It's been four years. I don't have much to add. When it happened, I was glad to be a "writer and Middle East analyst." Not because it gave me something to write about (the Middle East is such a vast source of material.) But because I could do something. I am not fit to rescue people, hunt bad guys in the wilds of Wazirstan - but at least I could put a few words down and contribute something on that terrible day. Following is the short article I wrote for NRO on September 12, 2001.

Freedom First
The war against terrorism promises to be a long one.

By Aaron Mannes, Washington-based writer & Middle East analyst.
September 12, 2001 10:00 a.m.

While the horrible terrorist attacks yesterday morning seem like something from a movie — the perpetrators are not James Bond villains in secret fortresses. These terrorists have political ideologies that were shaped by a culture that encourages violent radicalism — they do not exist in a vacuum. America's initial focus, quite properly, will be on developing the appropriate military response and security procedures to prevent future attacks. But ultimately, the political culture that nurtures this monstrous evil must be addressed and this will require an offensive for freedom.

Most analysts have focused on the Middle East in general and Osama bin Laden in particular as the source of this attack. While this assumption is not proven, it is not without foundations. The Middle East has been the source of many major terrorist attacks against American targets, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The celebrations throughout the Middle East of the attack on America are nothing new, public discourse throughout the region has long been shocking and anti-American.

For example, a Palestinian Sheikh, in a sermon broadcast on Palestinian Authority TV exhorts, "Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them…"

In Egypt, an ostensible ally, and the recipient of billions of dollars of U.S. aid annually, the United States is frequently accused of plotting against Egypt. For example, when Egypt Air 990 crashed off of Long Island, Egyptian parliamentarians insisted that an American-Zionist conspiracy was the cause.

These examples and many others from the Middle East are available on the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute.

This overheated rhetoric is inextricably linked to the general lack of freedom throughout the Middle East — excepting Israel. As dictatorships always have done, the leaders of the Middle East use an external enemy to distract their people from their oppression. Israel as a free country and the United States as a free country that supports Israel fill the role of external enemy. This combination of repression and incitement is a fertile ground for terrorism. Whatever military action the United States takes, this dangerous political culture must be viewed as an integral part of the problem.

Just as yesterday morning's horrors revealed failures of American intelligence, the lack of liberty in the Middle East is a failure in American foreign policy — a failure to promote freedom. Nations don't have to embrace Western-style liberal democracy. But the U.S. should support and promote governments that institute rule of law, protect their citizens, and permit them to lead their lives with minimal interference. For the most part people must achieve freedom for themselves, but the United States does have diplomatic options and sponsors programs that extend liberty around the world.

For example, the Voice of American (VOA) radio network played a crucial role in the Cold War — reminding dissidents that freedom existed in other parts of the world and inspiring many to quietly resist the Soviet regime. Those who suffer under the yoke of tyranny hunger for words of freedom. The demonization of the United States has led to enormous curiosity about it. The VOA introduces Middle Easterners to American culture as a path to promulgating American values. (But VOA programming to the Middle East has been woefully under funded and ineffective. Congress is in the process of authorizing funds to expand the quality, quantity, and range of VOA broadcasting in the Middle East.)

The United States supported dissident groups such as Charter 77 during the Cold War. These groups of intellectuals did not have an immediate impact, but they played a role in crystallizing opposition to the Soviet Union. The United States could begin to sponsor similar groups from the closed regimes of the Middle East, such as Syria, Iran, and Libya.

These are just a few of the options available to the United States to promote freedom — there are many other programs. These important programs are relatively inexpensive — budgets are in the tens of millions of dollars. None of them will bring quick results, but given time they can — combined with a robust and assertive U.S. diplomacy supporting human rights — ameliorate some of the prevailing anti-American ideologies. The war against terrorism promises to be a long one, and expanding freedom is an essential strategy that will undercut terrorism's base of support. While it cannot replace the necessary military response, an offensive for freedom is a deadly weapon against tyranny and the terrorism it spawns.

Caveat: It remains uncertain what organization or nation was responsible for the terrorist attacks. Regardless of the origin, promoting freedom is the right thing to do and can help counter the growth of terrorism.

National Review Online ran my thoughts on Egypt's recent elections. In the case of Egypt's elections it is easy to curse the darkness - criticizing Mubarak for not really reforming (I add my two cents as well.) But here, I try to light a candle - and provide some specific thoughts to advance the cause of democracy in Egypt.


What a Wonder
A little Egyptian election could go a long way.

