Egypt and the Middle East Thread 5

[Relic]

news from Egypt

Egypt's military dissolved parliament and will run the country for six months or until elections are held, it said in a statement Sunday, two days after President Hosni Mubarak resigned.

It is suspending the constitution and will appoint a committee to propose changes to it, the statement said, adding that the public will then get to vote on the amended constitution.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces can issue new laws during the transition period, according to the statement on state television.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/13/egypt.revolution/index.html?hpt=T1

Thoughts?

[Demonblade]

I think that the Egyptian military is taking steps to go ahead with its assurances that it is not out to take power from Mubarak and is committed to let the Egyptian people decide. But I am sure that there is enough in there for the Chicken Little Alarmists to remain skeptical.

[Spring Bass]

We'll see. I wouldn't put it past them to drag out the process in order to ensure the most favorable election for them.

[Shryke]

I think that the Egyptian military is taking steps to go ahead with its assurances that it is not out to take power from Mubarak and is committed to let the Egyptian people decide. But I am sure that there is enough in there for the Chicken Little Alarmists to remain skeptical.

"Chicken Little Alarmists"??

Yeah, cause there's no reason to fear that a military, once seizing control, would find it difficult to give that power back. No reason at all. Certainly no historical precedent. :rolleyes:

[RWHamel]

Chicken Little Alarmists

:lol:

:commie:

:leaving:

[Demonblade]

"Chicken Little Alarmists"??

Yeah, cause there's no reason to fear that a military, once seizing control, would find it difficult to give that power back. No reason at all. Certainly no historical precedent. :rolleyes:

Leaving the weak sarcasm aside, do you really believe this is going to be the case here, particularly given that; i) the military was put into this position because the public begged them to overthrow Mubarak, ii) the entire world heard/read the military proclaim that they are going to proceed with the democratic process (and so far has shown to be in the process of doing just that), and iii) the military risks losing $1.7 billion/year from the US if they back away from the democratic process?

[Fez]

Leaving the weak sarcasm aside, do you really believe this is going to be the case here, particularly given that; i) the military was put into this position because the public begged them to overthrow Mubarak, ii) the entire world heard/read the military proclaim that they are going to proceed with the democratic process (and so far has shown to be in the process of doing just that), and iii) the military risks losing $1.7 billion/year from the US if they back away from the democratic process?

I'd say if the military provides proof/"proof" that the country is in danger of going Iranian if there were free elections, then yeah the US would be just fine with sham elections that put "the right sort of people" in power. Not saying the military would do that, but it easily could. Of course whether this Supreme Council could fend off the domestic outcry over that is a different question. But what the military wants most of all is to be the most respected institution in the country, and whatever is the best way of doing that is what they'll do.

[ThinkerX]

Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen...wonder when the demonstrations will really take off in Saudi Arabia?

[Edward the Great]

I think that the Egyptian military is taking steps to go ahead with its assurances that it is not out to take power from Mubarak and is committed to let the Egyptian people decide. But I am sure that there is enough in there for the Chicken Little Alarmists to remain skeptical.

I think monkeys *might* fly out of my butt. I think the Egyptian people screwed up. They should have been content with the concession Mubarak had made and waited until September. At least they had a constitution that called for elections in September. Now they have...nothing. And they may well have had nothing anyway. But now we'll never know.

[Mad Monkey]

I don't see how trusting the murderous thief who ruled their country for 30 years would have been safer than this.

[Edward the Great]

The murderous thief had already been dissed by his own son and the military. He was a lame duck. Things can always go wrong, now they have already gone wrong. The Egyptian people have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

To be more precise about this, because it's always a bad assumption to assume that people on public forums know what the fuck they are talking about, Mubarak's son has resigned from the government, the rest of his family had already fled Egypt. The military made it clear they would not use force against protestors of Mubarak's rule (now we'll see what happens that they rule the country). Now parliament has been disbanded and the constitution suspended. The military was angling for its own power all along.

[Demonblade]

With Mubarak there even only as a figurehead, then that does not say at all about his cronies still being around and rigging the next election. I dunno how this is defeat from the jaws of victory, since the military has already stated that they plan on letting the election go ahead in six months. Plus, the military was probably already asked by Mubarak to turn on the protesters, but didn't because the protesters did not provoke them. If the military does a complete 180 degree turn and decides to simply take over, then protests will no doubt return/intensify, leaving the military no choice but to physically act against the protestors. I may be just an optimist but I really don't see the military being prepared to do that when they haven't earlier.

[Padraig]

Padraig, so I guess I will rise to to the bait.

