img classalignleft
srchttpmedia.townhall.comTownhallReub20115C455C20110214T165614Z01SJS18RTRIDSP0EGYPT.jpg
alt width225 height150 Neither President Obama nor his conservative
critics can provide a convincing response to the one question about
the Egyptian crisis which the public most fervently wants answered
who are the good guys were supposed to be backing in this midst of
this miserable muddleWith no comely cheerleaders at the sidelines,
no pom poms or marching bands, leaders and citizens alike seem
similarly frustrated by a maddening inability to root one side or
the other to valiant victory.Americans instinctively yearn for
crisp, clear distinctions light or darkness, winners or losers,
Packers or Steelers, Republicans or Democrats, righteous or rotten.
We dont do well with nuance, complexity, confusion and shades of
gray. Shaped by the muscular Christian moralism of our Puritan
forebears, we prefer to define every struggle, every choice, in
terms of principled polarities and the eternal conflict between
good and evil.In much of our recent history, the nations enemies
have proven so unmistakably vicious and lavishly loathsome that
most of us easily maintained the great national faith in clearcut
heroes and villains. While our freshfaced, mobilized farm boys and
factory hands fought the Kaisers spike helmeted Prussians, Japanese
militarists, jackbooted Hitlerite storm troopers, genocidal
Stalinist commissars or suicidal IslamoNazi whackjobs, most
Americans found it easy to take sides. Only one major war
constituted a conflict with real room for ambiguity the epic
bloodletting of the War Between the States which, for more than a
century, struck most citizens as well as most historians as a
tragic, internecine struggle with nobility and honor on both sides.
More recently, however, weve applied our standard good guysbad guys
formulation even here, with most of the country outside of the old
Confederacy now classifying the Civil War as a moral contest over
slavery and the display of Dixie battle flags increasingly rejected
as tasteless and unthinkable.But as the confusion continues in
Cairo, how can you separate angels from demons in fiercely
contested Tahrir SquarePresident Hosni Mubarak has conducted a
dictatorial and oppressive regime, but hes also maintained peace
with Israel and supported the U.S. in the war against terror. The
protesters chant antiwestern slogans and embrace the jihadists of
the Muslim Brotherhood, but they also demand the same democratic
procedures and institutions we have sacrificed so lavishly to
install in nearby Iraq. President Mubarak and his supporters say
they want a peaceful and orderly transition to democracy but theyve
practiced thuggish cruelty for thirty years the demonstrators
insist they want human rights and representative government, but
the most prominent opposition group boasts an 80 year history of
assassination, radical conspiracies and religious fanaticism.No
wonder the American public gets dizzy when contemplating the
unfolding melodrama and the Obama administrations fitful efforts to
resolve the crisis the most recent Gallup poll shows a statistical
tie between those who approve of the presidents handling of the
Egyptian situation and those who say they disapprove. Even among
conservatives, theres a nasty split between realists who attack the
president for undermining our prowestern ally, Mubarak, and
idealists who attack the president for doing too little to advance
the democratic agenda that President Bush famously championed in
the Middle East.One frequent charge seems pointedly unfair, as
prominent voices on the right cite an allegedly embarrassing
contrast between President Obamas feckless, feeble backing for the
2009 Green Revolution protests against our enemies in Iran, while
purportedly providing much stronger backing for the similar
demonstrations against our allies in Egypt.In truth, Obama used
almost identical words in both cases expressing meaningless support
for the democratic aspirations of the protesters, and warning the
authoritarian regimes not to repress peaceful demonstrators with
violence or brutality. The Mullahs in Iran cheerfully ignored his
noble words with no embassy in Teheran and few business interests
anywhere in the country, we hardly exert powerful influence on the
Islamic Republic. Egypt, on the other hand, has long been awash
with American aid dollars, intelligence agents, embassy personnel
and businessmen, so the Mubarak minions have so far felt largely
constrained from expressing their rage against the opposition.
Moreover, the administration showed more consistency in its
response to the two crises than most conservatives recognize.In
reacting to the streetfighting in Iran, the president and his
henchmen seemed hesitant, confused, contradictory, oddly arrogant,
selfrighteous and utterly incompetent.In responding to the
regimeshaking earthquake in Egypt, meanwhile, the Obamanauts looked
hesitant, confused, contradictory, preposterously arrogant,
selfrighteous and altogether incompetent.Their sloppy handling of
the Cairo crisis at least seems more comprehensible.In Teheran, one
could easily separate the good guys westernized young people
singing hopeful songs and chanting democratic slogans from the bad
guys angry, bearded thugs with clubs and guns, yelling Death to
America! and pledging to shed their own blood for their
Ayatollahs.Even after weeks of unrest, Egypt stubbornly yields no
comparable clarity, and the administrations herkyjerky
pronouncements which often resemble a diplomatic version of
Tourettes Syndrome provide little assistance.It may take months or
even years to see a decisive resolution of the pyrotechnics by the
Pyramids and by that time the American public most likely will have
exhausted our limited attention span, losing interest in a
wearying, toughtofollow reality show with few attractive or wholly
sympathetic contestants and no satisfying conclusion.
Date Published: