Revolution in the Arab World
Dispatches from Tahrir Square Middle East Channel Latest Scenes from Egypt

This Week at War: The Pakistan Scenario

How the United States could end up paying even more for an anti-American Egypt.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | FEBRUARY 4, 2011

In its dealings with the United States, will the new Egypt take after Pakistan?

This week's battle between pro- and anti-Mubarak supporters for control of Cairo's Tahrir Square only deepened the mystery over where Egypt's latest revolution is headed. Mubarak has promised to step down after presidential elections in September, though it remains to be seen if he'll have to make an exit much sooner than that. What will follow, no one can say. The U.S. government has long granted a generous foreign assistance package to Egypt in order to maintain Mubarak's support for critical interests in the region. Regardless of what form the new, post-Mubarak government takes, the financial price the United States will have to pay to keep Egypt on its side will almost certainly go up.

Whether the next government is authoritarian or representative, the street protests of the past two weeks will force it to do more than Mubarak ever did to reflect popular will. The Mubarak government was as pro-American as U.S. policymakers could reasonably hope for; its successor will almost certainly be less so. Its level of dependence on the United States will start out the same, but its level of antagonism will very likely go up. At the same time the new Egyptian government will also have important leverage over the United States. Since 9/11, Pakistan's leaders have shown how leverage and antagonism can be combined into a money machine financed by the U.S. treasury. Obama and his officials should expect the new Egyptian government, whatever form it takes, to quickly apply the same formula.

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the populations of both Pakistan and Egypt have rock bottom opinions of the U.S. government. With popular will now out on the streets, political leaders in post-Mubarak Egypt will profit from burnishing their anti-American credentials. A less cooperative bilateral relationship with the United States will likely result. As is currently the case with Pakistan, U.S. officials will soon have to deal with counterparts in Cairo who will face a limited ability to cooperate with U.S. objectives due to popular resistance.

In spite of this antagonism, U.S. officials will still have to seek Egyptian government cooperation on critical U.S. interests in the region. These include Egypt's continued support for U.S. military activities in the region, its peace treaty with Israel, its active support of counterterrorism, and its continued adherence to a policy of nuclear non-proliferation.

These policies would seem largely to be in Egypt's interest as well. However, that does not mean that Egypt will agree to deliver on these U.S. interests for free. Pakistan has shown how to combine leverage over the United States and popular anti-American sentiment into a method of extracting ever more foreign assistance from the U.S. government. U.S. policymakers may grumble that the Pakistanis have delivered little on al Qaeda in many years or that it harbors the Afghan Taliban or that it is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons arsenal. Given the leverage Pakistan has over the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan, it seems that the less Pakistan cooperates, the more foreign assistance it receives from the Washington; according to the State Department, U.S. foreign assistance to Pakistan has gone from $727 million in 2007 to a request of $3.05 billion in 2011. Similarly, Yemen has used its tepid support for U.S. counter-terrorism goals to vault its annual U.S. foreign assistance from $19.4 million in 2008 to a request of $106.6 million this year.

The post-Mubarak government could very well follow Pakistan's lead in combining Egypt's inherent anti-Americanism and the U.S. government's critical interests in the region to form a powerful lever to pry more cash out of the U.S. treasury. Although some may view such payments to "frenemies" as unsavory, most U.S. policymakers likely view them as a bargain when compared to the alternatives. Mubarak's pro-American approach yielded $1.56 billion in assistance this year. With a little bad behavior, the next Egyptian government should be able to do much better than that.

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

IMRAN2U

9:33 PM ET

February 4, 2011

Does Foreign Policy really need sensationalism to market itself?

There is some thing to be said about the importance of "context" (or lacktherof) when discussing international affairs. Without proper "context" one can take any situation and twist it to their liking (something the author does very well). This may make for sensational writing but does nothing to educate the reader. And that is very unfortunate for the readership of this Journal.

 

BIG THINK

1:11 PM ET

February 6, 2011

Try to be a little more credible

I agree with the sesationalism comment. So... Is the purpose of page one to use Bush Administration fear tactics so that we can accept your proposal to start cyber attacks as a means to keep the Egyptian government in line? (or any others you would like to try this on ? )

It really is kind of a ludicrous article. It sounds sort-of credible, but anyone who studies or follows the middle-east wouldn't be so impressed. Now if you just simply wanted to write an article on the current concepts and considerations of cyber warfare and then give a practical example - in this case, the middle-east - then you have an interesting article. It opens the debate on when and how to use this new weapon. But if your intention is to take anti-muslim sentiment as a basis to justify cyber warfare - it's a losing proposition.

Back to your article:
You state that the changes in Egyptian support of American objectives include Egypt's continued support for U.S. military activities in the region, its peace treaty with Israel, its active support of counterterrorism, and its continued adherence to a policy of nuclear non-proliferation.

The only item in this list that could be a credible presumption is the peace treaty with Israel. But even then, the history since 1978 between Egypt and Israel wouldn't bring a radical swing back towards what it was up to 1973. I don't see this as changing that much, but maybe you are being courted by the Israeli lobby?