Heh. I think you baited things first. :P

The "clamping down" by the Egyptian army is quite mild really. You can't really draw any conclusions from it. The Constitution was a joke. The parliament was fixed. Getting rid of both is a good thing.

I also think they are dupes, and have been manipulated into doing this. Throughout Europe, Egyptian assets are being seized. Of course, the reason given, it's money that Mubarak has stolen from Egypt. But really, how much of that money is going to end up with Egypt, and not in the hands of Bankers/Lawyers/Politicians? Cynic and Misanthrope that I am, I say, “Let the looting begin!,” because it has. I am not singling out Europe, but they are amazingly faster in this case than the crooks on this side of the Atlantic.

I've no idea what this means. Europe duped the Egyptian people so they could steal their assests? Or are you missing a paragraph break?

I don't think the army duped them either. There is no way the army could have expected the unprecedented protests that occured. Its silly IMO to think they did.

You have no idea what I was thinking a month ago. Since history has many examples of just such a situation, I would have to say that I definitely would have thought it was possible. I would have enjoyed it far more if Mubarak had been more like Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or the regime in Myanmar.

Hey. I said I bet you didn't think it possible. :) I seem to have lost that bet. And while Mubarak wasn't the worst dictator ever, he was still a nasty piece of work. I'll take the victories I can get.

I would assert that if 99.9% of this board united in a single goal, they could topple governments too!

Sure. :lol: Colour me sceptical.

I bet you are one of these “change is good” people. It's Not! It's neither good nor bad. It's going from one state to another. Going by the past 3000 years of history in Egypt, I'm going to have to go with the odds are against a “good” change.

And i'll get my money back on that bet. Change definitely doesn't equate to goodness. Removing a dictator with a chance for democracy is a good change though. You just have to look at the alternatives. As I said, things may go awry yet but since democracy has only become prevalent recently, talking about 3000 year historys is meaningless.

They should have been content with the concession Mubarak had made and waited until September. At least they had a constitution that called for elections in September. Now they have...nothing. And they may well have had nothing anyway. But now we'll never know.

If the military was set on taking power, it would have insured it won the elections in September. Mubarak in power was well used to rigging elections. Saying the protestors have lost everything is silly.

Look...I can understand people saying they expect bad things to come but trusting Mubarak (a military man) and not trusting the military at all is illogical.

[Shryke]

Leaving the weak sarcasm aside, do you really believe this is going to be the case here, particularly given that; i) the military was put into this position because the public begged them to overthrow Mubarak, ii) the entire world heard/read the military proclaim that they are going to proceed with the democratic process (and so far has shown to be in the process of doing just that), and iii) the military risks losing $1.7 billion/year from the US if they back away from the democratic process?

None of this is an assurance that this will turn out well. The best thing going for this situation is, in fact, that the US is holding the purse-strings.

The Army's motives are not anywhere near as clearcut or known as some here would suggest. Just because the ground level units wouldn't turn on the protesters, doesn't mean they agree completely with them. Mubarak was part of the military and may still have ties there. The military has it's own motives for sure, but we aren't very clear on what they are. Frankly, there's few/no people here who are familiar enough with Egyptian internal politics to make calls on what kind of shenanigans may have been going on in the upper echelons of the Egyptian government and military during this whole thing.

It could turn out very well but there is very good, logical, well precedented reasons to fear that it will turn out worse then that.

[DanteGabriel]

iii) the military risks losing $1.7 billion/year from the US if they back away from the democratic process?

I am pretty sure the US will continue to support Egypt if the military installs an ostensibly secular regime that is not overtly hostile to Israel, whether or not that regime is democratic. In fact such a regime may have to be undemocratic. The United States does not have a long history of supporting democracy if it is likely to empower anti-US interests.

[Padraig]

None of this is an assurance that this will turn out well. The best thing going for this situation is, in fact, that the US is holding the purse-strings.

Guessing that the military wants to retain the respect of the Egyptian people but also the powerbase it currently has is a good one I imagine.

And I dont' think anyone has suggested that the army's motives are clearcut. Or that things will definitely turn out well. OTOH way too many people seem eager to dismiss what the Egyptians have achieved though, which I find peculiar. Getting rid of Mubarak was a success, whatever may follow. (Or at least, nobody has put forward a coherent theory why keeping Mubarak in power was the right thing for the Egyptians to do).

I am pretty sure the US will continue to support Egypt if the military installs an ostensibly secular regime that is not overtly hostile to Israel, whether or not that regime is democratic.

