Charles A. Kupchan published an op-ed in the Times titled "Democracy in Egypt Can Wait."
His position is that the US needs to "downsize its ambitions" for democracy in the Middle East generally and Egypt in particular.
I rolled over in my mind the sordid history to which nobody has adverted....
Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew the monarchy in 1952. He won elections, but he was the Egyptian military.
Incorruptible by Egyptian standards and an Egyptian nationalist above all else, Nasser led Egypt into the "third way" of the Cold War. This would be the non-aligned movement that left the Soviet Union at odds with Josip Tito of Yugoslavia and the leadership of which by Jawaharlal Nehru of India led the United States, tragically to this day, to side against the world's largest democracy and in favor of the military dictatorship in Pakistan.
The problem the US had with Nasser was not that his power base was in the military, but that he did not side with the First World in the Cold War against the Second World. With leaders like Nehru and Tito, Nasser was an early creator of the term Third World.
He further distanced himself from the US by his embrace of socialism when he nationalized the Suez Canal. If his attempt to form a United Arab Republic with Syria had gone differently, we might be having different conversations today.
However that may be, his failure to side with the US and the resulting cold shoulder led the Egyptian military to being equipped and fed by the Soviet military machine.
Yes, he was declared a "Hero of the Soviet Union" for his leadership in the non-aligned movement that the Soviets sought to co-opt.
In the meantime, back at home, Nasser survived an assassination attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood. Nasser was an observant Muslim all his life, but not a crazy one. He discouraged the rigid fundamentalists of Wahhabism who hold Saudi Arabia by the throat to this day.
He expanded the rights of women and forced al-Azhar University, the intellectual center of Islam, to issue a fatwa declaring that Shi'a, Alawites, and Druze where no longer considered "heretics"--a position that has plainly failed to take root in the Arab world, but he tried to stop mutual demonization based on theology.
The 1979 peace treaty with Israel cost Nasser's successor, Anwar Sadat, his life at the hands of military dissenters. Before we get all puffed up about that, note that the same treaty cost Yitzhak Rabin his life. Making peace in the Middle East may be hazardous to your health.
Since the 1979 treaty, the Egyptian military has been US trained and US equipped rather than Soviet trained and Soviet equipped.
Should we quit feeding the Egyptian military, there are a number of other powers who would enjoy even indirect influence over use of the Suez Canal.
Should we quit feeding the Egyptian military? That so much of our aid to Egypt is military aid when they have crying needs in civilian infrastructure seems absurd. We arm them to influence them not to fight the only power they are prepared to fight, Israel.
It's a tossup whether we need them more than they need us or vice versa.
If it's a tossup, why not err on the side of principle?
But Kupchan says that's futile, as Egypt is not ready for democracy. The Egyptian civilization, like the Persian civilization, is so young....they need counseling from experienced players like the United States, right?
These are hard questions. My conclusion about Kupchan's op-ed appears below the fleur-de-kos.