How Mubarak decision divided the White House
For all his idealism, Obama came to the conclusion that there was not much America could do about the Arab world. Which resulted in a policy vacuum
Alan Philps
In February 2011, US president Barack Obama faced what his aides have described as one of the toughest decisions of his time in the White House: how to deal with the mass protests against the 30-year-rule of Americas closest ally in the Arab world, president Hosni Mubarak.
Obama considers his handling of the Egyptian revolution as a success in avoiding a bloodbath among the thousands gathered in Tahrir Square chanting for the president to leave. For his critics, however, it is the defining moment where idealism triumphed over realpolitik in the Obama White House.
For US allies around the world, Obamas decision to hasten the departure of Mubarak has raised doubts about the credibility of Washington as an ally, which linger to this day. These doubts have been cleverly exploited by Russias Vladimir Putin. Whatever the long-term effect of his intervention in the Syrian conflict, he can say he went to the aid of an old ally and turned the tide of battle.
The battle lines around the fall of Mubarak are now clearly drawn thanks to two new documentaries. Inside Obamas White House, by producer Norma Percy, now being shown by the BBC in Britain, tells the story of the presidency in four long episodes through interviews with the key players.
On the events of February 2011, it is clear that the White House team was bitterly split on what to do. An aide to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton says that there was a clash of generations, with the more experienced voices s Clinton and Robert Gates, the defence secretary pushing for a cautious approach and younger officials demanding that the president be forced to step down immediately.
Gates says it was a crazy idea to force Mubarak out, pointing with some justification to how this would be interpreted by US allies. We have been his closest ally for 30 years. The message if you just throw him under the bus is a huge one throughout the entire region.
The younger generation is represented by Ben Rhodes, a former speech writer serving as deputy national security adviser, who says showing support for the Egyptian leader would have been inconsistent with Obamas endorsement of democracy throughout the Middle East. You dont want to be caught on the wrong side of history, Rhodes says.
This is a phrase which clearly infuriated Gates, a veteran who has served in security roles under eight US presidents, including George W Bush. He recalls late-night meetings with top US generals to discuss the White Houses crazy idea.
In a clip from a separate documentary, Rising Threats Shrinking Military, made for Fox News and which is still to be released, Gates gives a far harsher view of the White House split. He says the president ignored the entire national security team and took the advice of three junior backbenchers on how to treat the Egyptian president.
As for being on the right side of history, Gates recalls saying: Yeah, if we could just figure that out, wed be a long way ahead.
Obama phoned the Egyptian president and advised him to announce he was stepping down and begin an orderly transition. But Mubarak refused, saying he had a better understanding of the Middle East than Obama. It was then that the White House opened a line of communication to urge the Egyptian military to take control in order to prevent chaos.
Obama says in the BBC documentary that his aim was to prevent tanks shooting into the crowds in Tahrir Square similar to what happened in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989.
The writer is a commentator on global affairs
