Drink when someone says “leverage”

Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) would be stubborn enough to build an entire bill around an amendment that already failed 79 to 19; and I thought we could take him seriously on making Congress more efficient. (Of course, that amendment was attached to an unrelated bill, despite his earlier call for one-topic bills. . . . OK, let’s not take him seriously at all.) Thankfully, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who generally doesn’t have a good reputation around here, improved upon Paul’s idea. Both of their bills have been introduced, but one may actually pass.

Paul’s bill would prohibit the sales of tanks, F-16s and “other advanced weapons” to Egypt. Inhofe’s bill would not prohibit those sales entirely, but

would suspend them unless President Obama certifies that Egypt is committed to pursuing peaceful relations with Israel, providing security to U.S. embassies and consulates and respecting minority parties’ rights.

As Inhofe pointed out, arms sales to Egypt are worth $2.2 billion to the defense industry, and provide the U.S. with leverage over Egypt. The frequency with which we must use “leverage” when discussing relations with Arab Spring nations rivals the entire Battlefield Earth screenplay, and for that I apologize, as I’m sure it’s rather annoying. But it’s completely true. Aid for things like food, medicine and infrastructure aren’t nearly as appealing to new regimes, especially ones in which the military plays such a powerful role.

Inhofe frames maintaining arms sales, albeit conditionally, as a way to maintain a good relationship with the Egyptian military. He put it quite bluntly: “Egypt’s military is our friend – [President Mohamed] Morsi is our enemy.” That’s going a little too far. But is he an enemy of the kind of stability, democracy and pluralism Egyptians sought after deposing former President Hosni Mubarak? So far, yes; during his brief presidency, Morsi has attempted to exert too much control to embrace any of those values.

Furthermore, Inhofe’s insistence on checking on Morsi’s approach to Israel may turn out to be unnecessary. His explanations for his comments on Jews have been about as coherent as a Chuck Hagel confirmation hearing; however, his history with Israel itself has actually been closer to U.S. interests than Muslim Brotherhood interests. That’s what Inhofe should have put into his bill: certifying that the Muslim Brotherhood and its agenda will have no role in Morsi’s administration, as he promised.

If Morsi and the Egyptian military continue to be at odds, his version of a post-Mubarak Egypt will come closer to status as a failed state. Supplying the latter with arms will ensure a U.S. hand in picking up the pieces. But Inhofe should consider the military’s domestic responsibilities as well, namely identifying and supporting a truly democratic and pro-Western leader.

You can take Morsi out of the Brotherhood . . .

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has disappointed me lately. His American education and (occasional) talk of cultural pluralism and civil rights give me some hope that, when we assess his legacy, he will not turn out to be the Arab Spring’s worst-case scenario: a president who combines extreme populism and Islamism into an anti-Western administration that almost makes you miss the old boss. The reason I’m not yet convinced this will happen is the same reason Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) is holding off on emergency aid to Egypt.

Granger, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, used her power to block the Obama administration’s request for $450 million “to help the country’s new government”:

This proposal comes . . . at a point when the U.S.-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny . . . I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance, and I cannot support it at this time.

Neither can I. Egypt already receives over $1.3 billion a year in “military aid” from the U.S., and will soon receive $4.7 billion combined from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Whether they will receive a requested $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) remains to be seen. So what exactly is this extra cash for?

The Obama administration has argued that it is essential to buttress Egypt, the most populous Arab country and the first to sign a peace agreement with U.S. ally Israel.

Most Americans will agree that “buttressing” one of the few Middle Eastern (for all intents and purposes) countries to have a peace agreement with Israel is better for overall regional stability. But for how much buttressing will the U.S. be on the hook in the foreseeable future? Especially when the Egyptians failed to prevent protesters from violating the security of the U.S. embassy, and when Morsi responded to the spirit of the protests by asking the U.S. to take the video down? He knows full well how the U.S. deals with distasteful speech. Why not go with it?

If Egypt must get this extra $450 million, it ought to be contingent on three things:

1. An itemized list of everything it intends to do with the money. If it doesn’t improve economic conditions for the majority of citizens, forget it.
2. Morsi will respect the U.S. government’s use of its own law.
3. He will also take action to restrict protests at foreign embassies that do not count as “peaceful assembly.”

