Printable View
So the Egyptian Military is going to stand by "the people", as one Egyptian put it, and pressure Morsi to step down (maybe).
My question to the audience is this "Do military coups and temporary military governments get a bad rap?" Does the military, in places like Turkey and Thailand, ensure a less bloody transition than other alternatives. Is this something Westerner's should take another look at (or even tacidly encourage)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/wo...s&src=igw&_r=0
The Curmudgeon asked:Yes, deservedly so from my West European viewpoint and not being personally subject to such military-led governance, let alone the inevitable coercion, torture, corruption and more so I am very lucky.Quote:
Do military coups and temporary military governments get a bad rap?
Not to overlook in my adult life two European nations had such rule, Greece (1967-1974), maybe the quasi-military regime in Portugal and Spain (1935-1975). It is rare for the military to voluntarily relinquish its 'rule' and 'right' to intervene - as events in Cairo today indicate. IIRC Nigeria had one such 'return to barracks'.
I don't know much about Thailand, but Turkey appears to have voluntarily accepted Ataturk's rule after the defeats in WW1 and more. The military until very recently remained the 'guardian' of his legacy, with coups in May 1960 (till September 1961), 1971 (May 1971-September 1973) & 1980 (September 1980-November 1983). All dates are approximate.Quote:
Does the military, in places like Turkey and Thailand, ensure a less bloody transition than other alternatives.
Yes many countries face a 'bloody transition' when faced by revolution, instability and political competition. Whether it is 'less' than the alternatives is a moot point. Chile, Argentina and Brazil come to mind.
No, no. Let the people, Egyptians today, make their own decisions. Has Western involvement, however active or 'mild' helped a transition and the development of what each nation seeks. The USA in particular readily forgets 'self-determination', let alone liberty and freedom.Quote:
Is this something Westerner's should take another look at (or even tacidly encourage)?
Have we not learnt a military follows its own path, no doubt with "spin" and megaphones announcing the emergency action is to preserve 'Western values', fight communism and extremism?
Just read a Tweet by Majid Nawaz, of Quilliam Foundation, an ex-radical (Hizb-ut-Tahir) who was imprisoned in Eygpt and now a Liberal-Democrat party member here:Quote:
SECULAR military dictator better than hard line Islamist denying democracy
....on autocratic governments vs. tyrannical governments?
Am I getting this wrong?
Anyway, when did we ever stop supporting military governments if we thought the military was the magical key to stability? (Witness our relationship with Musharraf, who did a number on us).
This might be entirely too glib, but is Egypt about to "go Pakistan", or is this more like the run up to the Algerian civil war? I hope neither.
http://www.economist.com/node/8447241Quote:
For most of the 1980s, as perhaps Ronald Reagan's most influential foreign-policy adviser, she supported military interventions, covert proxy wars, the coddling of anti-communist dictators and the full-blooded, unapologetic pursuit of America's national interests. Asked 20 years later about Iraq, old age or greater wisdom seemed to have tamed her. George Bush junior was “a bit too interventionist for my taste”. As for moral imperialism, “I don't think there is one scintilla of evidence that such an idea is taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC.”
Certain sentences from her most famous article, “Dictatorships and Double Standards”—written on her summer holiday in France, published in Commentary magazine in November 1979—now induce a sigh. “No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratise governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances.” “Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road [to democratic government] took seven centuries to traverse.” “The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American policymakers.” Yes indeed.
Some events are beyond the ability for us to control, guide, etc. We can only watch events play out and keep mind of basic interests. And each event is contingent. And both support for hurried democratization AND support for military coups has come back to haunt us, again and again.
The situation in Egypt may be the most current experiment on Military Government, we will have to see how it turns out. IMO it can be a good thing if done in accords with the original concept as was presented in the USMC Small Wars Manual.
I was going to write the same thing. They seem to have decided to keep a relative low profile - if it can be called that way - and avoided the usual arrests.
We will see.
A good thing? No. A necessary thing, maybe, in some very rare circumstances, if the people to be governed accept it.
