The West confused about Egypt

“An attitude is a vanity accountable to a conscience but is not a solution”

In a remarkably lucid piece in the Wall Street Journal, Brett Stephens looks at the way Obama’s policies in Egypt, for the sake of moral vanity,is just going to make the suffering and the problems worse. Stephens correctly asks, what is a realistic and desirable policy for that country? 

Restoring the dictatorship-in-the-making that was Mr. Morsi’s elected government is neither desirable nor realistic—at least if the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets in June and July to demand his ouster have anything to do with it.

As it is, the people who now are most convinced that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim aren’t tea party mama grizzlies. They’re Egyptian secularists.

It would be nice to live in a world in which we could conduct a foreign policy that aims at the realization of our dreams—peace in the Holy Land, a world without nuclear weapons, liberal democracy in the Arab world. A better foreign policy would be conducted to keep our nightmares at bay: stopping Iran’s nuclear bid, preventing Syria’s chemical weapons from falling into terrorist hands, and keeping the Brotherhood out of power in Egypt. But that would require an administration that knew the difference between an attitude and a policy.

Why does our media constantly fail to consider uncomfortably realities? 

%d bloggers like this: