The present administration's inexperience in world politics is really showing, IMHO.
The administration threw Mubarak under the bus, and now all the middle East allies (such as they are), as well as all the other Arab states in the region, are worried the US will do it to them if and when the time comes. Even Israel is worried about this administration's dependability as an ally.
This is a great loss of face and influence in world politics for the US, and in particular the middle East region.
All that groveling on Obama's trip earlier in his administration has now gone to waste, if it ever was any sort of repairing of the relationships with the countries in the region.
I fail to understand why not walk that tight rope without coming down on one side or the other for as long as possible. Why not have a position such as this:
Egypt is a sovereign nation. We've had a 30 year relationship with the state of Egypt, and we look forward to continue this relationship. Just avoid taking sides period. No one knows how this'll play out. Why place a bet and compromise your position?
This is essentially an internal Egyptian issue, a sovereign nation's issue, and we urge both the government of Egypt and the people of Egypt to avoid violence, to discuss and negotiate a common ground which they both can support as a means forward for both the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people.
Yes, I know that many will say that as a democracy we should do everything to support pro-democratic movements, but does that include injecting ourselves into the internal politics of a sovereign nation?
I don't believe so. I believe that we should support pro democratic movements up to, and just short of, injecting ourselves into a sovereign nation's internal politics. Why should we place ourselves in the middle, only to have both sides build animosity to us?