Anybody who starts thinking a military government would be a good thing for somebody else needs to be hit hard on the head before he has any chance to put that idea into action.
I don't have a copy and would love to know.
As far as I can see, military coup is just another option for a bloodless transition. It depends on the motivation of the military. I don't think it needs to be automatically and arbitrarily attacked.
I like the model the Egyptian's have take so far. The choice of the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court was a nice choice.
For a long time the Turkish military guaranteed secular government that Ataturk tried to establish. That kind of dedication to an ideal can act as a stabilizing factor or it can be used to gain personal political power.
The OP title, Can Military Governments be a good thing (for a while)?, immediately brought to mind two questions:
1. "Good thing" for whom ?
2. "Good thing" for what ?
Each has, I expect, a dozen or more answers; as well as a similar plethora of answers for the counterpoint questions:
1. "Bad thing" for whom ?
2. "Bad thing" for what ?
--------------------------
Links to USMC Small Wars Manual (Wiki, Manual and NWC Book Review). The most important concept is the end goal, chap. 15, "Withdrawal".
I expect a spirited discussion would evolve from consideration of whether the USMC interventions in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua were "good things" or "bad things".
Regards
Mike
I define good as being better than a decent into internal Civil War. The Army appears to be trying to preserve the primarry purpose of Government which is to Protect and Provide theQuote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
jmm99 has provided several references for the manual. Chapter 13 on Military Government appears to be what the Egyptian Army is in so far as they are being selective as to who and what is replaced until elections can be established.
I was completely right, they only took a great deal of key members into costudy. Morsi is still a free man, so far. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
@jmm99: Cui bono indeed?Quote:
Egypt's new military rulers have arrested the Muslim Brotherhood's supreme leader, security sources say, and issued warrants for up to 300 other members hours after ousting the elected president, Mohamed Morsi, and taking him and his aides into military custody.
The day after a momentous night in Cairo has revealed the full extent of the military overthrow, with key support bases of the Muslim Brotherhood, including television stations, closed down or raided.
Security officials told the Associated Press and Reuters that the Brotherhood's supreme leader, Mohammed Badie, was arrested in a coastal city near the Libyan border on Wednesday and flown to Cairo in a military helicopter.
The Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad said he could not confirm the reports because the group had lost their lines of communication to Badie.
Morsi certainly was elected in a quite democratic fashion but selected to ignore a good deal of that democracy as a sort of fading fashion. Shame on him. Religion alone does in any case not sort out the economy of a country. It is of course impossible to tell how much the last years in government have weakened the brotherhood and how much strenght they can win from this coup. ;)
Being a military man, I would like to think that the military that understands its role as a servant of the country (however you define THAT term), can step in when the alternative is a decent into civil war. There has to be other options.
I wonder if things had been different in Syria had the military not sided with Assad. I realize that is fantasy, but it begs the question of when the military has a duty to protect the population, even from its own government.
I take an oath to the Constitution, and then to the President and the Officers appointed over me. I prefer to think that, in other parts of the world, military men think the same way. I realize this has shades of "Starship Troopers", but reality can be stranger than fiction.
Looking at my sig there have been indeed some cases, where a quicker execution of what the intellect dictated would have saved first the one of democracy and later the very own.
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"
General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935
Thankfully Europe today is a different continent despite the big crisis. Mr Bunga bunga and a mad Magyar.
The question shouldn't be if something is "good", but whether it's the least evil option which is available and realistic.
One can hardly think of Stauffenberg et al and not think that there are at least exceptions when a coup by or with the military is better than the status quo.
In most potential military coup scenarios it's better to keep the military in the barracks - especially if a civil war is a possibility. There isn't going to be much of a civil war if the military stays in its barracks. The threshold for the launch of a civil war by dissenters is typically so high that the government couldn't stem it with police forces alone.
Countries with lots of tribal institutions, paramilitary forces, access to foreign forces or domestic warlords are obviously exceptions to this. Soon, countries with a very much hardware-supported police state may be added to this list of exceptions.
Pro re militari.
