Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

Via Eric Trager at The Atlantic:

Scenes From Egypt's Would-Be Revolution

Quote:

---

CAIRO, Egypt -- It is too soon to know whether the stunning demonstrations that have rocked Egypt today, with tens of thousands of protesters descending on cities throughout the country and overtaking Cairo's central square in an effort to reproduce Tunisia's recent uprising, will succeed in forcing change. But a telling comment came just after cannons, shooting gas-infused water, dispersed crowds along one major Cairo thoroughfare, when a man turned to me and said, "We want a revolution. We don't want Hosni Mubarak."

That man was a police captain.

---

I just posted the following comments on facebook while discussing this with an Indian friend...I think they are relevant. The US, with its worldcop ambitions and its Israeli mandate cannot easily sit aside, but, for whatever its worth:

I think that the ruling elite will survive, but may have to sacrifice the crook Mubarak and send him to retirement in Jeddah if things get out of hand. Then they will ban alcohol on Fridays or do some other bull#### like that to keep the mullahs happy and meanwhile they will ask America for more money in order to keep the poor people in check. This method of selling nuisance value has been perfected in Pakistan and if they need advice, I can provide it at 500 dollars an hour via skype…
Fundamentalists are a threat to Egypt because if they hijack the “revolution” it will be crude, violent and unproductive and will eventually lead to either anarchy or an Islamist dictatorship that will barely feed its own population and will someday be replaced by another revolution.
Israel is the obvious direct affectee outside of Egypt. It is a waste of time to worry about fundamentalists in Egypt if you are an Indian. In fact, the fundamentalists may have to buy stuff from india and China as Europe and the USA will close down a lot of connections. And India may benefit from a few thousand talented Egyptian refugees finding their way to India. What is India’s worry from such a “revolution”?

a brief thanks for again giving us your take on things Islamic and Islamist - and we get you advice and comments without coughing up 10K nickels per hour. :D

Cheers

Mike

Since you encouraged me, I have another comment on this article:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/01/26...ne-is-waiting/

I am not sure why Obama has to deliver the people of Egypt out of slavery. I would not imagine that as a traditional function of American diplomacy.

If things get out of hand, then there is the issue of what organized force is in a position to control the situation. Obviously there is no such thing (even in Somalia) as pure anarchy. Whoever has some organized force tends to take control. In an organized modern state, that function is performed by the state. If Egypt is lucky, then their current corrupt ruling elite will have enough sense and staying power to reform themselves enought to satisfy the people’s aspiration for participation in society, fairness, democracy, etc, while maintaining basic law and order.
But given the long history of corrupt elite rule in these countries and its inevitable decay at the core, it may be that they will either impose basic order by force WITHOUT reforming too much, or they will fall apart completely. IF things fall apart, then it all depends on who or what can organize a takeover of the remains. In 1917 in Russia, that was the Bolsheviks. In Egypt in 2012 that may be the Islamists.
And yes, in that case, things may go from bad to worse. My guess is that the Islamists, at least initially, will be less corrupt than the current regime, and they will permit many marginalized but talented people to rise, but given their retrogressive philosophical framework, they will not be able to make much progress and will lose a lot of the technocratic elite to migration. Unlike Iran, they dont have much oil, they dont have that strong and deep a cultural tradition, they dont have a very educated clergy, they have Israel next door and they are infected with just enough grandiose Arab grandstanding: they will not do well as an Islamic republic…

I have watched a little newsreel and spent more time looking at the photos on FP Blog:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...25/day_of_rage

Where it is remarkable that many of those protesting are not young, indeed juveniles are absent as are women. The vast majority are men in their twenties and one Oriental male - a Chinese student / tourist?

The U.S. has no duty to "deliver" any populace "out of slavery."

But the U.S. has no choice but to deal with the consequences of perceptions that we act to sustain such populaces in "slavery" to begin with.

"Slavery" is a harsh word, designed to evoke emotional responses. This in no time or place for such emotion. This is a time for calm, thoughtful, principled leadership.

I for one am far more comfortable with an America that stands up for popular sovereignty, self-determination, equity, justice and liberty; than I am with an America that ignores inconvenient truths or that rationalizes the priority of upholding "the rule of law" when that law is nearly universally recognized as unjust.

We stand at a crossroad. We have an opportunity to be the country we see ourselves as, or to remain the country that others grow increasingly to see us as. I vote for the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

and one oriental male - a chinese "student / tourist" operative?

---

ftfy.

Nevermind - the kid looks like an oriental 'Where's Waldo?'
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...rage?page=0,31

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

We stand at a crossroad. We have an opportunity to be the country we see ourselves as, or to remain the country that others grow increasingly to see us as. I vote for the former.

---

Sir,

How do you propose the US go about that in this situation? It seems to me that any overtures on the part of the US towards a new government would be too little, too late.

Anyone else think that Joe Biden's comment that Mubarak is not a dictator might come back to bite us in the ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

Anyone else think that Joe Biden's comment that Mubarak is not a dictator might come back to bite us in the ass?

---

Frankly all seems uncertain now. That little piece of the Ben Wedeman tweet captured my eye:

Quote:

---

Teenager showed me teargas canister "Made in USA."Saw the same thing in Tunisia. Time to reconsider U.S. exports?

