Egypt's miltiary can't be a third force between protesters and the government if ultimately it defends the government.
Egypt's police forces withdrew from the streets of the restive Egyptian city of Port Said on the Suez Canal and the military took over main security duties Friday, trying to calm a wave of protests and deadly clashes that turned into virtual revolt against the government.
In round one of Egypt's Arab Spring, the military essentially took the side of the protesters in regard to the fate of Mubarak. Obviously, they were looking out for the interests of their officer class and supporters, but the military did ease Mubarak out of office in at least a symbolic protest victory.
But now, with Mursi drawing the anger of protesters, would the military really pressure Mursi to step down or back down and give up some powers?
Or is the military hoping that their presence on the streets of Port Said will make the protesters stay home out of some sense that the military is on the protesters' side?
Given the events of the Arab Spring's outcome thus far in Egypt, with a new dictatorship shaping up under the Islamist Mursi, I kind of doubt the protesters have that kind of faith in the military.
Will the military enforce security when the protesters come out again? And not just give the orders. Will the lower ranking soldiers obey orders to shoot protesters?
Heck, given that the lower ranking soldiers probably like Mursi, will the corrupt higher ranking officers live to regret unleashing soldiers loyal to Mursi more than they are loyal to their own leadership? If Mursi sees the army willing to shoot, might he not just figure he can purge the officer corps and leave himself with a loyal military?
Who cares if the newly minted generals can't fight a war? They can certainly beat down and kill civilians. Really, a purge of the military isn't going to affect the outcome of a war with Israel. Israel would win whether or not the current officers are giving orders. And Egypt would retain enough military power to overwhelm either Hamas, Libya, or Sudan in any armed conflict.
Egypt is tough. A lot of conservatives condemn President Obama for not backing Mubarak in the first place. But I don't think that was a viable strategy. I also assume that unless Egypt makes a clean break with us, that the Camp David Accords require us to pay Egypt to keep the peace with Israel. That's worth the price even though I have no doubt Egypt would lose that fight. And I do want to keep influence with the military in the hope that some semblance of rule of law can be established in Egypt, and that the military will see that as the best way to protect their privileged status. So I don't support halting weapons shipments to Egypt.
Our objective should be to strengthen rule of law. I'm not happy with Mursi and his band of Moslem Brotherhood Islamists. But unless we want to drive Egypt into chaos by cutting them off from aid or invading them, what are we to do? Be patient. Keep pushing Egypt to enact economic and legal reforms that limit the government's powers, and hope for the best. We may get the worst, but I'm in no hurry to see it arrive.
I can't say I know that the administration is trying to push Egypt to reform, but coming down hard on Egypt doesn't seem like much of an option right now. So I can't in good conscience criticize the Obama administration too much on this issue.