Regards
Mike
Even so, does that justify removing him from office in an illegal manner? I feel like one of corollaries of adopting a democratic system is accepting that voters are going to make the wrong decision at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
As painful as it would have been for the people of Egypt to let the Morsi stagnation continue, I have to believe that with enough time many of his supporters would have come to accept exactly what you are saying. (Not all of them would have, admittedly. I’m an American. I know that ideology can blind people to facts. :wry:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
Al-Qaeda has been saying for years that democracy will never give an Islamist party the opportunity to succeed. Whatever favors the Egyptian military may have just done for their country’s economy may have been matched by the favors done for Al-Qaeda.
I did a short post on my blog [LINK] questioning whether ‘coup’ is the best word for what happened in Egypt. I’m not saying that I know the right word, just that I suspect that coup might not be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
This thread posed a general question before recent events in Egypt and a separate thread is about to be started on the developing situation in Egypt. The title is 'Egypt: has the Spring ended?'
A number of the posts here on Egypt will be moved to the new thread.
Dave, how is Cromwell's "coup" remembered in British civil and military history?
Most history of this period is called 'The English Civil War' and Cromwell's later coup against an elected, Puritan parliament although recorded was not widely known today. It certainly featured in the 1970 film 'Cromwell':http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065593/Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
This changed when the story of 'The Levellers' became part of a new interpretation of populism and revolutionary aspects of English history, allied with part of the fringe around the 'left':https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers
Amidst that difficult time it is important to note and taken from a review of a play in 2012:Link:http://www.theweek.co.uk/theatre/497...-military-coupQuote:
It tells the story of the 55-day military coup in the mid-1600s when Cromwell's army took control of Parliament and moved to put King Charles I on trial for treason.
Context can provide a better answer sometimes; I cite a review of a new 2012 book on Cromwell:Link:http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1254Quote:
The main theoretical premise of his book, The Noble Revolt, is to put forward a view of the Civil War as basically a coup d’état by a group of nobles or aristocrats who no longer supported the King. According to Diane Purkiss these nobles were ‘driven by their code of honour, they acted to protect themselves and the nation. Names such as Saye, Bedford, Essex and Warwick move from the side-lines to occupy centre stage, as do their counterparts among Scottish peers. It was they and not the rude masses who plucked a king from his throne. Oliver Cromwell, for Adamson, was merely one of their lesser lackeys’.
An article in an Egyptian e-paper actually refers to Cromwell's coup!http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/0...-coup-de-quoi/
Incidentally I doubt that the syllabus at RMA Sandhurst or any other military training place includes this period. We have had other coups too, such as 'The Glorious Revolution':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
Us young colonists lack the context of your history. Most of what I know from that time is from a series of books by Quentin Skinner "The Foundations of Modern Political Thought". In that book i remember some quotes from other military men finding the acts of the King to be against the rights and honor of an Englishman. There is quite a bit about the Levellers and other similar groups in Europe, particularly the Dutch republics. It makes interesting reading for those who think that the idea of individual human rights have always existed but were simply repressed by the European monarchs since time immemorial. The Romans have no history of human rights.
So when I look at places like Egypt today it is easy for me to see shades of Europe circa 1650. That is a simplistic view, but I think there are lessons that can be learned from the machinations that Europe went through before stabilizing politically in the 1950s.
This is a very complex topic and the answer on whether or not military governments can be a good thing is very much situational dependent, which in my opinion means the West more often than not should sit back and count to 10 very slowly before they start issuing demands for the military to transition to civilian rule, which is our general default response based on our principles, but to demand a rapid transition without understanding the overall context invites serious and enduring problems.
Externally sponsored military coups are almost always, if not always, a bad option. Military coups sponsored/supported by an external power (usually a state) have been perceived as amoral (rightfully so) and have generally resulted in ineffective and eventually failed governments. In the case of the U.S. sponsored coups, those efforts more often than not resulted in longer term harm to our interests than any short term benefits gained. Hopefully the era of coup making by via external support or intervention is coming an end as a desirable option, but if you believe that the press reports represent reality then it seems this is just wishful thinking.
