Crisis in Egypt: Obama's tragedy
There sits drear Egypt, mid beleaguering sands,
Half woman and half beast,
The burnt-out torch within her mouldering hands,
that once lit all the East.
— J.R. Lowell, “To the Past” (1845)
And aiding and abetting the contemporary drear, beleaguerment and mouldering is the continuing foreign policy deferentialism of President Barack Obama.
The president who dare not take sides in what some call a civil war but what's really the latest war against Islamic extremism, did just that when, in a break between vacation rounds of golf, he effectively sided with the faux “civilians” — the martyrdom-seeking Muslim Brotherhood.
Oh, indeed, the crackdown of the interim goverment-slash-military (a military heretofore regarded for brokering calm in times of crises) was brutal — hundreds dead and thousands more injured. But the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt and all of the Middle East was barbarous. And that was why the military, on behalf of the people, ousted the “democratically” elected Brotherhood.
Once in power, it eschewed many if not most of the hallmarks of a democratic republic and surely would have destroyed Egypt if left unchecked. Bounced from power, the Brotherhood showed its true theocratic thuggishness.
Asks veteran foreign affairs observer Ralph Peters: “What do we want the future of Egypt to look like? A flawed, hybrid democracy or a Sunni Muslim version of Iran?”
That the answer is not obvious to Barack Obama is a tragedy.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- A chilly reception
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty
- An independent Scotland? Think again
- Your right to know: Those racy emails
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Those revised gun forms: A full explantion is owed