The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Good analysis (and I am happy at this point to see any analysis) from George Friedman:
While there have been previous bombings in Egypt, they have focused on tourists, not churches. What is important is this: If the recent attacks are not coincidental, then a coordinated campaign is being conducted against Christian churches that spans at least these countries. And it is a network that has evaded detection by intelligence services.
Obviously, this is speculative. What is clear, however, is that the attack on a church in one country — Egypt — is far from common and was particularly destructive. Egypt has been relatively quiet in terms of terrorism, and there have been few recent attacks on the large Coptic Christian population. The Egyptian government has been effective in ruthlessly suppressing Islamist extremists and has been active in sharing intelligence on terrorism with American, Israeli and other Muslim governments. Its intelligence apparatus has been one of the mainstays of global efforts to limit terrorism as well as keep Egypt’s domestic opposition in check.
Therefore, the attack in Egypt is significant for no other reason than that it happened and represents a failure of Egyptian security. While such failures are inevitable, what made this failure significant was that it occurred in tight sequence with attacks on multiple Christian targets in Iraq and Nigeria and after a threat al Qaeda made last month against Egyptian Copts. This was a warning, which in my mind increases the possibility of coordinated action, but the Egyptians failed to block it.
Here is Khaled Abu Toameh's prescription:
Many Egyptians fear that the Muslim Brotherhood group, which enjoys tremendous popularity among Egyptians, would take control of Egypt after Mubarak's departure from the scene.
The best way to avoid such a scenario is by putting pressure on Mubarak to stop the crackdown on his opponents -- especially those who belong to secular and reformist parties and organizations, and to begin introducing democracy, human rights, and equality before the law. Otherwise, recent developments in Egypt suggest that the largest Arab country may be headed toward a dangerous state of lawlessness and anarchy.
Here is Tarek Heggy's 2005 warning about this prescription:
The hasty promotion of democracy may bring the Brotherhood to power in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere. While some in Washington are ready to accept this risk, it may entail dangerous unintended consequences. ...
Promoting democracy in the Middle East is an imperative necessity for all humanity. Given the right steps, the peoples of the Middle East (as Professor Bernard Lewis repeatedly expounded) are capable of flourishing democratic societies. However, a hasty transformation is likely to be disastrous for the forces of progress in Egypt and in the Middle East.
There's a dangerous stage in between brutal authoritarianism and "democracy, human rights, and equality before the law." Heggy is absolutely right to fear that this is a stage the Muslim Brotherhood is keen to exploit; they have after all said so over and over.
The United States has no interest in suppressing democracy or propping up a regime that does. It will backfire and it is backfiring. But if we encourage democracy, we need to lend our weight and support to genuine democrats--not to forces that seek to have one final election and be done with it. And we need to grasp who's who.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Until Egypt finds it's pro-democracy leader like Benazir Bhutto or Cory Aquino to replace Mubarak, I say keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of the political process.
Egypt's civil society should begin creating a strong alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood. So far, they haven't.
Oct '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
May '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Is it possible to encourage Mubarak's crackdown on one set of opponents (the Brotherhood) and discourage a crackdown on another set (secular and reformist parties)?...or is such picking and choosing incompatible with "laying the groundwork" for an eventual transition to democracy?
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
I think it is. The Turkish solution (which is obviously imperfect) has been to use the military and judiciary as arbiters of a party's commitment to secularism. We've seen that this system has distinct limits, but it might be one way of framing the problem in Egypt. It is legitimate to ban a party that seeks to exploit democracy to get rid of democracy--I've got no moral problem with that at all. It's even more legitimate to ostracize it (as opposed, say, to flying to Cairo and inviting its members to your big speech, as Obama did).
May '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
It's even more legitimate to ostracize it (as opposed, say, to flying to Cairo and inviting its members to your big speech, as Obama did).
A devestating line.
Jun '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
It's maybe just the good-cop/bad-cop formula for soft revolution. "Play along with us, and we (the rational revolutionaries) can get this violent element under our tight control, and everything will be just fine."
Aug '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Claire, I'm taking it that this is now the venue for comments on media coverage (or the lack thereof) as well as on the wider isses. I can report that between the Irish Times, Irish Independent and RTE (news website), the three major media organs in Ireland there is not a word today about the issue. The IT covered the recent Egyptian elections in some detail (to my mind from an MB-leaning perspective). It does have a very important piece today about the falling bumblebee population! All this is in stark contrast to the extensive and apparently sensible coverage of the matter which I found on the MB English language website last night.I would say that the Egyptian massacre is getting similar treatment in the West to the many suicide bombings in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. There seems to be a failure or reluctance to address the significance of an attack on Christians which may be part of a planned campaign.
PS I watched Robin Hood (Russel Crowe version ) over the holiday and not for the first time in a movie saw evidence of severe "Crusader Guilt". Remind me why the Ottomans were visiting Vienna in 1683?