When we look at Egypt it appears to be an internally motivated military coup with no outside support to the military visible, but of course that doesn't mean they weren't encouraged and supported in various ways by any number of state actors. However, for purposes of debate lets assume it was internal with no external support (intelligence, promises of support, encouragement, financial deals, etc.).
We don't know as much as we think we do. What do most of us really know to be fact? Just because the media excessively covers demonstrations and calls them the will of the people doesn't mean that this media created reality is reality. A camera looks at the world through a soda straw, and media reports can intentionally and unintentionally be very deceptive. We really have no idea if the political activists in the streets represented the majority of the Egyptian people. The media attempted to create the illusion that the 99% movement in the U.S. was supported by the majority, but Americans for the most part were able to see past that attempt to create a media based reality because they had venues other than main stream media to analyze and inform their opinion.
Is the coup legal or illegal? If the sitting government was violating the constitution, could a military intervention actually be legal and desirable? Despite all the negative effects of the military leaving its barracks and getting involved, are there times when a military coup is the lesser of two evils? If the military leaders took an oath to defend the constitution do they have an obligation to intervene if the government is threatening the constitution? There are no easy answers, but as Fuchs wrote this may be simply the lesser of two evils.
Should we push military governments to transition to civilian rule rapidly?
In my opinion it depends, which means we shouldn't have a policy where we automatically disengage because we don't like the smell of the military lead government.
- Does a viable constitution exist which would provide the basis for a civilian government to "rapidly" assume control within an accepted legal structure? If it doesn't, simply holding a flash election will result in little more than mob rule under the guise of a democratically elected government (Iraq for example, and maybe the MB in Egypt?).
- If we're dealing with a nation whose borders were created by European colonists that resulted in an irrational state with a population deeply divided among ethnic lines is it possible to develop a truly functioning democracy (instead of a façade) to begin with?
- Why did I default to democracy when discussing civilian led governments? Is it really the best system in all states? Do we confuse our view of legitimacy with what the citizens of another nation perceive as legitimate? Do we too often exceed our level of understanding of a nation-state and incorrectly push inappropriate solutions based on the U.S. (and West's in general) view of the world? More importantly is our foreign policy making us more or less popular in the world? Seems to me we already lost considerable influence throughout much of Latin America by attempting to push our agenda. In a multipolar world nations realize they have other options than partnering with the U.S., but I'm not sure our foreign policy community has grasped that fact yet.
I took the long route to the bottom line, but in some rare cases I suspect a military led government "could" be better than some other options. Even if it isn't better, once one exists, we need to slow our roll before we demand a rapid transition to civilian rule. In many cases returning a legitimately elected government that was illegally ousted by the military is absolutely the right thing to do, but not all cases are that simple.
Assuming Bashir's government eventually falls in Syria, do we really think the ethnic killing will stop while an interim civilian government develops a new constitution and prepares for elections? Perhaps it is more reasonable to think that a military coup and interim military government will be necessary to stop the projected continued mass blood letting, and only after the massive ethnic killing stops and some degree of order is imposed, should an interim civilian government form?
I don't have any idea what the right answer is, but I do know our simplistic approach based on our desire to rapidly install a civilian government too often fails.
@ Bill M - that's a great comment.
Context matters a lot (as stated above by the Curmudgeon.) Describing a situation and the complicated nature of changing societies is different than advocating a policy which is where I think I misunderstood the original question.
I'll be honest that as a civilian I get a bit nervous when people in the military start talking about coups being a good thing. I know that's an over-reaction to a theoretical intellectual discussion like this thread but I can't help feeling that way.
The military is sort of its own world in the US--and in other places--and I wonder sometimes if that makes military members more sympathetic to foreign militaries and their narratives, or if narratives are overly influenced by the, well, influence of the military. So many things are going on at the same time and the same military that may be the lesser of evils now was partly responsible for the current mess to begin with.
I wrote the following in a comment that has now been moved to a different Egypt related thread but I am still curious what others think:
IMO, the "mirroring" attitude of the American military--in particular, the Army--caused a lot of problems in "AfPak", especially with regard to old relationships from the time of working with the Pakistan Army and intelligence agencies against the Soviets. Assuming the military in other parts of the world think the same is problematic.
