Http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324108204579020851300268912.html
The U.S. Should Back the Army.
If the Muslim Brotherhood wins, say goodbye to the peace treaty with Israel and stability in Sinai.
By JOHN BOLTON
Egypt has not yet succumbed to all-out civil war, as
Syria has, but it's getting close. So are Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and
Somalia. Tensions are more than simmering in Nigeria, Mali, Algeria and Sudan,
and there is no guarantee that Tunisia, Jordan, Bahrain and Pakistan will remain
stable.
After the Cold War, America briefly provided a modicum
of protection and stability to this broad swath of territory. That time has
passed. Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. withdrew militarily from Iraq and is
doing so now in Afghanistan. It abandoned long-standing allies under pressure,
like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, and Arab monarchies wonder when their turn
will come.
Even when the U.S. intervened in March 2011 to oust
Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, it relinquished the field so entirely that four
Americans were assassinated with impunity only 18 months later. Mr. Obama's
Syria policy fundamentally misreads Russia's objectives and refuses to confront
the real Syrian problem: Iran. And as we saw three weeks ago, when the U.S. shut
down almost two dozen embassies and consulates, civis americanus
sum—the idea that Americans abroad can expect their government to protect
them—is losing its force.
This is the depressing context that the White House
faces as it decides the next steps to take on Egypt. The U.S. cannot pretend
that the Egyptian conflict is a dispute capable of being resolved through
political compromise within a framework of representative government. Such
conditions do not exist.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a normal political party
as Westerners understand that term. It is an armed ideology—a militia that fires
on its opponents and burns down churches. Justice Robert Jackson once said of
American communists that they "assert as against our Government all of the
constitutional rights and immunities of individuals, and at the same time
exercise over their followers much of the authority which they deny to the
Government." The same can be said of the Brotherhood. It is, as Jackson also
said of the Communists, "a state within a state."
We need not dwell on the Brotherhood's Islamist ideology
to grasp its authoritarian nature. It desires confrontation with Egypt's
military because it rejects the legitimacy of any government it does not
control. The Brotherhood, therefore, shares full blame for the continuing
carnage. Should it ever regain power, whether through free elections or
otherwise, it will never let go, as Mohammed Morsi was busy demonstrating in his
year as president.
Opposing the Brotherhood are Egypt's military and a
collection of citizens who refuse to live under an authoritarian theocracy:
Coptic Christians, pro-democracy intellectuals, a middle class that desires a
functioning economy, and women who do not yearn for the burqa. Without the
military's support, however, this group would be hopelessly outmatched.
Today's struggle is ultimately between the Brotherhood
and the army. Like it or not, it is time for the U.S. to choose sides.
Hand-wringing about abstract political theories or
calling on all sides to exercise restraint is divorced from Egypt's reality.
Such rhetoric doesn't advance U.S. interests, and earns America the contempt of
Egyptians across the board. In recent days, Mr. Obama has put his thumb on the
scale for the Brotherhood—by calling off next month's joint military exercise
and, according to the office of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.), by secretly
halting aid. (The Obama administration denies these reports, saying it is
reviewing aid programs on a "case by case" basis.)
This is the wrong move. The U.S. should support the
military because even with its obvious flaws, it is more likely to support the
palpable U.S. interests at stake. Three are basic.
First, it is in the U.S. interest to have an Egyptian
government committed to upholding the Camp David Accords with Israel, the
foundation of U.S. Middle East policy since 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood
assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 for negotiating Camp David, and it has never
accepted it. Mr. Morsi foreshadowed abrogating or gutting Camp David as soon as
practicable during his presidential campaign. With Iran nearing its long-sought
nuclear capability, America and Israel would be worse off than before 1979. The
U.S. is doing little to stop Iran, but we can still save Camp David. Backing
Egypt's military is the best bet.
Second, and closely related: If the Sinai Peninsula
slips from Cairo's control, terrorists like Hamas (a Brotherhood subsidiary) and
al Qaeda will use the area as a haven and a highway for smuggling arms to Gaza
for use against Israel and to both sides in the Syrian civil war. Egypt's army
is far more likely to prevent this nightmare scenario than the Brotherhood.
Third, for purely economic reasons, the Suez Canal must
remain open. Annually, some 14% of global shipping and 30% of oil supplies pass
through the canal. The Brotherhood is far more susceptible to suicidal impulses
if it means harming the West. Egypt's military does not prize martyrdom.
For these reasons and more, the U.S. should continue
providing military assistance, which hopefully still provides some measure of
continuing leverage. Three decades of affording Egypt's office corps with
military training has created powerful connections that cutting off aid would
irreparably damage. America's $1.3 billion in annual military aid is minimal
compared to what the Saudis could provide in the U.S.'s absence, but its
political symbolism remains important. Moreover, the U.S. should worry about an
opportunistic Vladimir Putin stepping in to fill its shoes, eager to
reverse Moscow's historic setback when Sadat expelled the Soviets from Egypt.
There are no certainties here, only odds. But this is a
real decision point for the Obama administration, not a time for
half-measures.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending
America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario