Very Limited Leverage

I've generally remained mum on the events in Tunisia and Egypt, not because I don't have thoughts on the subject, but because I'm not confident that they're especially innovative. Martin Indyk's comments this morning to the Chicago Tribune, though, deserve a mention:

Obama's remarks late Friday, seen as supportive of the anti-Mubarak uprising, were "the right thing to do," Indyk said.

"But it's a very risky strategy because the end result could be that an ally that we depended on to protect American interests and stability in this volatile region will be toppled, and that a very unstable situation in Egypt will then spread across the region, and that can do great damage to our interests."

At the same time, "clinging to Mubarak, when it's clear that he's lost his legitimacy among the Egyptian people and ends up using force and a great deal of bloodshed to retain his power, could produce the very instability we're trying to avoid," said Indyk...

The events in Egypt certainly pose a number of risks for American policy, and so far the Obama Administration seems to be doing a reasonably good job with its rhetoric. I'm not convinced, though, that it's "a very risky strategy because the end result could be that an ally that we depend on to protect American interests and stability in this volatile region will be toppled." It's not that this outcome isn't possible -it is - just that it won't hinge on how strongly the Obama Administration does or doesn't express its support for Mubarak or the Egyptian military or the Egyptian protesters or anyone else. The United States can do a bit - a bit - to put itself on the right side of events, but U.S. actions aren't going to determine outcomes here. America just doesn't have that kind of leverage, and it's unsettling that its foreign policy elite still casually talks as though it does.