---

...

What's to reconsider? We exported those intentionally.

Watching Fox news. Huckabaee is all "this is bad for Israel"; Then the CEO of Heinz "this is bad for business." Prior to them a former CIA expert on AQ "This will empower the Islamists."

The answer one gets depends on the equities of who one asks.

Myself, I am simply a student of Insurgency, history and the law and a retired SF officer and former prosecutor. Take any answer I provide in that context. We all have our biases.

For me personally, this is long overdue and generally good. We should probably start a SWC pool for which state erupts next. It could be Yemen, Algeria, or Libya. Or even Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The people are drawing courage from each other (this is the reality of globalization, and this is what did indeed led to the fall of the Berlin Wall two decades ago).

My assessment is that the President is being a bit too cautious, but he is sending his agents out to test the waters in the right general direction.

The Fear Mongers are starting to line up though, and we could blink. I hope we go with our national principles and support the people. If we don't support them AQ and the Islamist community will.

That was all predictable, few people are still concerned with the full picture. You don't get paid for that. You get paid for looking at a specific direction only.

Quote:

---

I hope we go with our national principles and support the people.

---

Looks like the government isn't on a common line yet. Clinton sounds kinda pro-civility and at least doesn't back Mubarak openly. Biden meanwhile refused to call Mubarak an autocrat/dictator. Obama mentioned only Tunisia and was silent about Egypt and Algeria afaik.

----------

Concerning the thread title: "Scenes from Egypt's Would-Be Revolution"

There might be some really ugly scenes pretty soon if the Egyptian army comes into play with MBTs, for these are mostly U.S. models. It's not going to look well if M1 Abrams are being used against demonstrators.

Looking forward to the future diplomatic cable leak that shows how U.S. diplomats attempt frenzily to convince Mubarak to send only T-62s and T-55s, if any MBTs...

Some puzzling BBC-TV footage this evening, oddly starting with a short clip of Army M113 going at speed through city streets - in Cairo. Then a much longer report on events in Cairo, what was clear that the numbers protesting are large and now the slums have joined in:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

A short comment on the security forces:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12312337

The report from Suez indicates a loss of control for sometime, with a central police station looted - for weapons - and set alight.

From a different angle is a commentary by the counter-radical UK-based "think tank', the Quilliam Foundation, entitled ‘Egypt and the eclipse of the Muslim Brotherhood’:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/im...s/egyptjan.pdf

Why all this concern about U.S.-made stuff -- tear gas canisters, tanks, APCs -- being shown on TV? The public relations aspect is fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Some years ago the same thing happened with the WP rounds used by Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

Why all this concern about U.S.-made stuff -- tear gas canisters, tanks, APCs -- being shown on TV? The public relations aspect is fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Some years ago the same thing happened with the WP rounds used by Israel.

---

Tom Clancy didn't popularize WP rounds. He idealized the M1 Abrams, and the tank has certainly the highest recognition rate world-wide.

Did you never wonder why the baddies in Hollywood movies almost never use AR-15s? Such a "public relations aspect" could be an eye-opener.

Besides; my forum post here was fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things - why did you respond to it?

President Obama breaks his silence. Best speech I have ever heard him make.

As to the Egyptian Army, coming from one who served proudly with the Egyptian Army during the Gulf War: This is the wild card. Egyptian soldiers are about 180 out from western soldiers. An Egyptian soldier will do exactly what he is told and not think to question his superior. He will continue to execute a task until told to stop. He will not worry about why he is doing it, he is told to do it and that is all that matters. He has no concept of "commander's intent." He does what he is told, no more and no less.

However. Unless they have changed, they are draftees and serve two year enlistments. They have no NCO corps. Often a rifle platoon has more college educated privates than the Company has college educated officers. The officer corp are lifers, but the men are civilians in uniform

Assessment: If push comes to shove the Army will follow orders. If shove comes to something more dramatic, I suspect the soldiers will join the civilians and leave the officers to their own devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Watching Fox news. Huckabaee is all "this is bad for Israel"; Then the CEO of Heinz "this is bad for business." Prior to them a former CIA expert on AQ "This will empower the Islamists."

---

All of them wrong, I'd have to say. No reason to think a new regime in Egypt would have any interest in going to war with Israel; they'll have a whole lot to do on the home front... and in any event it's Israel who should be looking after Israel's interests, not us. I don't at all see how political change is bad for business... in an ossified situation like this removing the dead wood is likely to be good for business in the long run.

The Islamists stand to lose more than anyone, I think. They didn't initiate this, and they aren't driving it. It reminds me in that sense of the Philippines, where a Communist movement that had opposed a dictator for decades failed to anticipate or exploit the events that eventually removed him, and were left behind in the process. I suspect that the Islamists may end up missing Mubarak more than we do, just as the Communists in the Philippines found themselves largely irrelevant without Marcos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I hope we go with our national principles and support the people. If we don't support them AQ and the Islamist community will.

---

That would depend on what "support the people" means. I certainly don't think we should support Mubarak. There may be a point where we can have some impact by withdrawing support, but that impact will be purely psychological: he doesn't rely on our support to that great an extent. We could offer asylum if he stands down, and threaten to withdraw that offer if he holds on, but that's largely a moot point; I doubt he'd be looking at asylum in the US anyway. We're not going to get directly involved (inshallah) and there's a limit to what statements can do.