Future historians studying this aspect of the American military, at least circa 2001-2005 or so, are going to have a field day of it, I predict.
But each situation is different and Egypt is not Pakistan. I don't know the Egyptian situation very well so I should probably stick to commenting on South Asia.
This sort of thing always interests me though:
Quote:
Egypt’s ruling military has warned against any interference in its murky economic empire amid a burgeoning power struggle with Islamists who control parliament, state media reported March 28.
The warning comes as the military prepares to hand power to a civilian leader when presidential elections end in June, and as the dominant Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) pressures the generals to sack the government.
Maj. Gen. Mahmud Nasr, a member of the ruling council, warned that the military “will not allow any interference from anyone in the armed forces’ economic projects,” the official MENA news agency reported.
In the unusually detailed defense of the military’s economic ventures, which include factories and hotels, Nasr said the businesses’ annual revenues were 1.2 billion Egyptian pounds ($198 million).
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...ness-Interests
I have no friggin' idea really. As others have said, we shall see. Perhaps it is a genuinely popular coup that will lead to some more inclusive government and is one step on the road to better governance, maybe it's just one more chapter of the military behind the scenes from the 1950's onward. When does the clock start on the goodness of enlightened militaries stepping in when needed?
I don't mean the comment to seem overly hostile, I am trying as a civilian to understand how exactly I should think about all of this?
I often feel that political scientists and the military rely on history a bit too much which causes us to have convictions in the way we think that are undeserved. As we watch events unfold in Egypt I would like to reopen the conversation on whether military coups are ever a good thing. I will start with two thoughts:
Madhu points out that, as a civilian, the idea of the military talking about military coups potentially being a good thing is scary. His apprehension is not without merit. Without referring to history I will say that the military is hampered in its ability to deal with a population. Our natural inclination is to use coercion first – up to and including deadly violence.
To Madhu’s point I offer Fuchs and Bill’s counter-point: was a military coup the lesser of two evils. If no one stepped in would Egypt have descended into a civil war with the kind of unrestricted violence seen in Syria? Is it better to have a Leviathan keeping a lid on sectarian hatred until new social norms can be established? If the military backs down now (or is forced to back down by internal or external forces), will unrestricted violence be the inevitable result?
Let’s be clear, I am not talking about external intervention – this is strictly between the Egyptians. But the question and the answers should not be limited to this one situation. Egypt provides a backdrop. At the risk of sounding crass it is an ongoing social experiment. There are other strings that deal specifically with this situation.
Now, while events unfold, without the benefit of hindsight, what are your thoughts?
That corollary works in a country where the voters can reverse their mistake when the next election comes around. If they elect a 'one man, one vote, one time' outfit that opportunity will never come. That is when certain armies step in, as in Algeria and Turkey. The world would have been a lot better off if the Heer had stepped in in 1933.Quote:
Originally Posted by ganulv
I don't think doing things so that AQ can't say 'gotcha' is a winning game. No matter what happens or happened they would always say it is somebody else's fault and they should run things. After all Allah is on their side. Just ask 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by ganulv
I posted this article on another thread but it pertains to this as well. Saudi King says to support the Egyptian Army! Excellent article.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-...151611137.html
This offers another interesting perspective. If the major problems in the company are economic and if the military has experience in business, does this not provide another argument for the military?Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Two contrasting, but similar commentaries. The first is by a Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and has some telling passages, like this:Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ntentions.htmlQuote:
There is no such thing as a good coup, only bad coups and worse coups. All military regimes, in time, become tawdry and self-serving. Whatever intentions the army officers begin with, they end up as petty tyrants. An elected ruler is kept in check by the knowledge that he can be fired. Take that knowledge away and, however pure his motives, he will end up arranging the affairs of state around his personal convenience.
