Obama's Advisors Split on When and How Mubarak Should Go

Source: :A Times

White House aides acknowledge that the differing views among Obama's team of advisors has resulted in a mixed message on Egypt.

Reporting from Washington —

The Obama administration's shifting response to the crisis in Egypt reflects a sharp debate over how and when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should leave office, a policy decision that could have long-term implications for America's image in the Middle East.

After sending mixed signals, the administration has appeared to settle on supporting a measured transition for easing Mubarak out of power. That strategy, which remains the subject of vigorous debate inside the administration, calls for a Mubarak crony, Vice President Omar Suleiman, to lead the reform process.

According to experts who have interacted with the White House, the tactic is favored by a group of foreign policy advisors including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, national security advisor Thomas Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who worry about regional stability and want to reassure other Middle East governments that the U.S. will not abandon an important and longtime ally.

But that position has been harder to defend as Suleiman and other Mubarak allies appeared to dig in, refusing the administration's entreaties to undertake swift reforms such as scrapping the country's longstanding state of emergency. On Wednesday, Suleiman warned ominously of a coup unless the unrest ended. That prompted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to fire back that the Egyptians should "expand the size and scope of the discussions and the negotiations and to take many of the steps that we outlined yesterday — one of which is lifting the emergency law."

Suleiman's behavior reinforced the arguments of another camp inside the Obama administration, including National Security Council members Ben Rhodes and Samantha Power, which contends that if President Obama appears to side with the remnants of Mubarak's discredited regime, he risks being seen as complicit in stifling a pro-democracy movement.

more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-team-20110210,0,5447678,full.story

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The always incisive Robert Fisk last week summed up the sad performance of the Obama administration on its refusal to back the demand for Mubarak's immediate departure:

Amazingly, there was little evidence (in the Cairo protests last week) of hostility towards America although, given the verbal antics of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton these past eight days, there might have well been. One almost felt sorry for Obama. Had he rallied to the kind of democracy he preached here in Cairo six months after his investiture, had he called for the departure of this third-rate dictator a few days ago, the crowds would have been carrying US as well as Egyptian flags, and Washington would have done the impossible: it would have transformed the now familiar hatred of America (Afghanistan, Iraq, the "war on terror", etc) into the more benign relationship which the US enjoyed in the balmy 1920s and 1930s and, indeed, despite its support for the creation of Israel, into the warmth that existed between Arab and American into the 1960s.

But no. All this was squandered in just seven days of weakness and cowardice in Washington – a gutlessness so at odds with the courage of the millions of Egyptians who tried to do what we in the West always demanded of them: to turn their dust-bowl dictatorships into democracies. They supported democracy. We supported "stability", "moderation", "restraint", "firm" leadership (Saddam Hussein-lite) soft "reform" and obedient Muslims.

This failure of moral leadership in the West – under the false fear of "Islamisation" – may prove to be one of the greatest tragedies of the modern Middle East. Egypt is not anti-Western. It is not even particularly anti-Israeli, though this could change. But one of the blights of history will now involve a US president who held out his hand to the Islamic world and then clenched his fist when it fought a dictatorship and demanded democracy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secular-and-devout-rich-and-poor-they-marched-together-with-one-goal-2201504.html

If the WH doesn't get behind them now they'll be on the wrong side of history. I don't think the Egyptian people will tolerate anything less then a U.S. styled democracy. I don't think that they would tolerate a religious based government. If another Mubarak type dictator/despot wound up in power - they would do the same thing that they are doing now to Mubarak.

Obama is now at risk of being on the wrong side of history in terms of building viable democratic states in the Middle East. If this secular pro-democracy movement isn't worth U.S support, then this will be a huge and lasting tragedy for American foreign policy and for America's standing in the Middle east.

He already got behind them.

His state of the union address comments about Tunisia that signaled the US would stand on the side of democratic revolts. You don't think people in Egypt heard those messages?

He has repeatedly said Mubarak must go, must not use violent repressive tactics and democracy will prevail. It couldn't be more clear that he stands with the pro-democracy protesters, despite the knee-jerk spin from the usual crowd. You can go ahead and give credit for speaking out on the side of democracy while recognizing that what happens in Egypt is ultimately up to Egyptians rather than heavy-handed interference by the US. It's a solid progressive stance.

Obama's statements all point to the fact that he understands its up to the Egyptian people and not the US government. That's a position which should be shared and applauded by all progressives.

what disturbs me is how much the uprising caught Obama and Clinton off-guard