I am an American who grew up in a middle class family in Virginia. I've been living and working in the Middle East for the last six years and am married to an Egyptian.
Today, I am in Cairo and have been here since June 30th. The city is completely covered in political graffiti (buses, billboards, walls, the Metro, everywhere). One of the most prominent messages right now is “C. C. قاتل” which translates to "C.C. is a killer" a reference to Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, Egypt's Minister of Defense. The Muslim Brotherhood holds him responsible for killing between two hundred and four hundred (depending on who you believe) protesters since Morsi’s ouster on July 3rd.
There is a subtlety in the graffiti's messaging that I feel compelled to point out. It's "C. C.," as if rather than being an Arab name (which it is), "C." and "C." are the initials of a westerner. Sisi's not just a killer, he's been stripped of his Arab identity, a traitor to his people.
A vast gulf exists on many issues between Muslim Brotherhood supporters and the overwhelming majority of Egyptians who took to the streets to urge Morsi’s ouster. Never-the-less, at all protests, Anti-Morsi/anti-Muslim Brotherhood protests, anti-military protests, pro-military rallies, there is one sentiment Egyptians are nearly unanimous on, one that is implicitly embedded in the westernization of Sisi's name: America should stay out of their business. At any given moment, the object of their venom, without fail, is accused of being in bed with America. It is among the worst insults they can find to hurl at the opposition.
My wife, literally in bed with an American, can become quite sensitive about this. She refuses to apply for American citizenship, though it would be of great personal benefit to her, and becomes furious when people suggest that her position on a particular issue is tainted by her decision to marry me. I sympathise with her and all Egyptians (and a great deal of the rest of the world, for that matter). America's self-appointed post-war role as international police officer has a long history of undermining the sovereignty of other nations. I can't exactly EMPATHISE because I don't recall any other country ever meddling with our domestic affairs the way we consistently meddle in most everyone else's.
Today the word “coup” is a hotly debated word throughout Egypt. It's a hotly debated word in western discussions of Egypt. And indeed, whether or not it was a coup is a perfectly reasonable thing to be debating. Both sides can be quite convincing and make sensible points. Exhibit A: Morsi received the most votes at the ballot box a little over a year ago and if Egyptians want to oust him, they should do so at the ballot box three years from now. That's how a democracy is supposed to work. Ergo this was a coup. Full stop. And coups are undemocratic.
Exhibit B: The protests calling for Morsi to resign were larger than those calling for Hosni Mubarak to resign two years ago. By some accounts it was collectively the largest political protest in the history of the world. The people who were out on the street calling for Morsi to resign VASTLY outnumber those currently demanding his reinstatement. The military stepped in to avoid as much bloodshed as possible and possibly a civil war. Ergo, this wasn't a "coup" but rather a popular, military-facilitated revolution, and a sequel to Hosni Mubarak's ouster. The democratic will of the people was served.
While I find myself more than a little bit skeptical about SOME of this latter point, I can attest to at least PART of it as an eyewitness. I've never seen a political protest NEARLY so massive. The split-screen presentations shown by a number of Arab and western news channels as these events unfolded; on one side of the screen, a pro-Morsi demonstration, on the other side, an anti-Morsi demonstration; were completely farcical. They created the ludicrous false sense of equivalency that simply didn’t exist. I don't know what a fair scientific poll of Egyptian opinion would reveal, but the night the military ended Morsi's reign, most people in the streets were elated by the news, outnumbering those who were throwing a temper tantrum by a factor of ten, AT LEAST. I couldn't help but recall my 2003 participation in the ineffective protests leading up to George Bush's invasion of Iraq, and found myself envying the power of Egyptian political demonstrations. During the 2011 revolution that overthrew Mubarak the Egyptian people discovered something. They now know that if they come out in large enough numbers, they WILL be heard.
Back in America, I understand that the Egyptian coup debate has found itself somewhat divided along partisan lines. John Kerry told an interviewer in Pakistan last week that the Egyptian military had restored democracy by ousting Morsi. This pissed off a notable faction of Egyptian society and undermined the US government’s efforts to continue to engage with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Meanwhile, John McCain with Lindsay Graham in tow, came to Egypt on August 6th to reiterate something McCain's been saying over and over and over and over again for the last month: that this was a coup, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This, understandably, upset the sitting powers in Egypt. The Obama administration immediately distanced itself from McCain's statements, and two days later, just before leaving, McCain clarified in a press conference that he and Graham were speaking on behalf of themselves as individuals, and not as representatives of the U.S. government as a whole, leaving you, me and especially the Egyptian people confused as to what the hell they were doing here in the first place.
The "coup" debates in America and Egypt are quite different in nature. It is inherently and intimately the business of the Egyptian people to debate whether or not Morsi’s ouster was the democratic will of the people. American political leaders like to think it's their business, but it isn’t.
When an Egyptian says that he is upset by Morsi's ouster because he feels it UNDERMINES the democratic will of the Egyptian people, that statement should be taken seriously. Similarly, when an Egyptian says that she is pleased with Morsi's ouster because it REFLECTS the democratic will of the Egyptian people, that statement should ALSO be taken seriously. This is a legitimate difference of opinion on an issue that directly affects the future of all Egyptians.
When American politicians make posturing statements over the issue, however, it's time to call BULLSHIT. Neither Kerry or McCain likely actually care whether or not it was a coup, because the issue for the U.S. government is not democracy in Egypt. If it was, they wouldn't have supported the Mubarak dictatorship for twenty years.
The issues for the U.S. government are three-fold:
1. Will Egypt continue to honor the terms of its peace treaty with Israel (a treaty that's been in place since 1979 and one that the Muslim Brotherhood was willing to uphold)?
2) Will Egypt continue to accept U.S. foreign aid money in exchange for the above?
3) Will Egypt continue to turn around and purchase American-made weaponry with the foreign aid money we give them?
At best, the Egyptian people are democratically indifferent to these points. At worst, they are democratically OPPOSED to them. And thus, Kerry and McCain, by definition, HAVE to be opposed to a true democracy in Egypt. The disagreement between them is a strategic one. Kerry's statements are designed to compliment the Egyptian military. McCain's statements are intended to bully it and poke a stick in the eye of the Obama administration.