In Egypt on Jan. 25, fueled by the flame of the fallen totalitarian Tunisian government, Egyptians began to gather in drones to protest their autocratic ruler, President Hosni Mubarak. Like many other Arab countries, Egypt has been victim to its government for countless years. The U.S. is working on evacuating any stranded Americans from the area while simultaneously contemplating what their role should be in the growing conflict, considering it appears as if there will be no easy resolution.
Tunisia has not had close ties to America while the U.S. has provided the Egyptian establishment with weaponry for years. Mubarak has received $1.3 billion in annual military aid behind other countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel (motherjones.com). For this reason, President Brack Obama and his advisors have a lot to worry about. After two controversial wars in the Middle East, participation in Egypt’s rebellion could be catastrophic.
However, there’s no denying the awkward position in which the U.S. Department of Defense has found itself. Securing a relationship with Egypt will continue to be important as tension grows between America and the Middle East. But interfering would also further damage the reputation of a country that is already regarded, whether for good or ill, the world’s policeman.
In the long run, the right course of action is no action. The U.S. can’t be held fully responsible for a conflict that has been brewing for some time. It appears that whenever the U.S. tries to hold itself responsible for other countries’ internal struggles, it bears the brunt of the weight afterward. Egypt, like Afghanistan, is a country that has historically been seeped in inequality. Having been initially founded on idealism, the U.S. sometimes isn’t capable of comprehending such complete dissatisfaction when it comes to basic principles of government.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the first member of the Obama administration to deliver an opinion on the subject, stated that Mubarak should allow an “orderly transition” from closed government to a more open one. Some called her passive-aggressive for not calling for a full-out resignation from him, but her refusal to engage – based, no doubt, on intense discussion behind closed doors – showed a step in the right direction. Hopefully, she won’t have to make any confrontational statements in order to satisfy power-hungry interventionists.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
