Posted on

Egypt: A No Win situation

After recent developments in Tunisia there are now massive protests in Egypt. At first the numbers were small and dismissed by the government, but since the Muslim Brotherhood got  involved protests have swelled. While there’s no reason, so far, to think Mubarak’s government will fall it’s likely the Muslim Brotherhood would fill any power vacuum if it did. Unfortunately, while Mubarak’s corrupt regime is hardly ideal, there’s little guarantee one under the Muslim Brotherhood would be better.

When regimes in the Middle East fall it’s rare a new government becomes democratic and accountable to its people. Egypt itself is an example: After Gamal Nasser and his officers overthrew the British puppet regime in 1952 promises of economic development and freedom were eventually put aside and replaced by an authoritarian state. Ba’athist revolutions in Syria and Iraq, Colonel Gaddafi’s rise to power in Libya, and the Iranian Revolution had the same results: The new rulers ended up being just as bad, often worse, than their predecessors. Given this poor record it’s hard to think the Muslim Brotherhood will be an exception.

Some point out most revolutions in the Middle East were by Arab Nationalists and Socialists, not Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. They suggest secular regimes become corrupt while religious ones keep the support of the people. This is false. The best-known Islamic Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, was popular at first, but most Iranians today want more political freedom and economic opportunities.

Religious based regimes in the Middle East aren’t more successful than their secular counterparts: Saudi Arabia has traditionally been more oppressive to its people than Syria or Iran, Hamas hasn’t delivered for the Palestinians in Gaza, and Hezbollah’s inclusion in Lebanon’s government hasn’t led to more peace and stability for the country. I’m not arguing Islam is bad, only that theocratic governments (whether Christian, Islamic or others) are not inherently democratic, stable or prosperous. Religion has a place in societies but there are valid reasons to separate church and state.

One reason to fear a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt is the history of its organization. One of its early members, Sayyid Qutb, laid out doctrine for modern day Jihad and influenced Osama bin Laden, among other Islamic terrorists. Like Al-Qaeda it wants to re-establish the Caliphate, and has a hateful view towards Jews, Christians, and the West. It’s hard to see such a government maintaining positive relationships with Israel and the West.

Some believe if America engaged with such a regime they could find common ground. History suggests otherwise. America has tried courting such regimes and the usual results aren’t encouraging.

After the Shah was overthrown by the Ayatollah in Iran, the U.S. initially made efforts to live with the new regime. However, the theocrats in Tehran, realizing their legitimacy rested with hatred against Israel and the West, stormed the U.S. embassy and cut off relations with Israel, which had been a former ally. Other examples include regrettable support America gave to Saddam Hussein, and futile efforts to engage Syria. Even in the case of Cuba the Americans initially tried to win over Fidel Castro. It was only after Castro nationalized U.S. interests in Cuba unilaterally that America imposed the embargo.

Some point out the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has renounced violence and has committed itself to come to power through political means. Even if it were true that doesn’t mean they would remain peaceful if they came to power. It’s normal for such movements to discard violence when they’re weak, but most have no qualms using violence once they come to power.  Usually it starts out small like attacking former elites, then escalates against new rivals, and finally against anyone seen as a threat. The P.L.O, Hamas, the Ayatollah, who all renounced violence before, used it after gaining political power.

What would happen to the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt? Would it succeed where similar movements have failed and bring democracy and economic prosperity to the Egyptians, and maintain positive relations with Israel and the West.  There are precedents where this happened, at least initially. The U.S. supported Nasser at first, and Israel believed they could work with him, until pressure from the Arab World and Palestinians forced him to oppose them.

This would be the likely result if the Muslim Brotherhood came to power. Even if they wanted good relations with Israel and the West, pressure from the Arab masses, and likely continuation of economic stagnation, would force the Brotherhood to turn against the “Jews and Capitalists.”  The only question is to what degree? Would they merely adopt the usual position of most regimes in the region that pay lip service to fighting for the Palestinians and the honour of the Muslim world? Or would they actively undermine Israel and America like Syria, Hizbillah, Hamas and Iran?

Most regimes tacitly back Washington because they’re either too weak, or dependent upon American aid. Egypt is the most powerful Arab country. It should be remembered Egypt held Iran’s current position of causing most trouble for America and Israel in the region for nearly thirty years until Anwar Sadat realized the horrific price it cost his nation and made peace. His reward for saving his country from further conflict was universal scorn and assassination by militants. His fate was not lost on other despots in the region.

However, while Egypt is strong it’s also dependent upon considerable American aid. While Washington would probably be tempted to end this if the Brotherhood came to power this would probably be a mistake. Since 1978 America has given Egypt over 80 billion dollars in military and economic assistance. Continued aid would be a significant bargaining chip America would have with the new regime.

Unfortunately, this alone doesn’t guarantee the Muslim Brotherhood would remain friendly.  Like Cuba after the embargo, and Iran (which had been another significant recipient of U.S. aid) after the Shah, Egypt could find other donors with deep pockets. This includes oil rich Iran, or even Russia or China. Either way it’s possible the Egyptians, or at least Arab public opinion, would demand an end to U.S. aid to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from looking like another American puppet in the region.