I saw trouble when Morsi promised a constitution based on Islamic law, but with respect for civil rights. Let’s hope “respect” ends up meaning “commitment.”

Meetings, bloody meetings

Yesterday I made fun of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) for picking politically useful heads of state to visit on his upcoming world tour. I should remind you that I never outright opposed the tour, just pointed out the likeliest reasons for the itinerary. Today I’m going to chastise President Obama for not picking a (potentially) politically useful head of state to meet with this fall. The difference? As president, he can exert leverage beyond the electoral, and he’s ignoring that opportunity.

The head of state I speak of today is Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. The two will cross paths in September at the United Nations General Assembly, but currently have no plans to sit down together, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not indicate future plans for one or a desire to make them. This is one of only a very few instances in which you’ll ever see a news article about the absence of a meeting between foreign leaders. By all means, enjoy it.

For those who know only that Morsi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he has since left the party, and based solely on his Wikipedia entry he seems to be a fairly stand-up guy. Despite his commitment to Islamic law, he has also committed to civil rights; high-profile appointments for Christians and women; and abiding by international treaties, which most assume refers to Israel. He even has an excuse for wanting to have convicted 1993 World Trade Center bomber Omar Abdel-Rahman extradited. (Yes, this is progress. A lesser man wouldn’t bother with an excuse.)

But there is still work to be done on his presidency that might be achieved, or at least specified, in a meeting with Obama. Someone needs to spell out to Morsi that there are certain things the U.S. will not tolerate: further concessions to the military government, refusing to clear Parliament of former Mubarak supporters, any attempt to tamper with Abdel-Rahman’s record, walking back on any of the above promises. Political support and aid to Egypt must be contingent on all of the above.

Look, we don’t know if Morsi has intentions other than what he’s already stated them to be. It’s the not knowing that keeps the situation in Egypt volatile, as it would be after such a violent transition. I have no idea why Obama wouldn’t want to meet with him as soon as possible to define mutual interests. But if he doesn’t plan on it at some point in the next two months, he’s just being irresponsible, and inviting the word in spades.

I wonder how Romney would handle this? “Listen, you: Democracy Israel freedom rights freedom loyalty Israel freedom!” Probably something like that, if you weren’t listening very hard.

Disposal Day #92: Flights of bullets shoot thee to thy rest

STORY #1: Deaths in threes

We didn’t question giving some measure of credit to President Obama following the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. There’s a very simple reason for that: He was involved in the planning. Not so for the killing of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which was carried out by forces of the now-governing National Transitional Council (NTC). In five years, people will only remember what they had to do with it, not the West.

Foreign policy expert Les Gelb (a favored writer on my recommended reading list) points out that the U.S. would not have gotten involved even to the minimal extent that it did without prodding from the French and British, which may be the biggest geopolitical irony of the decade. Doubtless all of the NATO forces together contributed by taking out Gaddafi’s capabilities. But the lack of leadership on the U.S.’s part means the credit to them will be minimal. This is the biggest downside to them of avoiding interventionism, but it isn’t much.

STORY #2: Meet the new old boss

Nobody paid much attention to this story when it came out on Monday – I suppose the mood was one of “yeah, yeah, call us back when he’s actually dead” – but Mahmoud Jibril, prime minister of the NTC, announced that he would step down as soon as Gaddafi’s stronghold of Sirte was captured. He hasn’t yet, of course, but I imagine it’s coming within weeks, at most. And if not, we’ll just have to break out the comparisons to Egypt’s military government again.

From all I’ve seen of him so far, though, Jibril seems like a good guy to have around during the transition. Part of his education was spent in Pittsburgh; he’s met personally with a number of foreign officials for talks; and, as a member of Gaddafi’s cabinet, he promoted economic privatization and liberalization, which in itself explains his later move to the NTC. He would be my first nominee for Libyan ambassador to the U.S., if he’s not going to be prime minister, or whatever their version of a finance minister or central banker will be.

