email five minutes before the first blasts in Ahmedabad. The message repo...

Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ?

By Sikander Hayat Another day of agony and despair as Pakistanis live through a period of uncertainty but still I believe that army must not intervene in this crisis. These are the kind of circumstances when army need to show their resolve of not meddling in the political sphere of the country. No doubt that there will be people in the corridors of power and beyond who will be urging the army to step in and ‘save’ the country but let me tell you that country will only be saved if army stays away and let the politicians decide the future of the country, even if it means that there will be clashes on the streets of Islamabad. With free media in place, people are watching with open eyes the parts being played by each and every individual in this current saga. They know who is right and who is wrong and they will eventually decide who stays in power when the next general election comes. Who said that democracy was and orderly and pretty business ; it is anything but. Democracy ...