This means a new government in Egypt would likely turn its back on the alliance with America, and relatively peaceful relationship with Israel. But again we have to ask to what degree would the Brotherhood oppose them? While it’s reasonable to suggest they would be relatively restrained at first, focused on cementing their rule, once this was achieved there’s no way to tell what would happen afterwards. It’s possible they would remain content with passive lip service to the Palestinian cause and other sore points.

But is that realistic? Is it realistic a powerful, proud nation like Egypt that just threw off the shackles of a U.S. backed dictator, would retreat into isolationism? Realistic for a movement that proposes re-establishing the Caliphate, ending Western influence in the region, and fighting Israel, to remain passive while the Palestinians have no homeland and with ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it realistic for a country that historically dominated the region to let others shape its destiny? To these questions there’s a good chance the answer would by no.

Most likely after a period of stabilization the new regime in Egypt would back Syria and Iran’s goals of ridding western influence, destroying Israel, and dominating the region. Initially Egypt would focus on supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations fighting Israel and America. A conventional war with Israel would be unlikely (given the poor record of Egypt’s Army against the I.D.F.), though not impossible; many conflicts in the region begin by accidents and poor calculations by leaders. If Egypt closed the Suez Canal or the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, as it did in 1967, it could provoke Israel into war.

The consequences of Egypt joining the rogue countries of the Middle East would redraw the balance of power in the region. Israel would again be confronted by the prospect of fighting a two front war, and many of the moderate regimes would find themselves isolated. America would have to consider diverting significant forces, perhaps a carrier group, to the Eastern Mediterranean on a semi-permanent basis to deter Egypt. Terrorist groups and other rogue nations would get a tremendous boost to their morale and increase their destructive efforts.

Ironically any move towards a satisfactory arrangement between the Palestinians and the Israelis would be quashed. Israel would return its focus on security, and the Palestinians and Arabs would demand no compromises as the balance would shift more in their favour.

This is what’s at stake. Either Mubarak’s regime survives, along with the current balance of power, or the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power and increases the likelihood of conflict in the region. In an ideal situation Mubarak would slowly pave the way to legitimate democracy, or at least relative prosperity, but this is very unlikely. Maybe his successor would be more open to real reform but only time would tell. Unfortunately, the alternatives are potentially much worse.  

There is simply no compelling evidence, historical or modern, to suggest the Muslim Brotherhood would be democratic, peaceful, or enlightened rulers. For the Egyptians, it’s a no win situation.

Posted on

Vietnam: The Misunderstood War

Vietnam is arguably the most misunderstood war of the 20th century. The popular perception is America waged an aggressive and futile war to prevent the spread of communism in South Vietnam, even though their people welcomed it. The Americans are seen as war criminals that bombed Vietnam to rubble and committed widespread atrocities, while the Vietcong and North Vietnam fought to liberate the South. The impression is of an arrogant superpower ignoring the will of the Vietnamese people, and defeated by overconfidence and shortsightedness.

The reality of the war is more nuanced. America fought a defensive war to help South Vietnam resist communist North Vietnam. Its plans were not to roll back communism in North Vietnam, but aid an ally against invasion and subversion. As for the people of South Vietnam, most didn’t want to live under communism.

North and South Vietnam at the time were very different. The North was rural and agrarian, while the South was more urban and cosmopolitan. This was one reason during France’s war to hold onto Vietnam (1946-54) there was little sympathy for communism in the South. Most Vietminh support and fighting during that war was in the North. This is why Vietnam was split into two countries after the conflict ended: Resulting in a pro-U.S. state in the South, and a communist state in the North.

A few statistics shows how much the South Vietnamese desired communism. After the French-Indochina War 1,000,000 Vietnamese fled the North while a tenth of that number fled from the South. During the latter part of the Vietnam War 200,000 Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army soldiers deserted to South Vietnam as well. Even more staggering are the 2,000,000 people who fled South Vietnam after it was conquered by the North after 1975. It’s telling that when the North took South Vietnam its generals believed only one third of the population supported them. 

The idea it was a mistake to support the South Vietnamese government and prevent the spread of communism is false. While there’s no denying the regime in Saigon was militaristic and undemocratic, the same was true about South Korea during the Korean War, and Taiwan during the Cold War. However, unlike South Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan were allowed to stabilize, build market economies, and develop healthy democracies. Who can say without reservation a stabilized South Vietnam free of communism would’ve been worse than what occurred after the North imposed communist rule?

***

The Vietnam War was another part of the struggle against communism during the Cold War.  With hindsight the strength of the Soviet Union and its allies were overrated, but at the time that’s not how it was seen. To understand why America went into Vietnam it’s necessary to look at the context. During the early 1950s, when the decision was made, the Cold War was not looking good for the West. The Soviets had gotten nuclear weapons, China and Czechoslovakia had fallen to communism, and there were communist insurgencies being waged across the globe. Along with the decline of the Western European powers, and the general hostility of an emerging third world towards the West, it’s easy to see why America felt it needed to fight back against communism.