STORY #3: Laughing at a funeral

I’m aware of the power of humor as a defense mechanism – I probably employ it more than anyone I know – but I get the feeling that the media is delighting itself with coverage of the spelling of Gaddafi’s name to avoid revealing how happy they are that he’s dead. If so, nobody in America will get mad at you for that. Iran and Venezuela, maybe. But for the record, according to this very trusty Sporcle quiz, there are 31 possible spellings. I thought up 22 of them.

We don’t need no water, let the stupid nation burn

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

It’s another double-barreled fail this week, brought to you by ousted Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (whom I will no longer identity as “Libyan leader”) and Libya’s governing National Transitional Council. Double-barreled fails are so much fun to write about; some fails are so obvious that you can’t write about them for more than two paragraphs without getting redundant, and when it’s from two sides of the same coin, you end up sounding like you’re whipping everyone into shape. It’s awesome.

Buuuuuut I digress. First, Gaddafi. I have always said that his efforts to quash the rebellion will end when he dies; leaving on his own accord is off the table. Apparently, he agrees with me. He has vowed never to surrender, specifically referencing his hometown of Sirte, even if it means everyone else living there loses water, electricity and/or their lives in NATO airstrikes. “Let Libya burn,” he says through a spokesman. “We are not women,” he adds, just to remind you that he’s the insufferable douchebag to end all insufferable douchebags.

One: He’s already lost Tripoli; Sirte will be a cakewalk. Two: That he left Tripoli suggests that he’s not as defiant in reality as he is on paper. Three: Just wait for the people of Sirte to have their way with him if he assumes responsibility for the town and lets it wither away. Four: His flagrant disregard for Libya comforts his enemies, the NTC. Five: I know at least 40 women who would gladly go Hostel on his ass. Conclusion: Insufferable douchebag. Who will lose.

Now, about that NTC, the ones who still care about international credibility. Keep that in mind as you read about their new thing: rounding up black Libyans and sub-Saharan migrants and detaining them in makeshift jails all over Tripoli, on the off chance that they’d been fighting for Gaddafi. So far, there has been very little indication that they had support for Gaddafi in common. The blackness is the much likelier x-factor.

If you aren’t reminded of Japanese internment, you’re an idiot. I understand that such a large but shaky transition will entail constant paranoia. But with such close relations to the West, it can’t be beyond their capacity to learn what a bad idea it is to use race as grounds for detention.

Nice place to visit, wouldn’t want to Libya

At the time of this writing (it’s 7:56 p.m. on Tuesday), nobody knows exactly where Muammar Gaddafi is. He can’t have gone far; report any suspicious-looking street vendors to the local authorities. The point is, he is definitely not in his compound in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the National Transitional Council, the de facto government composed of anti-Gaddafi rebels, is poised to take over. Now that they’ve drafted a constitution, we know exactly what we’re getting into.

My early assessment: It’s not great. Not horrible – a 13-year-old girl who spends half her waking hours at Hollister could draft a better constitution than whatever Gaddafi used as a guidepost – but not great. There will be a state religion, and it will be used to determine the making, interpretation and enforcement of laws. For the slow learners, that religion will be Islam. But other religions will be respected, and women’s rights will be intact. Very Sex and the City 2.

Of course, this isn’t unusual considering their geographical location and every citizen having grown up in Islam, although they hardly need to give it official status in order to maintain it. Let’s look at some quotes: From Article (5), “The State shall also protect and encourage marriage.” Expect them to be on the same schedule as every other Muslim nation when it comes to marriage rights for LGBTs. For those who want marriage in the U.S. Constitution, is this what it should sound like? Just making sure.

From Article (8), “The State . . . shall provide an appropriate standard of living.” What does that mean? How are they going to accomplish this? More to the point, how are they going to accomplish this in a sustainable manner, that eliminates the risks of citizens rising up when they feel too broke? They may have shot themselves in the foot there.

From Article (9), “Defence of the motherland . . . shall be the duty of each and every citizen.” Does that mean conscription? And I certainly don’t think they mean this to apply to babies, but they ought to clarify this a little bit. This could be interpreted as a requirement for military service. On the other hand, with Gaddafi’s loyalists still about, they might actually need it.

