It’s the low-stakes game anyone can play, because there’s nothing to lose and even less to win! Today’s mystery pundit writes:
The calls to cut off military aid in the aftermath of Morsi’s ouster reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what transpired in Egypt this past summer. To say, as is frequently said, that the military removed a democratically elected president from office is to overlook a very basic reality: that by the time unprecedentedly mass protests against the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule commenced on June 30, Mohamed Morsi was a president in name only. Morsi’s November 2012 constitutional declaration, which put his own edicts above judicial scrutiny, and his subsequent ramming of an Islamist constitution through to ratification, severely undercut his popular legitimacy, and shrunk his support in a country of 85 million people down to the Brotherhood’s base of approximately 500,000 members.
The administration’s policy towards Egypt since Morsi’s ouster has undercut its potential influence further. By insisting that the military negotiate and even reconcile with the Brotherhood, the administration made the generals fear that they would be pressured into their own suicides, and the administration thus lost the ability to at least achieve the more conservative goal of preventing an all-out assault by security forces on the Brotherhood’s protests. Meanwhile, in its equivocal public posture regarding Morsi’s removal, the administration exacerbated Egyptians’ paranoid belief that the U.S. desires Brotherhood rule in Egypt—which Egyptians view as far, far more threatening than military rule.
So which pundit believes Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom is making “a terrible mistake” in Egypt?
Was it The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol?
Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, try again.
Was it Fox News contributor George Will?
That was actually The New Republic’s Eric Trager who called Wiggleroom’s decision a “lose-lose proposition.”
Thanks for playing, and come back next time for another exciting episode of Name! That! Pundit!