A BBC Newsnight commentary, four minutes or so, which gives a very quick overview of 'Egypt crisis: Does political Islam have a future?':http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23736446
It’s often an apples-to-apples comparison, since military governments tend to leave at their own leisure, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
In retrospect, the Heer unseating Hitler would probably have made the world a better place. But the Allies’ reparations scheme and U.S. foreign policy toward Hitler’s government might also have been effective.
I’m not saying AQ aren’t the bad guys. But just because they say something doesn’t make it wrong, either.Quote:
I don't think doing things so that AQ can't say 'gotcha' is a winning game. No matter what happens or happened they would always say it is somebody else's fault and they should run things. After all Allah is on their side. Just ask 'em.
Somehow I have m' doubts that a serving or retired Egyptian soldier has excellent commercial acumen, more likely via the state apparatus he'd have an "insider's track" on investments, such as a property development. In a wide-ranging critique from the 'left' Nick Cohen commented:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-west-responseQuote:
To add robbery to murder, it has built a military-industrial complex that keeps Egyptians poor by preventing new businesses competing with the elite monopolies it controls.
Perhaps, but there is something out there called the Dictatorial or Autocratic Advantage. It basically states that a central government that is actively involved in creating wealth for the nation through nationalistic policies does a better job of raising the economic standings of all citizens then do democratic governments. It is common now to attack this idea and you will find dozens of papers that claim that no such advantage exists or that it is vastly over-stated, but none-the-less Nazi Germany and China both gained prosperity over a limited periods of time with a combination of private enterprise and state participation.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
In addition there are many countries where the military funds itself through private endeavors (I believe the Philippines is one). That means that they have an understanding of business and profits, something most democratic governments do not ... and failing economics is oft cited as a reason for rebellion.
So I would still argue that, under the right conditions, a properly motivated military may be better able to right a failing economic ship then a fledgling democracy.
I understand, though do not necessarily endorse, the argument that the Pinochet-led junta was a necessary remedy to the economic situation Chile found itself in as the Allende administration wore on. Like I said, I don’t necessarily endorse that argument, but it does make logical sense to say that what was needed was a sea change. But however much the Morsi government may have deepened the Egyptian economic crisis, the fact is that it was inherited from the same military government now headed by Sisi. I don’t know the workings of Egyptian politics, but I have to suspect that Mubarak and Sisi might both be being used as scapegoats.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
As an economist who studied this for five years and majored about quite exactly this I tell you:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
Nazi Germany had a disappointing economic performance pre-WW2 given the circumstances. The Nazi economic policy was an outright disaster and unsustainable any way. The Federal Republic of Germany is still cleaning of the crappy regulations done by Nazis in the 30's of struggling with their legacy of effects.
China's economic growth is perfectly explainable without any bonus from state-owned industries (which are in fact a huge problem because of their inefficiency).
Strong central governments are quite good at creating national infrastructure, but they are substandard performers when it comes to creating "wealth".
A country with rigged markets* such as Egypt is not going to go forward at a useful pace any time soon.
*: Not to be confused with impartially regulated markets.
Fuchs,
So, as an economist, for a country that is having financial problems, would you prefer an autocratic system or a fledgling democratic one?
Starting with the Egyptian Army and its "grip" on the economy, the title says it all, Egypt military fights for macaroni, as well as security - Estimates of the Egyptian military's share of the country's economy range from 5% to 40% and its hands reach into many industries, including mining, real estate, farming and the production of household appliances (USA Today, 17 Aug 2013).
5% would make it a significant, material factor in the economy; 40% would make it an oligopolist, heading toward effective monopoly control. Which is the more factual case ? I don't know.
Then we have Gen. al-Sisi; for whom, we have two original source documents - the first, this year; the other in 2006: Excerpts from Washington Post interview with Egyptian Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi; and Democracy in the Middle East (US Army War College, 2006).
Based on these (and other sources), we have two opinions that Gen. al-Sisi is an "Islamist":
Sisi's Islamist Agenda for Egypt - The General's Radical Political Vision (Foreign Affairs, Robert Springborg, July 28, 2013).
Why Egyptian Putschist General Al-Sisi’s Anti-Secular U.S. Army War College Thesis Matters (Andrew Bostrom, 10 Aug 2013).