As far as American military activities in the region go, of course, the more we have on board with us the better - if we are going to do something. But we only use this card for adding credibility to "our cause". If this particular card is gone or drops in its value level, I don't think our hand gets all that much weaker.

Active support of anti-terrorism... hmmm... well, I certainly wouldn't want to be in Egypt's geographical point on the planet and take the Pakistani situation as the model. It would be a really dumb move by any Egyptian government to presume that if the Pakistani's can do it, so could they (half fight against terrorism, half protect it and even support it). Pakistan lives in a completely different neighborhood, so the US attitude is forced to adjust (whether we are doing the job right or not is a whole 'nother cat). Besides, the Suez canal is strategic in more than a major way. Too many powers have an interest in keeping the thing open. We wouldn't have much difficulty in getting support to take control of it if we absolutely had to.

'nuff said....

 

VODKA

2:57 PM ET

February 6, 2011

Yes it Does.............

Obviously FP Mag also needs some WRITERS who can write what the LARGER agenda demands of them....... and this writer ROBERT HADDICK is WELL PAID i am sure....

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

1:04 AM ET

February 5, 2011

"Egypt's inherent anti-Americanism"

Can someone please explain this line to me? How is a country or people "inherently" anti-American? Since when did genetics predispose a person towards hating a government?

 

REHMAN ATA TUNG

3:29 AM ET

February 5, 2011

for that egypt would have to

for that egypt would have to be a democracy!!!pakistan was more democratic under the general than ever!!!and we could have ousted him as always!

 

REHMAN ATA TUNG

3:33 AM ET

February 5, 2011

pakistan is not actually anti

pakistan is not actually anti american but it is actually anti american-policy! america;s ongoing war is having a negative affect on or society due to that shit hole afghanistan! we face terrorism alot and that is because of america;s presence that these terrorists get the motive to do what they do!so america needs to go from afghanistanto solve pakistan;s problems

 

DLAKERGUY

3:57 PM ET

February 5, 2011

In regards to the peace treaty...

The peace treaty with Isreal should and will most likely stand. A new regime is never grounds for terminating a peace treaty with a foreign nation. If a new regime in Egypt terminates this treaty with Isreal it will likely shake up stability in the region even more so than it currently is. Egyptians have a right to protest their harsh dictator and ask for a more suitable government. However, allowing a bad regime to take over and kill treaties will make a bad middle east situation much, much worse.

 

PULLER58

11:01 PM ET

February 5, 2011

Could it? Should it? Or would it?

I doubt it seriously. Iran might be closer if only due to the chaotic nature of Pakistan versus the ruthless control Iran has.

 

MARTY MARTEL

11:04 AM ET

February 6, 2011

US will love to prop up anti-American Egypt

US governments have NO problem being blackmailed by Pakistan on nuclear proliferation and terrorism front as American administrations have been deliberately ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

So US will love to prop up anti-American - democratic or military ruled - Egypt with dole out of billions just as well.

 

USMAN BALOCH123

10:27 AM ET

February 7, 2011

pakistan : A symbol of resistance

pakistan is the sole state in the world which has shown its reluctance against the efforts of america to make it pro america . th ough we both are fighting war on terror and pakistan is paying in shape of bloodshed, terrorism in localities and inflation is at the least .. Americans always claim that they pay so much money to pakistan to curb t he activities of Taliban but instead of following the assistance of USA pakistan supported the taliban. A comparison between cost that america paid and the outcome of pakistani's efforts to curb taliban is totally odd. why they forget to think that as the result of war on terror which was initiated by the states , pakistan is paying the most disasterious cost in shape of paid terrorist by the ameircans to negate the idea that this war on terror is not the war of america but of pakistan itself............. so in the event of 9/11 pakistan was only the suffered state or the world also have the responsibilites which can not be fulfilled by the presence of NATO forces in Afghnistan , to have its occupation and extraction of its mineral resources and of middle east and of pakistan

 

ANTONIO ANDRE

11:34 AM ET

February 7, 2011

LAW AND HARASSMENT

If Wilkileaks broke US law it should be prosecuted accordingly. What did give a poor show of some US entities and authorities commitment to freedom of expression was the unacceptable extra legal harassment Wikileaks had to endure. Law enforcement and the rule of law does not hurt US standing and indeed should be welcome and will be politically understandable.

 

KARENYKARL

11:59 AM ET

February 7, 2011

Haddick: 30% correct?

I would anticipate that the next government of Egypt will be more "anti-American" in that it will not be so slavish in its support of Israel. I would expect that the next Egyptian government will be successful in obtaining more American foreign aid.

I also anticipate that the way the next Egyptian government will demonstrate its populism is by changing its attitudes towards the Gaza Strip. Currently Egypt cooperates fully with the Israelis in quarantining Gaza, but I would anticipate that the Egyptians will quickly liberalize their restrictions about entry of people and the flow of goods towards Gaza.