Overreacting on any side would be an error, IMO. In large part we'll be watching, waiting, and working with whatever emerges. Trying to control or direct what emerges would, I suspect, backfire badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

President Obama breaks his silence. Best speech I have ever heard him make.

As to the Egyptian Army, coming from one who served proudly with the Egyptian Army during the Gulf War: This is the wild card. Egyptian soldiers are about 180 out from western soldiers. An Egyptian soldier will do exactly what he is told and not think to question his superior. He will continue to execute a task until told to stop. He will not worry about why he is doing it, he is told to do it and that is all that matters. He has no concept of "commander's intent." He does what he is told, no more and no less.

However. Unless they have changed, they are draftees and serve two year enlistments. They have no NCO corps. Often a rifle platoon has more college educated privates than the Company has college educated officers. The officer corp are lifers, but the men are civilians in uniform

Assessment: If push comes to shove the Army will follow orders. If shove comes to something more dramatic, I suspect the soldiers will join the civilians and leave the officers to their own devices.

---

I think you are dead on. The Army will ultimately decide what happens to the remaining existing government.

The question in my mind is what will replace it - a more democratic institution, a hard-line Islamic government. or a civil war between the two.

LINK.

If the article at the link is correct. Shades of Kermit Roosevelt... :D

As my Mother said, be careful what you wish for -- you may get it. We'll see how this works out for us -- and them...

I'm guessing "Terence Lee" (I am not Terence Lee) is not the name you were expecting on a post on Egypt's current situation. However, for those of you with access - alas, I'm guessing, not many - it might be interesting to check out the following articles:

The Armed Forces and Transitions from Authoritarian Rule
Explaining the Role of the Military in 1986 Philippines and 1998 Indonesia
http://cps.sagepub.com/content/42/5/640.abstract

and

Military Cohesion and Regime Maintenance
Explaining the Role of the Military in 1989 China and 1998 Indonesia
http://afs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/80.abstract

Obviously these deal with "Asian" (are the quotations relevant or necessary?) cases, but perhaps the insights might be applicable to the Egypt. And while the articles themselves might be inaccessible or, at least, expensive, the abstracts might be worth the quick read.

Regards
OC

It just hit me: I can probably post the abstracts of the two articles without running afoul of any copyright issues (apologies in advance if I am wrong).

The Armed Forces and Transitions from Authoritarian Rule
Explaining the Role of the Military in 1986 Philippines and 1998 Indonesia
Terence Lee
National University of Singapore
http://cps.sagepub.com/content/42/5/640.abstract

Quote:

---

Studies of transitions from authoritarian rule have shown that militaries play decisive roles in authoritarian breakdowns. The military possesses coercive resources that can suppress any challenge to authoritarian rule. This article explains why and under what conditions militaries in authoritarian regimes, when faced with popular demonstrations, will support the path of political liberalization. The study argues that armed forces are likely to back transitions from authoritarianism when there is intense conflict within the military; and arising from these contestations, marginalized officers (losers) either enter into a pact with the domestic opposition or have foreign support to act against the regime. The losers' decision to turn against authoritarianism is a move to eliminate the regime and their rivals within the armed forces. The author illustrates this argument in the February 1986 Philippines People Power revolution and May 1998 collapse of Indonesia's President Suharto's regime.

---

Military Cohesion and Regime Maintenance
Explaining the Role of the Military in 1989 China and 1998 Indonesia
Terence Lee
University of Washington
http://afs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/80.abstract

Quote:

---

Why are certain militaries in authoritarian regimes more effective in carrying out the task of regime maintenance than others? This is the central question of this article, which explains the Chinese and Indonesian militaries’differing responses to government orders to suppress the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989 and the protests prior to the downfall of Indonesian President Suharto in 1998. The article argues that the varying level of effectiveness in dealing with protestors is attributable to how governments employ institutional controls or “stick” mechanisms and the effect these controls have on military organizational cohesion. Specifically, the article notes that the efficacy of a regime's institutional controls does not just center on having mechanisms to monitor, prevent, and punish malfeasance within the military. Instead, militaries are likely to be successful in suppressing demonstrations if authoritarian leaders do not implement policies that undermine the organizational integrity of the armed forces.

---

Regards
OC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

LINK.

If the article at the link is correct. Shades of Kermit Roosevelt... :D

As my Mother said, be careful what you wish for -- you may get it. We'll see how this works out for us -- and them...

---

Legal, trusted, and certain means of influencing government are far superior to illegal means. But when Illegal means are the only option, they are far superior to oppression and despotism. But this could go bad in a 100 different ways to be sure.

The only thing worse than acting out illegally in the pursuit of liberty is to do nothing.

Bigger picture: It is the power of these suppressed populaces and the role of the West in promoting, enabling and protecting these governments that has fueled the rise of Islamist organizations. This is what AQ has fed upon. If the US plays this smart, and empowers self-determination (which may mean that many of these leaders stay in power, open talks with their populaces, and implement reasonable reforms). If the US. plays this smart we have the opportunity to change perceptions about our role and intent in the Middle East in ways that can be far more effective in turning the tide of Islamist terrorism than any amount of security force capacity building or CT activities can.