By Aaron Mannes

With a Mubarak victory foreordained, Egypt's presidential elections — the first allowing multiple candidates — can only be considered a tiny step toward reform in Egypt. Fortunately, there is a chance to take a second step with the approaching parliamentary elections in November. Egyptian reformers hope to build on the experience of multiparty presidential elections to prepare for competitive parliamentary elections and lay the groundwork for more effective election monitoring. But more dynamic change is necessary if the people of Egypt are to be engaged in the reform process. One step, that would have the twin virtues of being an important reform while not directly challenging Mubarak, would be to press for an open election for vice president to be included in the parliamentary elections.

Since taking power after Sadat's assassination in 1981, Mubarak has not appointed a vice president. While modern Egypt has not been a democracy, it has been a republic. Vice President Anwar Sadat succeeded President Nasser on his death in 1970. Sadat, in turn, was succeeded by Vice President Hosni Mubarak. This is in distinct contrast to the messy succession processes that prevail in the rest of the Arab world. The establishment of a vice president would restore a sense of Egyptian constitutionalism. It would also be prudent. Mubarakís domination of Egyptian politics is so complete that Egypt (and the world) holds its collective breath whenever Mubarak appears in jeopardy, like in 1995 following an assassination attempt in Ethiopia, and in November 2003 when he collapsed while speaking before parliament. Mubarak appears healthy, but at 77 this status cannot last indefinitely.

A vice-presidential election would open the political system by giving the Egyptians a real stake in their political process, and it would prepare the groundwork for truly contested popular elections. But a vice-presidential election would also have the virtue of not directly threatening Mubarak. The vice president would have no formal power but would set the stage for an eventual transition. Taking Mubarakís situation into account is essential for any reform. Over $50 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt has produced stability but no political reform or even economic growth. Mubarak is no reformer. His quarter century in power has been a period of stagnation. But Mubarak responds to pressure when it is firmly and carefully applied. He released leading reformer Prof. Saad al-Din Ibrahim from prison after an international campaign, and he has recently appointed some solid technocrats to his cabinet. He has even expanded trade relations with Israel, again under U.S. pressure. It is only when pushed to act against his own core interests that Mubarak will balk.

Incremental steps are necessary because, as Mubarak plausibly argues the immediate alternative to his rule would be a regime run by the Muslim Brotherhood. This would not be not an outcome favorable to the United States or to the prospect of reform in the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood seeks, in the words of Egyptian intellectual Tarek Heggy, to establish "a Caliphate, a religious militarized state, as the base to wage war against the 'infidel' West." In interviews, Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammed Mahdi Othman Akef does little to dispel this impression. In the Egyptian paper al-Arabi, Akef called suicide bombings in Iraq and against Israel a religious obligation. He told the Muslim Brotherhood website that "Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission."

Currently the Muslim Brotherhood is banned but tolerated in Egypt. It is possible that a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned candidate could win the vice-presidential elections. If this issue is faced openly and with international support before the Brotherhood acquires real power, then Egypt could focus on building the checks and balances necessary to maintain an open democracy.

Egypt, the largest Arab state, has been the cradle of the major ideologies of the Arab world. Modern Islamism originated in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian President Nasser was the great figure of pan-Arabism. The backbone of al-Qaedaís leadership is Egyptian. But it was also Egypt that made peace with Israel. In the first half of the 20th century Egypt made important strides toward building a liberal democracy and synthesizing its Muslim past with the modern present. Echoes of this era still exist. Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz helped forge a modern Arabic literature by melding Western and Arab literary forms. A leading Egyptian playwright, Ali Salem, has written and spoken out for reform and peace. He wrote warmly of his travels to Israel. For his trouble he was expelled from the Egyptian Playwrightís Association, but his book was still an Egyptian best seller.

The Nile is deep and while the surface may appear turbulent and dominated by radicalism, there are pragmatic depths. Much of Egyptís radicalism is fostered by Mubarakís regime itself. The Egyptian media, which is viciously anti-Semitic and anti-American, is state-controlled. A poll by Egypt's Education Ministry has shown that Egyptís best educated harbor the strongest anti-Israeli sentiments. This is a terrible commentary on Egyptian higher education, but it also indicates the potential for popular moderation. Discourse accompanying open elections will help foster this moderation. If these trends can be nurtured, it will encourage reform throughout the Middle East.

By adding an open election for vice president to its November parliamentary elections, Egypt can build on the small step of the recent semi-competitive presidential elections, restore Egyptian constitutionalism, and begin to foster the open political discussions necessary for real reform. This is a unique opportunity that must be seized if the United States is serious about nurturing freedom in the Arab world.

— Aaron Mannes, author of the TerrorBlog and Profiles in Terror: The Guide to Middle East Terrorist Organizations, researches terrorism for the Semantic Web Agents Group at the Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Laboratory at the University of Maryland. Opinions expressed here are his own.