For all the transitory good that Egypt's Cotton Revolution (trademark not pending) allowed, we can expect to hear more over the next few weeks about the decline of American influence in the Middle East. It's a conversation worth having. But as the most populous Arab country begins a national rebirth, the real conversation should be about what America can do the win this pivotal moment.
After the signs in Tahrir Square come down and the tear gas canisters bearing the "Made in the U.S.A." ensign are swept up, the tough work begins for Egypt, a country whose political infrastructure has been routed by three repressive decades of so-called emergency law and nearly 60 years of military rule. But the now-deposed Hosni Mubarak did not survive on cunning alone. He was propped up by American largess to the tune of a Chris Christie-sized $1.3 billion annual military aid package, roughly another billion dollars annually in economic aid -- with utter stasis to show for it -- and the willful see-no-evil policy of five American presidents.
In return, American interests -- economic, security, energy and a lasting Egyptian-Israeli peace among them -- were well-served. For 30 years, policy-makers in Washington did not blink at the nature of its relationship with Cairo, even as our politicians filled the air with empty words about the need for the expansion of personal liberties in Egypt.
And so, as the revolution unfolded, the United States was both handcuffed and intellectually unprepared. There was no winning it. Those who demanded immediate or semi-immediate American support for Mubarak's departure overlooked what little weight such reflexive words would have carried after years of American complicity in state-sponsored repression there. And, lest our worst fears about the future of Egypt come true, the various parties who were critical of the Obama administration's lack of enduring support for the Mubarak regime during the revolution's eighteen days will be on the wrong side of history.
Most immediately and fortunately though, the people of Egypt prevailed, Mubarak is gone and went with a whimper. The United States is lucky to have escaped this moment with only a black eye. But one thing is clear: the old paradigm of American foreign policy in the region has to be effaced. In the wake of recent events, many who eagerly attribute the surges of protest around the Middle East to either former President Bush's "Freedom Agenda" or President Obama's 2009 Cairo speech miss the issue at hand.
The regime changes in Northern Africa during the past month are not cause for American victory laps. And when future Egyptian leaders speak out in anger about the oppression of their old dictator, their anger will be also directed at the United States. And for good reason. Somehow the weight of American calls for the expansion of freedom seem to go hollow for the countries within our network of allies. Until recently, it sort of made sense. But Egypt is a shining example of why it was short-sighted. That American governments, by tradition, passionately supported Kurdish rights in Iraq, but remained much more diffident about Kurdish rights in Turkey is another. As a result, the protestors in places like Tehran seem to love us while in places like Cairo or Amman, they don't.
Our arrangement in the Middle East has, until now, been based on the idea that our foreign policy has to be realistic. But what's both evident and realistic now is that American principles are the strongest tools we have. They are what should guide American officials to share harsh truths with our friends as well as our enemies--and to be humble in these pursuits. As Egypt may prove, American principles may be the only truly useful tools we have left.