AQ has been waging UW to stir up these populaces, but the populaces are responsive to their message due to the political (and economic) conditions that they live within. The US really needs to abandon COIN (to colonial and rooted in sustaining the status quo) and CT (only mows the tall grass, but does not address the roots) or even development (giving a man a fish when what he really wants is respect and liberty) with a more holistic "counter-UW" campaign that blends all of these things and more in a much better balanced and refocused mix that is aimed at root causes.

I remain optimistic in what is happening; but ever concerned that smart people with bad info will make bad decisions; or that the mob will be directed in ways that are ultimately counter productive.

Of note, Jordan is picking up steam as well. A map of where foreign fighters who traveled to Iraq to fight with AQ is as clear of a crystal ball as any as to where this thing is most likely to spread to next. Diplomats are hopefully meeting with all those governments to urge them to preemptively begin the reform process.

From Joe Felter's study on where Foreign Fighters come from back in 2005
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/...r.19.Dec07.pdf
(There is a bar graph that provides a great visual in the document)

Quote:

---

Country of Origin
Saudi Arabia was by far the most common nationality of the fighters’ in this sample; 41% (244) of the 595 records that included the fighter’s nationality indicated they were of Saudi Arabian origin.7
Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya. Syria, Yemen,
7 After recording and comparing the information contained in the translated records, the CTC determined that 34 records were likely duplicates of the same individual. These records were deleted from the sample studied.
and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).8

---

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...fighters_N.htm

In a Dec 2010 article it points out that foreign fighters are once again flowing into Iraq. I would argue that the fastest way to stem that flow is change our approach with the government of the countries these men come from.

Quote:

---

But a Mideast counterterrorism official said an estimated 250 foreign fighters entered Iraq in October alone. He said they came through the Syrian city of Homs, a hub for Syrian Muslim fundamentalists that is run mostly by Tunisians and Algerians. Other fighters have come from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

This is what AQ has fed upon. If the US plays this smart, and empowers self-determination (which may mean that many of these leaders stay in power, open talks with their populaces, and implement reasonable reforms). If the US. plays this smart we have the opportunity to change perceptions about our role and intent in the Middle East in ways that can be far more effective in turning the tide of Islamist terrorism than any amount of security force capacity building or CT activities can....

...Diplomats are hopefully meeting with all those governments to urge them to preemptively begin the reform process.

---

I still don't see how we're supposed to "empower self-determination", in any specific terms. Western diplomats urging reform will have about as much impact as an online petition. These rulers don't give a damn what Western diplomats say; they never have. They've heard the refrain so many times they could sing it in their sleep. It has no impact at all.

The link between domestic conditions, perceived US responsibility for those conditions, and AQ's recruitment remains speculative. AQ was able to recruit fighters quite successfully for jihad against the Soviet Union, which had nothing at all to do with domestic conditions in the countries where recruitment was taking place. "Expel the infidel from the land of the faithful" is a compelling narrative (at least to young men addled by religion and testosterone), and would likely be so even in a democracy. Certainly AQ's efforts to promote jihad against Arab governments have met with no notable success: they're really only able to sell the story when they are fighting foreign invaders.

Quote:

---

I still don't see how we're supposed to "empower self-determination", in any specific terms. Western diplomats urging reform will have about as much impact as an online petition. These rulers don't give a damn what Western diplomats say; they never have. They've heard the refrain so many times they could sing it in their sleep. It has no impact at all.

---

I disagree if these urgings were actually tied to incentives or punishments. The stick of withdrawing $1.2 bn in annual U.S. military aid could prove an effective incentive for an army divided on whether or not to open fire on peaceful demonstrators, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I still don't see how we're supposed to "empower self-determination", in any specific terms. Western diplomats urging reform will have about as much impact as an online petition. These rulers don't give a damn what Western diplomats say; they never have. They've heard the refrain so many times they could sing it in their sleep. It has no impact at all.

---

Absolutely right. Populations are looking for signals of the degree of backing that authoritarians have--polite complaints in private have zero effect.

Abu M's recommendations on who is a true, real expert on Egypt:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...ing-about.html

A profile of the new Deputy President:

Quote:

---

The AFP has a lengthy profile of Omar Suleiman, who you can see here during his swearing-in ceremony, which I'll reprint in full.

---

Link and the entry is at 1757 hrs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ests-live.html

On the relationship between US and Egyptian military:

Quote:

---

The officer corps of Egypt’s powerful military has been educated at defense colleges in the United States for 30 years. The Egyptian armed forces have about 1,000 American M1A1 Abrams tanks, which the United States allows to be built on Egyptian soil. Egypt permits the American military to stage major operations from its bases, and has always guaranteed the Americans passage through the Suez Canal.

The relationship between the Egyptian and American militaries is, in fact, so close that it was no surprise on Friday to find two dozen senior Egyptian military officials at the Pentagon, halfway through an annual week of meetings, lunches and dinners with their American counterparts.

