A MCCARTHY RERUN -- WHO LOST EGYPT?

Without a doubt, the last two weeks have been a time of troubles for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and across northern Africa. The overthrow of a pro-U.S. government in Tunisia, massive street demonstrations against the U.S.-allied Egyptian government, a near Hezbollah takeover in Lebanon, a series of major bombings in Iraq, and further deterioration for the so-called Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This posting is about how one of these, the Egyptian protests, could spill over into our already nasty domestic politics in a way reminiscent of the l950s McCarthy era.

The events in Egypt have been unsettling enough, but also disturbing is a less noticed statement by Republican Representative Thaddeus McCotter admonishing those who see the anti-Mubarak demonstrations as "an uprising for populist democracy." Instead McCotter said we should be supporting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak against the protesters. That statement appeared to be contrary to President Obama's warning to Mubarak about the use of violence against the demonsrators. In distancing himself from Mubarak, Obama said, "The United States will continue to stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people." The difference of views between Obama and McCotter would seem to be no contest with Obama's leverage far outweighing that of a Republican Congressman who presumably was speaking for himself rather than issuing any party position.

Adding to this political positioning was an opinion piece in today's Washington Post by Elliott Abrams, a national security advisor to former President George W. Bush. Abrams takes a different view from McCotter but makes his case within a domestic political context. Abrams said Bush was right and Obama has been wrong in judging the popular demand for freedom in the Arab world. The worrisome aspect of the McCotter and Abrams positions is the possible implication for our domestic politics if Mubarak is forced from office and Egypt is governed by a less pro-U.S. or an anti-U.S. leader. Here a bit of history is in order.

In l949, the Chinese communists forced the nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek to flee to the island of Formosa, now Taiwan. The United States had been a strong backer of Chiang during World War II despite the efforts of some in Washington and the war zone to get the U.S. to also assist the Chinese communist army which was also fighting the Japanese. The case was made, unsuccessfully, that the communist army was a more effective fighting force that than of Chiang. After the war when the communists under Mao Tse-tung were warring with the nationalists for control of China, President Truman gave his full support to Chiang. The victory of the communists quickly entered the political bloodstream in the U.S. with the question--"Who lost China?"

The attack on Truman was led by the "China Lobby" which included such influentials as Republican Senator William Knowland of California, known as the Senator from Formosa, and Republican Representative Walter Judd of Minnesota, a one time missionary in China. The "Who lost China?" question was also a part of the communist witch hunt in Congress carried out through the hearings of Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. McCarthy and others charged that the Chiang government was sold out by various pro-communist China experts in the State Department and the academic community. The pressure on the Truman administration was so great that some believe it forced the United States to enter the Korean War in l950 to show a determination of the U.S. to halt the further spread of communism on the Asian mainland.

So, are the McCotter and Abrams statements, although in disagreement, a way of staking out an early GOP, or more specifically anti-Obama, position on the question "Who lost Egypt?" if Mubarak falls? Forget the fact that for decades Democratic and Republican Presidents have in varying degrees supported Mubarak, the answer from the right wing, with cheerleading from right wing talk shows, is likely to be Obama and Hillary Clinton's State Department. Egypt may not seem to cast as large a shadow today in our foreign policy as China did in l949, but Egypt is a key player in our Middle East foreign policy. It was the first nation warring with Israel to sign a peace treaty with Israel; it continues to play a key role in our efforts to get an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement; and is an important part of our efforts to have a regional counterbalance to the growing threat of Iranian dominance in the Middle East. Further, Mubarak is a secular Muslim leader, although dictatorial and corrupt, and his overthrow could mean the coming to power of a fundamentalist Islamic leader, a scarey prospect indeed in a very fragile, religious sensitive region. If the powerful but illegal Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, it is almost certain to end Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. What then?

In sum, the Egyptian troubles are a major threat to our entire foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy which has enough shakey foundations, but there is also some major potential spillover into our domestic politics which hardly needs another acrimonious issue. Given the political bitterness over "Who lost China?", we hardly need a rerun with "Who Lost Egypt?"