Egyptians Speaks, Obama Dithers
Posted by Steve Markowitz on July 5, 2013
It was only one year ago that Egypt held its first presidential election and the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohammed Morsi, was elected president. This was disappointing to many in the West since the Brotherhood has been a supporter of terrorism and is virulently anti-Semitic.
Morsi’s was elected by a small margin, mainly because the Muslim Brotherhood was the best organized party after the downfall of Hosni Mubarak. The election of a radical and anti-democratic candidate such as Morsi has historical precedent in contemporary democracies. For example Hitler was elected Chancellor in Germany with only about a third of the popular vote. It was the opposition’s inability to compromise and coalesce around an opposing candidate that brought the Nazis to power in Germany in the early 1930s and led to the tragedies of WW-II and the Holocaust.
In recent weeks Egyptians by the millions went to the streets to demonstrate against Morsi. That opposition was created by Morsi’s failed policies that further strangled the Egyptian economy and threatened to bring Sharia law to Egypt. Democracy cannot coexist with Sharia law. In addition minorities including Egypt’s Coptic Christians, who represent ten percent of the country, were being persecuted.
On Sunday the Egyptian military threatened to step in and demanded Morsi compromise with the opposition in order to stop the chaos in the country. Morsi refused and on Wednesday the military removed him from office and temporary put in place a member of the judiciary as a caretaker leader.
Political elitists now argue whether the Egyptian military’s actions were that of a coup. This is but an argument over semantics. Clearly the Egyptian military removed Morsi from office. It is just as clear that a Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood led Egypt was bad for the West, bad for secularists Egyptians, and a catastrophe to religious minorities in that country. What will come of the military’s action is left to history and Egyptian people.
President Obama seems to inevitably end up on the wrong side of issues. On the business side he chose losers such as Solyndra. His record on foreign affairs is just as bad. In 2010 Obama refused to side with the Iranian street protesters against the mullahs. In Libya, Obama helped armed the rebels who threw out Qaddafi with some of the arms ultimately ending up in the hands of terrorists and likely used in the attack against the American Benghazi consulate. In Syria Obama did not side with the protesters in the early days when it was a democratic movement, but now will arm rebels, some of who are radical Islamists.
In Egypt Obama has backed the wrong side twice. He was quick to throw Mubarak under the bus just weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed Mubarak’s cause. Now he dithers on Egypt’s current turmoil saying that he is: “deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution.”
The Arab Middle East is in the most chaotic state it has been in a generation. In addition, the Iranians are four years closer to an atomic weapon than the day Obama took office. Add to this North Korea’s belligerence and America’s worsening relations with Russia and it tells the story of a foreign policy in disarray. This may explain why the Noble Prize folks gave Obama the Peace Prize before he took any foreign policy actions.