(Later)American military officials said on Friday that they had had no formal discussions with their Egyptian counterparts at the Pentagon about how to handle the uprising. No guidance was given, said Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, we didn’t say anything to them about how they should handle it, and they didn’t tell us about how they were going to handle it.

---

From:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/wo...y.html?_r=2&hp

Different perspective on the various revolutions going on.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/index.html

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf...dj2ho1_500.jpg

Our close personal friend.

$1.5B in aid last year is a powerful carrot. We have sticks too. The US employs carrots and sticks around the globe to promote national interests on a regular basis. To "empower self-determination" has never been an issue of lack of means, nor for want of proven ways. It is a matter of priorities as to what type of behavior (ours) we understand to be most important to serving our national interests.

No one said to send a petition. We tried that with King George, and he sent us his Army and Navy instead. This needs to not be done in public accusations and veiled threats over the airways either. This is the work for private rooms with small audiences, between senior leaders. When the affected people see their government making reasonable accomodations of their reasonable concerns following such meetings they will be able to deduce that we have taken a more neutral position.

There is a big difference between putting hard presser on an ally to do something he'd prefer not to do, and dictating exactly how they do things (mandating western-style womens rights, western-style democracy, etc). Few things are black and white.

What I find interesting on this forum is that when someone suggests "Black is not working and we need to change." the typical counter is "But White would not work either." Agreed. The answer lies between the two, and is likely closer to black than white in most cases, as simple changes of nuance and perception can have a tremendous impact.

Also, the US has no duty to "fix" Egypt, Tunisia, or any of the many other similarly situated allies we have in that theater. We do, however, have a duty to address the perception that we promote the security and sustainment of these regimes against the express will of their populaces.

ElBaradei = Bazargan = Kerensky

Very, very bad news:

• Suez Canal
• Hamas
• Al Qaida (This is the home of the Qutbists, even of al-Zawahiri)

Art imitates life. Life imitates art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DbFYsi9iSg

Quote:

---

Reports say the army has been ordered to shoot when it sees fit. Military helicopters and jet fighters fly over major locations as the numbers of protesters multiply there.

---

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/162767.html

Quote:

---

CAIRO – In the wake of sustained protests and riots calling for the ouster of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, police are vanishing from the streets of Cairo and other major cities across Egypt. In that vacuum armed gangs of men have attacked at least four jails and freed hundreds of radical Muslim militants as well as thousands of other inmates.

---

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/artic...IN_EGYPT/39572

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

What I find interesting on this forum is that when someone suggests "Black is not working and we need to change." the typical counter is "But White would not work either." Agreed. The answer lies between the two, and is likely closer to black than white in most cases, as simple changes of nuance and perception can have a tremendous impact.

---

I've noticed that when people on this Board present gray arguments as opposed to "Black is not working" the discussion tends to seek what shade of gray is best instead of descending into a a black methodology versus white methodology argument...

For example, this "The answer lies between the two, and is likely closer to black than white in most cases." colors your comment -- pun intended. ;)

Some would've said "The answer lies between the two and the issue is to determine just where..." :wry:

The US should vigorously and publicly support the notion of democracy and human rights. That is not to say that the US should somehow intervene to bring democracy to X or Y. Every case is different and in MOST cases the US would do well to do nothing rather than doing something stupid (those seem to be the only choices allowed by the state dept and pentagon in many cases).
Every case being different, the case in Egypt right now is that the US should publicly press for democratic reform and should work behind the scenes to have the army kick out Mubarak and install a functional interim regime and open up the media and phones and so on. That would be best for the US in every way. To work to "stabilize" Mubarak would be the height of folly...
US policy makers have spent so many decades propping up dictators and being afraid of democracy, they do not seem to be able to let things go a little...if they do, they may be pleasantly surprised at the outcome in many cases...and they will not do worse than they are doing right now in almost every case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omarali50

The US should vigorously and publicly support the notion of democracy and human rights...

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

US policy makers have spent so many decades propping up dictators and being afraid of democracy, they do not seem to be able to let things go a little...if they do, they may be pleasantly surprised at the outcome in many cases...and they will not do worse than they are doing right now in almost every case.

---

Agree with that as well. However, after 45 years of US government service if there's one thing I know it's that very, very few who work for that entity want to take a chance on being even a little bit wrong, much less way wrong... :( :mad:

That said, hopefully most will realize the truth of what you write: "...and they will not do worse than they are doing right now in almost every case." :wry:

The US is getting in Egypt a bit of a dose of our own medicine in terms of "US created conflicts of interest."

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents. The US flipping on that issue from our position during to Soviet occupation to our position for our own occupation is creating that conflict.

Now we find ourselves caught in our own web in Egypt where we have overlooked (beyond calling the government out in the odd speech) the poor governance of the Mubarak regime because we valued having an important Arab ally and stability for Israel more highly. Now we face a populace that questions how the U.S could support such a regime. This is what happens when one acts in a manner that is out of synch with their professed values. It will be very positive for US influence once we have finished sorting through these inconsistencies, and will have a tremendous disempowering effect on AQ as well. But we have a long ways to go on that little mission, as the list of such governments is fairly long...

Quote:

---

... notion of democracy and human rights ....

---

in Pakistan vs Egypt vs USA ?