Aug '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Neglected to mention the Ottoman visit to Vienna in 1529 in my previous post. The obvious point is that we hear much talk about Western interference in "Muslim" lands, whereas current popular perception of Muslim expansionism (historic or current) is non-existent. I do keep hearing what a great guy Saladin was, mind you.
Jul '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Saladin gets his high reputation from his ransomed prisoner Richard the Lion Hearted, and its propagation for posterity by Chaucer, Walter Scott, and others. Muslim nobility (imagined, of course, in the romanticized barbarian) was used in literature to shame the Church for its many medieval corruptions, lusty, worldly clergy, the relic trade, the sale of licenses to commit various sins, the Church's acquisitiveness despite Christ's asceticism, and so on. Saladin was an icon used this way, as a cudgel to beat the Church into a more righteous, less hypocritical path.
In practice, Saladin appears to have been better than many, but not nearly to the extent that the romanticizers would lead you to believe.
Aug '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Sisyphus:
In practice, Saladin appears to have been better than many, but not nearly to the extent that the romanticizers would lead you to believe. · Jan 4 at 11:54am
Very enlightening and undoubtedly accurate Sisyphus. Would you agree that there is a tendency to see civilisational clashes as a sort of moral zero sum game with a finite amount of "rightness" to be apportioned amongst the participants- usually wholly or substantially to one party or the other- so if the West is bad the East must be good and vice versa, to put it in the crudest terms? While recognising that a more nuanced approach can lead to the sort of moral relativism that analyses conflicts on the basis of body-count (eg.as in the case of any Israeli military action) it seems to me that a preconception that Mubarak is bad because he tilts towards the West (in relative terms?) leads to a reluctance to see his opponents' actions as wicked and therefore a hesitancy to report or discuss them. I know none of this is particularly original but I do think the muted reaction to this outrage puts the syndrome into very sharp relief.
Dec '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Machiavelli laid this out in his Discourses. The three stages of political evolution -- Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy -- have three evil twins: Tyranny, Oligarchy and Anarchy. As a society progresses from Monarchy to Aristocracy and from Aristocracy to Democracy, it has to avoid falling into one of the evil forms, or it will likely have to start the process over from the beginning (if it's lucky enough not to be stuck in the evil form permanently).
It's extremely difficult to catapult a society from an evil form or from the Monarchical form straight into Democracy. The societal organization, the economic and legal systems and the cultural norms to support democracy have to be built, or Democracy will prove unstable and short-lived.
May '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Sisyphus: Saladin gets his high reputation from his ransomed prisoner Richard the Lion Hearted, and its propagation for posterity by Chaucer, Walter Scott, and others. Muslim nobility (imagined, of course, in the romanticized barbarian) was used in literature to shame the Church....
Yes. Voltaire and Montesquieu were also guilty of spinning unicorn-and-rainbow lies about Islam for that purpose--and now we are endlessly dealing with people who quote them to "prove" how peaceful and tolerant Islam is.
Oct '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
Egypt is hopelessly becoming a nation of political imbeciles.
Following the New Year’s Eve massacre of a score of Coptic Christian worshippers outside a church in Alexandria, Egyptians are wasting no time fingering the likely culprit.
“With careful consideration,” observes commentator Ammar Ali Hassan in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm, “the incident could lead to other interpretations, especially the application of the Zionist conspiracy against national unity in Egypt.”
Going one better, Essam El-Irian, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, says that while he believes “the Israeli Mossad was behind the incident,” he won’t rule out the possibility that al Qaeda itself may now be under Israeli operational control. And in a bid for Christian-Muslim unity, Gamal Assad, a Christian member of Egypt’s parliament, accuses the perpetrators of “carrying out a Zionist scheme aimed at fragmenting the Arab region as a whole.”
All of which leads to the depressing conclusion that Egypt, the country that forged a brilliant path to peace with Israel 31 years ago, is becoming something worse than an anti-Semitic cesspool. It is turning itself into a nation of political imbeciles.
May '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
John Marzan: ...Essam El-Irian, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, says that while he believes “the Israeli Mossad was behind the incident”....
But to be fair, he isn't just any random Egyptian but an actual mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood. On the other hand, the Brotherhood is not exactly unpopular in Egypt. What's more, it's not just Satan's Brotherhood that is blaming Da Jooz. And we should all remember that the vilest defamations of Jews and Christians are utterly common in Egypt.
May '10
Re: The Strategic Implications of the Church Bombings
John Marzan: All of which leads to the depressing conclusion that Egypt, the country that forged a brilliant path to peace with Israel 31 years ago, is becoming something worse than an anti-Semitic cesspool. It is turning itself into a nation of political imbeciles.
Well yes, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, but Egypt never stopped fomenting hatred of Jews and especially Israel. From broadcasting dramatizations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to spreading lunatic rumors about Jewish plots involving everything from killer sharks to aphrodisiac-laced chewing gum, the lies never end.