But the US can't overtly go around supporting the establishment of a non-democratic regime.

[DanteGabriel]

But the US can't overtly go around supporting the establishment of a non-democratic regime.

Says who? Didn't the US go to war to defend a repressive monarchy, just a couple of countries over?

I think what's likely to happen is that the US will support a US-friendly secular regime that continues the detente with Israel -- and maintains window-dressed elections to keep up the appearance of democracy. It's happened before, over and over.

Please understand that I am speaking based only on my understanding of US foreign policy, and not on any knowledge of Egypt's politics or culture. The US, after all, may not see its dog in this fight come out on top.

[Demonblade]

None of this is an assurance that this will turn out well. The best thing going for this situation is, in fact, that the US is holding the purse-strings.

The Army's motives are not anywhere near as clearcut or known as some here would suggest. Just because the ground level units wouldn't turn on the protesters, doesn't mean they agree completely with them. Mubarak was part of the military and may still have ties there. The military has it's own motives for sure, but we aren't very clear on what they are. Frankly, there's few/no people here who are familiar enough with Egyptian internal politics to make calls on what kind of shenanigans may have been going on in the upper echelons of the Egyptian government and military during this whole thing.

It could turn out very well but there is very good, logical, well precedented reasons to fear that it will turn out worse then that.

I think if this was all about a military coup where some within the military were fearful of what may happen if Mubarak's son came into power, then the military would have acted a lot sooner, no? They could have crushed the pro-Mubarak 'protesters' and just grabbed Mubarak as soon as the first Molotov cocktail hit Tahrir square. If it is the ground troops that refused to follow an order to attack the protesters, then it still shows that the game has changed. If they refused to follow an order to attack civilians once, than it tells me that they could do so again. But I agree that we know very little about the inner-workings Egyptian politics. I just remain hopeful rather than skeptic in this case.

I am pretty sure the US will continue to support Egypt if the military installs an ostensibly secular regime that is not overtly hostile to Israel, whether or not that regime is democratic. In fact such a regime may have to be undemocratic.

If there was some way of putting the genie back into the bottle I would completely agree, but for some reason, I don't think this is possible now. If the US were to support a new dictator/puppet in Egypt, it would certainly not look good for Obama, particularly since he is up for re-election in less than two years.

[Shryke]

I think if this was all about a military coup where some within the military were fearful of what may happen if Mubarak's son came into power, then the military would have acted a lot sooner, no? They could have crushed the pro-Mubarak 'protesters' and just grabbed Mubarak as soon as the first Molotov cocktail hit Tahrir square. If it is the ground troops that refused to follow an order to attack the protesters, then it still shows that the game has changed. If they refused to follow an order to attack civilians once, than it tells me that they could do so again. But I agree that we know very little about the inner-workings Egyptian politics. I just remain hopeful rather than skeptic in this case.

I doubt the order was ever given to fire on the protesters. The question is, was that done because they didn't want to or because they didn't think it would be followed?

And again, there are degrees between military coup and military-backed revolution. From how it all played out and from some of the reports coming out about power struggles within the Egyptian government, it seemed fairly obvious that the military chucked Mubarak out when he seemed to have no interest in or ability to calm the situation down. And there's been alot of skepticism before now about Mubarak's son taking power since, afaik, he wasn't well liked by just about everyone. Just because they didn't like Mubarak or his son didn't mean they were willing to stage a coup.

Hell, the fact that they didn't crush the pro-mubarak protesters says alot to me. The military had no real interest in supporting the civilians beyond staying the hell out of the whole thing.

And ultimately, I'm just going to assume that your post here means you take back all that stupid "Chicken Little Alarmists" bullshit you started this thread off with.

[Padraig]

Says who? Didn't the US go to war to defend a repressive monarchy, just a couple of countries over?

What Demonblade said. I did use the word "overtly" myself. Everyone knows what the US wants but it can't go around openly flip-flopping.

The military had no real interest in supporting the civilians beyond staying the hell out of the whole thing.

Except when they didn't stay the hell out of the whole thing.

I'm sure like most organisations, the military isn't one unitary body. It has factions and different ideas.

From how it all played out and from some of the reports coming out about power struggles within the Egyptian government, it seemed fairly obvious that the military chucked Mubarak out when he seemed to have no interest in or ability to calm the situation down

I think ability. He tried to strongarm them out using the police and failed. He couldn't get the military to support him. That was it for him. Whether Mubarak's son would have taken over is irrelevant. Chances are that it would have been some military stooge before this revolution. Now, there is an alternative.