Are they the same ? Or, different ? If different, what are the differences ?

Cheers

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

We've created a tremendous conflict of interest for Pakistan that is tearing at the fabric of the government's ability to keep a handle on things as they seek to balance their interest in maintaining positive relations with the US against their interest in being able to exert control over Afghanistan through their Pashtun agents.

---

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

---

When I was wandering about the Region years ago, the Afghans liked the US and Americans. A good part of that was, they said, due to the fact that only they and we had beaten the British, not once but twice (actually in all four cases, the British decided the hassle wasn't worth the effort but no sense being pedantic...).

They were nearly neutral on Indians, mentioning only their status as kuffar. They did not like Russians or the British at all -- and they hated the Pakistanis due to their excessive desire for control of Afghanistan and the Pakistani attempts to divide the Pathan (as they were then). There were also some flatlander comments... :D

Of course, that was forty years ago and it's probably changed a bit -- but I bet not much... :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I still don't see how we're supposed to "empower self-determination", in any specific terms. Western diplomats urging reform will have about as much impact as an online petition. These rulers don't give a damn what Western diplomats say; they never have.

---

I'll respectfully disagree here.

Most of US-allied despots, and then particularly those clinching to power like Mubarak, are "hanging" on every signal they get from Washington. The Shah of Iran back in 1979 is a classic example. As long as there is no clear "you have to go" message from the White House, Mubarak is definitely not going to leave (except he's carried away by somebody else).

And vice-versa: the public in such countries is carefully monitoring the behaviour of leading US politicians, particularly the President. I witnessed several occassions where this went as far as that everyday Arabs monitored how often the US Pres appeared in the public, carefully following even their mimic and gestures. A clear signal of the kind, "people of Egypt, you are right to protest against Mubarak" would likely prompt additional thousands to the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Certainly AQ's efforts to promote jihad against Arab governments have met with no notable success: they're really only able to sell the story when they are fighting foreign invaders.

---

...IMHO, this is an image created by the fact that there are plenty of developments in the Arab world we do not get to hear about. For example, in Algeria the FIS was relatively successful in mobilizing at least a part of the population, back in the 1990s. Nowadays they've been pushed out into the expanses of Sahara and bases in Mali and elsewhere, sure. But, Algerian security services and military are still regularly undertaking large-scale operations against them (usually including heli-borne commandos, often supported by fighter-bombers), "far down in the south"...

Similarly, we know next to nothing about developments in large parts of Egypt outside the urban areas, i.e. outside major cities, in recent years. Some places in southern Egypt are effectivelly under the control of various extremists since decades and no security services trust themselves to go there (foreigners are strongly advised NOT to go that way). There are countless stories about the Egyptian Air Force having flown a number of massive operations in which entire villages have been obliterated. It's just so that even the specialized media hardly ever gets to hear about this (or even if, this was never reported).

Note that despite this situation, both - the militaries in Algeria and Egypt - continue to refuse adapting the emphasis of their doctrine from conventional warfare to that of COIN warfare and anti-terror operations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Aghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

---

IMHO, the answer is definitely negative.

An undisputed matter of fact is that the ISI is the major source of world-wide terrorism - and that already since 50 years, and so also until this very day (only a few days ago, the US Army issued another report about the continuous activity of ISI's instructors in relation to training Taliban inside Afghanistan, as well as in Pakistan).

If nothing else, I do not recall to have ever heard that any of the idiots from 9/11, any of the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines, or any of the FIS/AQM in Algeria have been trained by the Indian Army, somewhere in Punjab... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Is the Pak Army/ISI's desire to exert control over Afghanistan one we should honor any more than India's desire that they don't?

---

Personally I am a consistent (and fairly lonely) voice that the U.S. needs to take into greater account the impact on Pak-Indian deterrence of the actions (both policy and physical) that we take in the name of the War on Terrorism.

"Loose Nukes" are not all that likely based upon what I understand, but certainly the likelihood of deliberately exchanged nukes is higher now than it was 10 years ago.

I would never say that Pakistan has a right to an unstable Afghanistan ( be that worked through their Army or intel service with Pashtun agents, or however else). I only state that Pakistan believes that they have a vital national interest in it being so.

If the U.S. is any example, a nation will go to any lengths, and get into situations that make outside observers scratch their heads in wonder, in the pursuit on vital national interests. And I doubt any will argue that Pakistan faces far more of an "existential threat" against India than the U.S. does from AQ taking sanctuary in the FATA.

My only point was the observation that our demands on Pakistan to support our efforts against AQ and the Taliban creates a very dangerous conflict of interest for the government, that erodes the stability of the nation. On one hand they need a solid relationship with the US, so they agree to do what we ask (sort of, and thus our frustration at the seeming lack of competence from what is a very competent security force); while at the same time seeking to continue their covert operation to secure instability in Afghanistan.

Now the US finds ourselves in a similar conflict of interest of our own making. On one hand we stand for "universal rights" and democracy; but on the other hand we support the Mubarak government as a critical Arab ally that sits on the key terrain of both Israel's flank and the Suez canal. Such relationships are rationalized based upon vital national interests, yet when they create conflicts of interest they are damaging as well.