If the Israelis were smart (and actually working in their self interests instead of working against their self interests the way they usually do with Gaza), they would quickly call for a summit meeting between the two countries to discuss arrangements for Gaza.

Comparisons to Pakistan or Iran with Egypt are ridiculous in that Egypt is not a nuclear power, nor does it appear to want to be a nuclear power. And relations between Egypt and the West are substantially different, as Egypt is so dependent upon tourist revenues. This economic factor makes Egypt want to maintain less contentious relations with us, as tourism is such a major part of its economy.

As to the prospects of cyberwarfare, what was Mr. Haddick smoking?

 

BASHY QURAISHY

12:25 PM ET

February 7, 2011

This Week at War: The Pakistan Scenario

ROBERT HADDICK says; "Pakistan has shown how to combine leverage over the United States and popular anti-American sentiment into a method of extracting ever more foreign assistance from the U.S. government". FOREIGN POLICY. FEBRUARY 4, 2011.
This statement proves, how ignorent many Western journalists are as to what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan/Pakstan.
Mr. Haddick elegently forgot to mention that Pakistan is fighting USA's war on terrorism, which it put in motion at the first place. Pakistan did not have sucide bombing, terror attacks, violence and extremism before USA's invaded Afghanistan.
The fact is that if USA could do without Pakistan, it would have never given a penny. All the money, Pakistan receives is for the services, it provides for USA. So stop moaning and remove the troops from Pakistan. Terrorism would then stop.
Kind regards

 

SREEKANTH

3:56 PM ET

February 7, 2011

>>>Pakistan did not have

>>>Pakistan did not have sucide bombing, terror attacks, violence and extremism before USA's invaded Afghanistan

Not true at all. The "Kalashnikov culture" in Pak dates back to Zia's voluntary decision to allow the US to fund and arm Afghan rebels against the Soviet invasion, and also to the Pak government / ISI's firm determination to channel the billions of dollars in funding. The skimmed off funds converted Peshawar into a wild west of illicit arms

After the Soviet withdrawal, and during the Afghan civil war, Pak did two separate things which brought terror closer to itself : it sought to replicate the mujahideen success by funding Kashmir terrorists, and it picked sides in the Afghan civil war by supporting the Tailban.

By the time of 9/11 and the US invasion of Af, these seeds of terror had been germinating for at least 20 years. Or 50 years, if you start at the original support for Pathan irregulars in trying to attack Kashmir.

 

PUPIL

5:31 PM ET

February 7, 2011

Camp David Treaty

Big Think:
I don't see this as changing that much, but maybe you are being courted by the Israeli lobby?

Everyone is being courted by Israeli lobby. First, what is wrong with this?That is what the lobbies normally do: court people. But I am also besieged and cornered by Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish lobby pledging 1000 years of happiness after Israel is gone and Jews surgically removed from Washington power offices and yes - hotel lobbies. You, Big Think, enjoyed it already in Europe with the great 1938-1945 effect.

The real question for now is whether Egypt includes a solid political and economical Anti-Islamist force, except the Army, which has no its own political program. Pakistan fared not very good from the beginning, but it did not fall overnight into the permanent low intensity civil war and dreams of vengeance and land grab. The reality has been quite opposite. Its (provoked by Pakistan itself) ideological enemies: India and US exacted their revenge on Pakistan by tearing off its lands, getting militarily and economically stronger (India) and making Pakistani military tap dancing on the top of "true Muslim" Taliban heads. This is unbearable soul pain for Pakistan' colonels. Yet the more effectively they extort money from Uncle Sam, the more miserable and desperate they and their populace feel. This self-flagellation can indeed end badly for them and for us, but we cannot inject 10,000,000 Jews in Pakistan to start commerce and, as a result, civility.

The same, by the way was happening to Palestinians. They more enthusiasm they displayed for "kill the Jews" agenda, the more of them were killed, spit and shit on. Relatively recently the West Bankers tried to do some "Jewish style" commerce, and see - they are covered now with more money instead of shit. But they had to postpone the day of glory (killing the Jews) until proper moment.

This is also the Egyptian problem: do they want Islamist International (Caliphate) , Bloody Colonel's Glory (Nasser), milder and less deadly Nasser (Mubarak), or something else? The problem, as I see it, s not whether Egyptians dislike Americans, or even if they hate Jews, or if they love Islam to death. The critical point is, if they genuinely love money, for the sake of money. The real difference between America and the rest of the world is that we love money more then we hate dealing with the scoundrels. Quite the opposite is true for the vast majority of the world population.

American strategy in Egypt should be whispering to their ears: money is good for your glory.

 

SREEKANTH

6:29 PM ET

February 7, 2011

>>>This is also the Egyptian

>>>This is also the Egyptian problem: do they want Islamist International (Caliphate) , Bloody Colonel's Glory (Nasser), milder and less deadly Nasser (Mubarak), or something else?

This flavor of question is also posed, in a more provocative way, in

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB02Ak01.html

quote :

Egypt is wallowing in backwardness, not because the Mubarak regime has suppressed the creative energies of the people, but because the people themselves cling to the most oppressive practices of traditional society