In what manner and to what extent does it serve America’s political purposes to support the Egyptian military’s coup against a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood President? On average, the American government spends over 1.5 billion dollars of American tax payer monies annually to bribe Egyptians to be our ally and to support American interests in the region (like keeping the Suez canal open). Thus, should anyone be surprised that once the democratic process provided a means for an Islamist candidate to take over the country, that his support would be undercut by those who do not want to see Egypt become a more conservative fundamentalist run country?
The official line is that America is greatly disturbed by the Egyptian military’s decision to over-throw the President, detain other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that they should seek to quickly put the reigns of power back into the hands of the people. However, has anyone took a moment to consider who most benefits from a toppled Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? If the US spent years providing Mubarak and the Egyptian military with the financial and military means to keep the “brotherhood” politically repressed, then why would we stop after the “Arab Spring” if the election results were not to our liking?
President Mohamed Morsi was elected by a majority of the Egyptian people democratically. The Egyptian military has chosen to subvert the democratic process in their country, either with or without tacit American support. Regardless of whether we approved the coup, or aided in it’s implementation, I would be very surprised if this political crisis caught the State Department, the Department of Defense, the CIA or the President off-guard. America has a long and sordid history of engaging in these types of “games” in the name of ensuring American interests abroad. The rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt does not serve American interests, and thus, a legitimate democratic election has been thwarted by military intervention in the name of preserving political stability and peace in the country, when just the opposite (civil war) is the most likely consequence of this travesty.
Now, I have no concrete proof that our government’s CIA is involved in this most recent political turmoil in the region, but when you consider our Nation’s track record regarding similar circumstances, and you look at how much we (and Europe) have to lose if Egypt’s political situation becomes more “fundamentalist” (and they stop being susceptible to bribery), and actually close the Suez canal, then it becomes clear Western “democracies” had no intention of “sitting on their hands,” and allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to jeopardize their political and economic agenda in the region. It was only a matter of time before an excuse (a petition was it?) was found or fabricated to topple a pro-Islamic regime in a country that has been under Western political control for decades. The Western world stands to lose far too much economically to allow Egyptians the political freedom to decide their own political destiny. Thus, this week Egyptians are beginning to realize democracy is not a true avenue for most fundamental Muslims to have a voice (or opposition vote) against more moderate elements within their own country, thus inevitably violence will be the “means” by which these groups will try to regain moral, political, and economic control over their country. But I ask you, wouldn’t it have been better to allow them to use the political process to accomplish their objectives, rather than violence? The answer from the American political perspective, a resounding NO! Why, because if in their frustration, they are driven to violence, then they can be labeled as extremists and terrorists. If they were not thwarted in their efforts to legitimize their cause via the Egyptian military, then they would have potentially gained further credibility throughout the Muslim world, and their democratic example might be replicated in other Muslim countries, thus undermining America’s objectives.