We have an opportunity to begin cleaning the effects of a post WWII policy/strategy/engagement program in the Middle East that has about reached the breaking point. We do not want to wake up on the wrong side of history there, and if we continue to cling to an unsustainable past that is the most likely result. We have a tremendous opportunity here, but it is a delicate game of showing greater support to the people, greater alignment of our actions and policies with our stated principles as a nation; but condemning of the actions of "allied" governments who have been enabled in their slides toward despotism by their relationships with the US. If we just yank the rug on these clowns we could create a massive violent chaos in the Middle East that is good for no one.

We must empower a controlled change. We focus on the empower aspect, and allowing the current governments to establish processes with their people to hear their grievances and give them their due consideration as they seek reasonable evolutions of government. This is tricky stuff. Far easier to just send in TLAMs, but the potential return is far greater and holds the key to reducing acts of terrorism emanating from the Middle East.

So far what I have heard from our President and our Sec State; coupled with what I have seen in terms of physical responses are in synch with how I see this. I don't know what the back room actions are, but I can only hope they are in synch as well. In synch or not, agree or not, I think we can all share in the hope that they work. Inshah Allah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

Democracy in Pakistan vs Egypt vs USA ?

Are they the same ? Or, different ? If different, what are the differences ?

Cheers

Mike

---

They are obviously all different. But I think we can step back a little bit from textbook notions of democracy to another line: In every country where modern education and economics has made forays, the population wants some say in what goes on and economics demands some rationality in governance. The elite always have more influence than the poor, but even within the elite, there are notions of rule of law, political space, personal space, opportunity to move forward and so on. And the poor must have the means for bare survival and at least a vague notion that they can move forward on merit if they are really really good. Historical contingencies and other local factors make every case different and culture DOES matter, but its still possible to make some generalizations. One is that bull#### like the Mubarak dynasty is not going to last. Another is that extreme forms of Islamism are not going to make most people happy even if war with outsiders is not an issue. Another is that if you hook the elite on selling their role as "bulwark against Islamism", you will face accelerating demands for more money, you will foster terrible corruption and you will strengthen support for those very Islamists. In fact, it is an indication of the Islamists profoundly outdated and unproductive philosophical framework that they cannot take more advantage of this wonderful opportunity presented to them courtesy of the US taxpayer.
US policymakers who act as if the US has to determine what happens everywhere and simultaneously believe that there is very little the US can do to change things for the better, are wrong on both counts. In the Middle East, they are laboring under the very real burden that they really do want something (Israeli occupation) that almost everyone in that part of the world does not support, so their "democratic" options are limited. But even where the US does not necessarily have such a burden to carry (Pakistan, for example), hamhanded interference, reliance on outdated or irrelevant models (like the "modernizing army", "the whisky-drinking-moderate-Muslim", the Latin American model of using the army against undesirables at the cost of democracy, and so on) are not exactly working.
but, no matter, change is coming. With, without or in spite of US participation. And Israel should really make a fair peace from a position of strength while they have that chance. Its going to become so costly to support that occupation, even Uncle Sam may one day be unable to afford to carry that millstone around his neck...

Crowbat,

Pokeman, urban dictionary definition, or something else? :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

Most of US-allied despots, and then particularly those clinching to power like Mubarak, are "hanging" on every signal they get from Washington. The Shah of Iran back in 1979 is a classic example. As long as there is no clear "you have to go" message from the White House, Mubarak is definitely not going to leave (except he's carried away by somebody else).

---

I would instead argue that US, European, and Asian political 'signals' are but some of the many variables populating the daily calculus equation run by a variety of political leaders as they test the winds to see what is possible today. Internal politcal/social/economic alliances, financial interests, patronage networks, the security forces, etc. all serve to both provide and constrain political options and must be balanced against external inputs and demands. For context the 2011 Pocket World in Figures from the Economist reports Egypt's GDP as $162 Billion in USD, with it's top four export destinations being Italy, USA, Spain, and India (in that order). The US financial support figure reported in the press is ~$2.5 Billion USD or less than 2% of Egypt's GDP. The World Bank's Middle East and North Africa website provides some further economic insights into the many variables juggled by political leaders in this region of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

... the public in such countries is carefully monitoring the behaviour of leading US politicians, particularly the President. I witnessed several occassions where this went as far as that everyday Arabs monitored how often the US Pres appeared in the public, carefully following even their mimic and gestures. A clear signal of the kind, "people of Egypt, you are right to protest against Mubarak" would likely prompt additional thousands to the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and elsewhere.

---

States and institutions often have more impact than individuals. The lessons learned from Turkey's EU accessions efforts, the Iraq OIF/OND experience, the Shia experience in Iraq during the first Gulf War, the interaction with the French in Algeria during the 1950's-60's, and Europe's (Germany, Russia, England, France, and others) interactions with the Ottoman's as the empire crumbled during the early 1900's are also included in these analysis'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

...IMHO, this is an image created by the fact that there are plenty of developments in the Arab world we do not get to hear about.

