Question: How do you explain the US and Western support for the commander of the military coup in Egypt, “Sisi” despite the horrendous massacres against the Egyptian people?
Answer: The question implies that there is some contradiction between state violence and US support; that is completely inaccurate. Not only is there not a contradiction, in fact, there is a quantifiable correlation between US support and state violence.
The list of regimes around the world supported by the United States over the last 50 years is basically a list of the most brutal authoritarian regimes of the last 50 years.
Violent repression of the domestic population is almost a condition for eligibility for American aid, not a disqualifier.
The imposition of neoliberal policies is known to create popular unrest, and in the revolutionary atmosphere in Egypt, that unrest would have almost certainly been impossible to control. Mursi knew this, and that is why he asked the IMF to give him time to implement their program gradually.
The program is so bad for the population, that if you impose it all at once, it is simply too difficult to bear, and the government will need to depend upon the security services to repress the people. In Egypt, the security services are also a business sector, in fact, the largest business sector. So the army had a vested interest in any economic reforms being implemented.
It made sense to them, and it made sense to the US, and the business interests which control the US, that the army was a more capable partner in the imposing of neoliberal reforms, as they have the capacity to do it quickly, by force, and to repress the population with sufficient brutality to prevent them from interfering with the needs of business.
The US support for Sisi is like the US support for Pinochet before him, like their support for Musharraf, like their support for Suharto, like their support for Marcos, etc etc.
Military dictators are efficient at imposing policies for the benefit of their sponsors, against the will of the people.
That efficient obedience to US poweris the working definition for “democracy” in the lexicon of American foreign policy.