The Americans fought in Vietnam to show they would support their allies against communism.  Despite what the pundits say the domino theory was not rhetoric. With the exception of Cuba and Chile all countries that fell to communism bordered on other communist states, and received help from them to assist that. Russia helped Mao take over China, and Mao had helped Ho Chi Minh take North Vietnam, just as North Vietnam backed the Viet Cong against South Vietnam. It should be remembered once the Vietnam War ended Laos and Cambodia, which shared borders with Vietnam, also fell to communism.

Additionally, during the 30 year long Vietnam conflict there were communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. These were defeated by a combination of good counter-insurgency techniques, and with the exception of Thailand, the absence of bordering communist states to give the insurgents support.

It’s also a myth that America’s conduct during the Vietnam War was disproportionately brutal and immoral. Most of the charges are in regards to widespread bombing, the Phoenix program, and atrocities like the My Lai massacre.

The bombing of North Vietnam was actually more limited than the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan during World War 2, and against North Korea in the Korean War. It’s true too many Vietnamese lost their lives from American bombs during the Vietnam War. But there was nothing similar to the systematic destruction and firebombing of German and Japanese cities, or the use of napalm against North Korean cities that killed 100s of 1000s. The bombing was controlled enough that Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara often micromanaged it to prevent civilian casualties. That the bombing of Vietnam provoked more outrage than during World War 2 or Korea is likely the result of massive media coverage that was not present during previous conflicts.

The brutality of the Phoenix program has also been exaggerated. This was run by the C.I.A. and South Vietnam to identify and neutralize civilian agents supporting the Viet Cong and NVA. It has been portrayed as an assassination campaign that killed 1000s of innocent Vietnamese. In reality it was necessary to provide at least three pieces of proof to identify a communist supporter, and the majority of them were imprisoned, not killed. While there’s no question abuses were committed there’s nothing to suggest there were systematic flaws in the process. That’s doesn’t mean the Phoenix program is above moral scrutiny, but that it was less destructive than commonly assumed.

The perception that American forces committed widespread atrocities is also a myth. With the exception of the shameful My Lai massacre there doesn’t seem to have been a pattern of significant war crimes committed by American forces. Given the presence of many anti-war journalists in the combat zone, and that no evidence surfaced (including among the Pentagon Papers) of similar atrocities since the end of the war, it’s unlikely the My Lai massacre was a typical event. Without sufficient evidence it’s unfair to suggest America committed widespread warcrimes.

What has been well documented are the brutal atrocities committed by the communists. During the conflict they assassinated 35,000 and kidnapped 60,000 South Vietnamese. These were mostly civilians, including mayors, judges, teachers, social workers, and doctors. These tactics were typical insurgent/terrorist means to scare the populace into supporting them, and undermine the control of the regime in Saigon. Another typical atrocity occurred when they murdered 3000-5000 South Vietnamese civilians in Hue during the Tet Offensive. Even more appalling were massacres committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after the war that killed 1,500,000-2,000,000 of their own people.

***

Another misconception of the war is that American forces failed miserably at counter-insurgency. It’s true under General Westmoreland the Americans focused too much on relatively ineffective search and destroy missions. However, after the Tet Offensive American forces improved their methods to defeat the guerrillas. Admittedly some projects like the strategic hamlets, and methods used to neutralize the Ho Chi Minh trail, produced mixed results. However, other method such as arming the local populace, hearts and minds missions, the Phoenix program, and re-distribution of land, ultimately neutralized the communist insurgency’s effectiveness.

In fact South Vietnam fell not to insurgents, but to a massive invasion by the North Vietnamese Army after America withdrew and left South Vietnam to its fate. The South Vietnamese, contrary to popular perception, did fight back stubbornly but were defeated by a better-equipped army. It should be noted that while America gave South Vietnam next to nothing regarding weapons and supplies after they left, the Soviets gave the North billions of dollars worth.

Therefore, the Vietnam war was arguably a just war, or at least not as black and white as is commonly assumed. America was fighting a defensive war to protect a country and people that had no wish to be conquered by communism. The Americans had to fight in Vietnam to reassure their allies and contain communist expansion. American conduct was far from idea but less morally dubious than the communists, and America’s counter-insurgency campaign was successful. Unfortunately, the Americans failed to support South Vietnam after they left, and it was conquered by the North Vietnamese Army backed by considerable Soviet aid.

The final myth of the Vietnam War is that the communists won. While they finally conquered South Vietnam after thirty years, the war did much to strain relations inside the communist world. This eventually led to armed conflict among many communist states. During the Vietnam War itself the Soviet Union and China fought skirmishes along their shared border. Even more disastrous was the Vietnamese conquest of Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and China’s invasion of Vietnam in the late 1970s. These events helped split the communist states into two camps which allowed America to turn China into an ally against the Soviet Union soon after the conflict. For the communist world, Vietnam was a pyrrhic victory.