As we watch the new Libyan government (possibly) take shape, we will need to remind ourselves, often, that Libya is not America and will conduct their affairs differently. Depending on how literally they take  their commitment to Sharia, they could merit close inspection for a while.

Disposal Day #63: Libya? I don’t know ya

STORY #1: Hard to find good help

We recently learned that the U.S. has gotten involved with the Libya crisis beyond, but not too far beyond, its participation in UN-authorized air strikes. President Obama has signed a presidential “finding” that would authorize covert actions in the area, specifically in the form of intelligence gathering by the CIA. He admitted that the shared objective is to pressure Muammar Gaddafi to cede his power.

My fear at this point is that U.S. action in Libya, while nobly intended, will quickly mushroom into interventionism of Kosovo proportions. Obama said he has not ruled out providing weapons to anti-Gaddafi rebels. I ask again, how can you supply weapons to rebels without knowing precisely who they are and what they’re trying to accomplish by ousting Gaddafi? Until that becomes known, supplying weapons should be off the table.

STORY #2: Ouster from above

On the other hand, Obama also says that a “land invasion” of Libya is “absolutely” off the table. No U.S. ground troops will be sent to Libya as long as the mission can be considered “international.” I must admit that my skepticism has deepened to the point that I can say I’ll believe it when I see it. Obama hasn’t made any major mistakes on Libya yet, but he’s dangerously teetering on the verge of it. Keep your eye on him.

He added, in his interview with Univision, that though the mission has already cost “hundreds of millions of dollars,” he believes American taxpayers feel strongly enough about the need to halt the crisis in Libya to accept the costs. Not so, I’m afraid; after a year of international disasters, preventable and otherwise, my sense is that the American people would prefer any new spending to benefit them directly, if there must be any at all. I’m guessing they’d prefer not.

STORY #3: Deal or no deal?

At least someone’s been planning ahead. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a warning to Libyan rebels, whoever they are, that if they want the U.S. to recognize them as Libya’s government should they succeed in ousting Gaddafi, they’ll have to turn over Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi. You’ll recall that he was released from Scottish prison in 2009 on “compassionate grounds,” meaning his terminal cancer, which remains the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard. The compassion, I mean, not the cancer. Let him rot in a hole with it, for all anyone gives a damn.

Zero to anarchy in ten days

Now that President Obama has “broken his silence” on the goings-on in Libya, I will take this opportunity to do the same. (Wait, no – I mentioned it in the Drill this week. Never mind.) As of yesterday, it was ten days into the crisis and Obama had yet to make a statement, for which he was rightfully criticized. According to Press Secretary Jay Carney, a “scheduling issue” prevented him from saying anything.

Huh? I know the guy has a lot on his plate right now, but I’ve heard better excuses from ten-year-olds who haven’t done their homework. How long does it take for Obama and one or two senior staff members to throw together a few paragraphs making the most obvious condemnation in the world? Better luck next time, Carney.

Anyway, for those of you who aren’t aware (you ignorant saps), anti-government protests across the Middle East have inspired Libyans, of all people, to revolt against Muammar “I’m too sexy for a title” al-Gaddafi, who has been unofficially ruling the country since 1969. Within less than two weeks, this seemingly indestructible leader has reportedly lost control over the eastern half of Libya. Within that same amount of time, up to 1,000 people may have been killed. Again, having never accepted constant criticism, there’s no other way for him to have reacted.

(Official) heads of state from every corner of the globe have demanded an end to the violence. It’s really the only thing they can say, but it carries absolutely no weight. Whereas former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had the favor of the U.S. to lose, Gaddafi has never answered to anyone, even when selling them two percent of the world’s oil. My theory is that Libya was named head of the UN Security Council just so they could keep an eye on him.

At this point, the question is not if he’ll stay or if he’ll go. The question is if they’ll kill him or if he’ll kill himself. He has already threatened to “martyr” himself if the protests don’t abate, and his crackdown has certainly not led to that. An even more pertinent question is if any foreign military should intervene. I expect some troops will be called in after he dies to provide assistance to the remaining military, but none before that.