Portrait of the General as a Not-So-Young Grad Student: Egypt's army chief isn't an Islamist -- in fact, his work at the U.S. Army War College suggests he may be a Mubarak clone (Foreign Policy, Eric Trager, 7 Aug 2013).
and these are just a sampling of divergent pundits.
Attached are pp.14-15 of al-Sisi's War College thesis (only 17 pages total). Based on his 2006 comments, I'd tag him as a moderate Muslim - though not a secularist. I see more than a little bit of Nassar in al-Sisi (the "masses", a Middle East "EU"; focus on Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen).
Regards
Mike
Financial problems? Do you men fiscal problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
What kind of fiscal problems? Why not compare a fledgling autocratic system with a fledgling democratic system?
How could I possibly choose autocracy over democracy because of such a petty topic as money?
Now Fuchs, don't evade the question. Just give it a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
He answered the question: There can be no bad Democracy or good Autocracy.
Fiscal (or financial) status, corruption, or any other qualifier is irrelevant.
I already answered it.
I'm not going to be lured into supporting autocracy by such a feeble thing as a myopic look at financial matters.
In fact, no-one is going to get me to support autocracy, even if aliens from space told us they will invade in a year and everyone was suddenly convinced that our mobilization would require authoritarian regime.
I am not easily scared or duped.
Besides; autocratic regimes have a horrible track record in economic affairs anyway. An autocratic regime looking good on the economic front is either existing under very lucky circumstances or the observer is merely looking at one side of the coin.
Financial matters can be a very big deal, the difference between living and dying even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Lee Kuan Yew was a bit of an autocrat and Singapore is doing quite well. Red China is rather more than autocratic and they seem to be doing ok. Chile did quite well as did Turkey despite (because of) autocratic military regimes. So maybe it depends sometimes.
From an article entitled "Egypt’s Military: Doing What Germany’s Should Have Done in 1933"
Quote:
Sudanese writer Al-Hajj Warraq, got it exactly right in an Egyptian television interview last year. He said:
Democracy is about more than just the ballot box. Democracy is a culture engraved upon the cerebral box before it is the ballot box. One cannot talk about freedom in the absence of free minds. The tragedy of the Arab Spring is that when the tyrannical regimes fell, the fruits were reaped by movements that preach closed-mindedness, rather than free thinking. The outcome will be regimes that are worse than those that were toppled.
Apparently, the Egyptian people – at least the 30 million who were in the streets marching against Morsi – agreed with him. Unfortunately, the United States has not.
I doubt any of us are in a position to carry out a coup and install a military government on our own, but the question does have ramifications in the wider world. For instance, since the end of the Cold War coups conducted by the military or ones that resulted in a military strongman in the presidential palace, even as a transitional government, has been seen as a step backwards. In certain respects this is a PR question, but the ramifications are real since aid can be tied to how Western states approach the new government.Quote:
Originally Posted by cindyr
The more direct issue has to do with our own doctrine. If a military government is per se bad, than how can we ever implement a transitional military government? If a military government is "bad" than we can never again do what we did after WWII. In both Germany and Japan there was a military government who ran things for about eight months until it was turned over to civilian administrators. There was no looting; no loss of priceless art, and very little civil unrest as opposed to how we handled Iraq. This is a bit of a separate question, but it is related.
The military have been drivers of modernization in many South American countries, which, after becoming independent from the colonial powers, were mainly ruled by rural landowning regional elites, which intended to keep the agricultural economic basis of their nations.
In the case of Brazil, the Armed Forces were a competing sector within the society which favored industrialization and closer ties with the Western powers.
The Army was reponsible for ending the monarchy in 1889 and, after the Triple Alliance War, played a major part in the abolition of slavery, seeing as they realized a strong Army could only be built from a free society.
Many South American countries were ruled by military regimes during the mid XX century and, although some had their own specific historical reasons for becoming so, the fenomena must also be understood as a part of the contention strategy of the Cold War. Nobody wanted 25 countries styled after Cuba in their backyard.