Egyptian Craps

A reader on Talking Points Memo took umbrage with David Kurtz’s analysis of the tricky diplomatic line the Obama administration must walk as it deals with the unfolding unrest in Egypt.

Kurtz: "If this were a clear choice between an authoritarian regime and a western-style democracy, it'd be a no-brainer. But it's not. It's a problem to be managed, with the sober understanding that the real world offers potential outcomes that are worse than Mubarak."

Dissenting Reader: "[TPM] is peddling the idea that we need to be cautious about supporting an extraordinary uprising from all quarters of Egyptian society that is calling for the end to a 30-year dictatorship. The idea that we ought to reserve judgement because there might be something "worse than Mubarak" in store, strikes me as utterly cynical, playing into a kind of Kissengerian "realism" that entirely discounts the real nature of power while using a supposedly sober assessment of it to justify violence and repression and being cosy with dictators. The idea that something new will be worse is exactly the argument the British used against Gandhi's efforts in India ..."

Who’s right – Kurtz or the (spelling-challenged) reader?

Before answering, consider this: Suppose you are a parent. Suppose that saving the life of your child depends on taking Action X or Y. Suppose further that you don’t know which one is correct. But make the wrong choice and your child dies. Would you (a) roll the dice in an all or nothing gambit or (b) try to create some “third way” to mitigate the dire threat to the kid? The idealist would choose A.

My absurd little scenario is meant to dramatize the difference between idealism and realism in problem solving. A pragmatic approach can produce more options than the crapshoot that generally underpins idealism. And though realpolitik rarely produces ideal solutions, it often averts catastrophe in a world where all the choices are bad (See Afghanistan). Yes, the idealist approach championed by the TPM reader is morally satisfying. Under perfect conditions, it can even work. But you’re totally screwed if the dice throw come up snake eyes.

The stakes are huge in the current unrest. Egypt (and perhaps the region) faces political implosion if events spin out of control. The possibility of Egypt becoming another Mullah-run Iran is real. Though blithely dismissed by idealists, this is just one example of an outcome “worst than Mubarak.” And it is why rational American presidents like Obama don’t play dice with foreign policy.