We can yammer on all we want about how all violence is bad, and that will remain true. But when it comes to Libya, it doesn’t matter. Dictatorship is all its citizens have received for 41 years, thus anarchism is the only thing they know to give back. At least for now, we can admit that it’s justified.

Disposal Day #55: Way down in Egypt land

STORY #1: Suddenly, we like quitters

I admit I was skeptical when someone suggested that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should be given the chance to improve his policies; he’s had 30 years of chances. Yet after he collapsed under pressure like an air mattress under a really fat person, I’m starting to wonder if he wouldn’t have, had he been given more time and breathing room. Now that speculation is arising over if he will leave immediately instead of waiting until September, it doesn’t sound like he’s going to get it.

Granted, his handling of the crisis has been a PR specialist’s nightmare. But after going unchallenged for so long, is it any wonder that his responses (“I’ll quit” vs. “Send in the tanks”) are at odds? He doesn’t know what to do when people notice they’ve gotten structural democracy, not behavioral democracy. Besides, some Egyptians may second-guess themselves if they get . . .

STORY #2: Back 2 Tha Brotherhood

Also ”Two sides of one mouth” desk, the Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned in Egypt, yet is also its main opposition party. I’m starting to think Egypt as a whole is confounded over this whole democracy thing. Despite the ban, the U.S. is admitting that they could “play a role” in Egypt’s transition from Mubarak to no Mubarak.

More commentators have expressed doubts that the Brotherhood would be as friendly to U.S. and Israeli interests as Mubarak has been. From all I have read of them, I have concluded that they’re the kinder, gentler Muslim fundamentalists. They won’t try to bomb anyone, but they probably wouldn’t invite them over for tea.

STORY #3: Now it’s a hat trick

First Tunisia, which nobody had thought of for years; then Egypt, which gets discussed constantly; now Yemen, which rears its head every so often in discussions of counterterrorism (or the lack thereof). Marches of thousands began yesterday, again made up of disenchanted citizens demanding the president’s ouster. This is becoming a trend. Every head of state in the Middle East and North Africa should brace themselves.

I’ve been asked for comments from people who know my feelings about protesting. In these cases, it accomplishes the goal of getting rid of the old boss, but the credibility of the new boss is less certain. All the effort will be worth nothing if the replacements don’t know what they wanted all along.

The president has no clothes

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. I hadn’t planned on giving it to him – it had been reserved for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for refusing to participate in the bipartisan seating at the State of the Union – but screw that. By letting his country become radicalized before finally giving some, Mubarak has done the unthinkable and made me sympathize with a massive horde of protesters.

The basic timeline of the events that have unfolded over the past three days is as follows: Inspired by the citizens of Tunisia, who ousted their government using the same tactics, Egyptians took to the streets to demand that the government pursue some basic reforms, which are often demanded in such a way in Europe. Mubarak’s government responded by calling in its riot cops, putting reformist leader Mohamed ElBaradei under house arrest, and shutting down the Internet and mobile phone service nationwide – you can never spin that.

Yesterday (in this time zone, anyway), Mubarak finally agreed to replace his cabinet with one that might be more inclined to enact domestic reforms. I immediately declared shenanigans: How many of these thousands of protesters blamed the cabinet? And even if they did, what cabinet in the world acts without some direction from above? The buck has never stopped with them; Mubarak has passed it in a way that would make the Seahawks cringe.

I am instantly suspicious of anyone who is called “the Father of Our Nation,” especially considering Mubarak is not Egypt’s first president by a long shot. Unless he can prove within the next couple of weeks that he takes his citizens’ concerns seriously, the U.S. will have to make his choice brutally clear: do what you’ve been told, or your foreign aid will be gone until we can give it to someone we can trust. That person will have to be a steadfast supporter of Israel. For today, that’s Mubarak’s only redeeming quality.

For further reading on this, check out a statement from Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), who fears that protests that are now democratic in nature will lapse into a new authoritarianism if left unchecked. It’s certainly happened before (Iranian Revolution? Sandinistas?). In situations such as this, a president with a dictatorial style can be replaced with just a dictator.