---

The sentiment regarding the paucity of 'good' information is and has always been true. A full awareness of the 'truth' will never be achieved...instead it's always approximations thereof....:wry:

It wasn't so long ago that many commentators were saying that previous American leaders of the Realpolitik school would never have countenanced the idea of invading of Iraq for the purpose of establishing a democracy there. There are dangers whenever U.S. policy errs to much on exporting our ideals on one hand or purely upon considerations of power politics on the other. I'm not sure there are any "perfect" solutions, as though we could somehow thread the needle and make everyone everywhere agree with what we're doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

It wasn't so long ago that many commentators were saying that previous American leaders of the Realpolitik school would never have countenanced the idea of invading of Iraq for the purpose of establishing a democracy there. There are dangers whenever U.S. policy errs to much on exporting our ideals on one hand or purely upon considerations of power politics on the other. I'm not sure there are any "perfect" solutions, as though we could somehow thread the needle and make everyone everywhere agree with what we're doing.

---

...Realpolitik. Some of my benchmarks include Niccolò Machiavelli's work the Prince, Alexis de Tocqueville's study on American Democracy, Walt Whitman Rostow's model - Take off Model or Development Model, John Mearsheimer's book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Stephen Walt's blog over at Foreign Policy, The Nixon Center's website, and of course Dr. Kissinger's amazingly verbose (it's something like 900 pages long yet it's interesting - and I hope to re-read it this year) book Diplomacy.

As to the Monday morning quarterbacking phenomenon, the Army has co-opted that human trait with the AAR...I still remember my very first one, held on a bitterly cold night somewhere high up in the Rockies....good times :rolleyes: :wry: ....nonetheless they are worthwhile, it's at the heart of the SWJ business model, and of course our friend Socrates kicked things of with his Socratic Method of teaching...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

Crowbat,

Pokeman, urban dictionary definition, or something else? :wry:

---

Insignia of No.31 Squadron UARAF as of 1959-1967. ;)

Quote:

---

I would instead argue that US, European, and Asian political 'signals' are but some of the many variables populating the daily calculus equation run by a variety of political leaders as they test the winds to see what is possible today. Internal politcal/social/economic alliances, financial interests, patronage networks, the security forces, etc. all serve to both provide and constrain political options and must be balanced against external inputs and demands. For context the 2011 Pocket World in Figures from the Economist reports Egypt's GDP as $162 Billion in USD...

---

I'm really sorry, but creatures like Mubarak do not think that way. Sure, they do think about _their own_ alliances, financial interests, patronage (in sense of what they already control and what they do not control - yet), but surely not about GDP, per-capita income or similar topics.

External inputs are very important for them, then if there is somebody who can cause any sort of trouble, this somebody's actions have to be prevented or stopped, in one way or the other (if by no other, then a threat that should the dictator fall there will be an Islamic Republic...).

Similarly when it comes to external inputs, they have to seriously consider the possibility that the military might turn against them if they prove incapable of ascertaining the same funding like when getting the US aid (the reason is that the military is usually the best organized and functioning institution in such a country, and armed - which translates into being capable of bringing them down).

In summary, Mubarak can't care less about "everyday" Egyptians: he's not responsible to them (otherwise he wouldn't be a dictator).

Quote:

---

States and institutions often have more impact than individuals.

---

Very likely a valid point - except when it comes to those Egyptians I happen to know more closely. For most of them, Obama (or any other US president) = US. For them, they way he behaves, what he says, the "signals" he's "emitting", is the way the US is acting or going to act.

Quote:

---

The sentiment regarding the paucity of 'good' information is and has always been true. A full awareness of the 'truth' will never be achieved...instead it's always approximations thereof....:wry:

---

Sure. Still, this is not making certain "standard" assessments/conclusions any more true. In this case, it was my point that the usual ("schoolar"?) standpoint that the al-Qaida's efforts to promote Jihad against Arab governments met no notable success, is based on non-availability of sufficient information.

To add a third example: the lack of news about internal dissent, often even unrest in Saudi Arabia means not that there is none, and even less so it's a land of milk and honey there. It rather means that the state is doing very well at suppressing any kind of independent reporting about what's really going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

Insignia of No.31 Squadron UARAF as of 1959-1967. ;)

---

Thanks for sharing, it's a distinctive avatar. :) United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria) Air Force MiG 19’s and MiG 21’s? I have a friend, with some interesting stories, who was on the other side during June 5th ‘67.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

I'm really sorry, but creatures like Mubarak do not think that way. Sure, they do think about _their own_ alliances, financial interests, patronage (in sense of what they already control and what they do not control - yet), but surely not about GDP, per-capita income or similar topics.

---

So...to follow along with Mr Gideon Rachman's, of the FT, train of thought (31 Jan 2011 - Democracy is Back - How Awkward) are General Mubarak and General Suharto vergleichbar? Each has had thirty or so years in power as president, preceded by significant distinguished military service to their respective nations. Both nations experienced stability and significant economic returns during their respective presidents rule. General Suharto was able to resign, facilitate a peaceful transition of power, and has not been too vigorously pursued in his retirement.

Currently President Mubarak has authorized his new Vice President Mr. Omar Suleiman to negotiate directly with the opposition (although Osama al-Ghazali Harb, head of the Democratic Front party is currently playing hard to get), perhaps prompted by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei's efforts to negotiate directly with the Egyptian Army.

Perhaps that core of sense of service to one's nation fostered by military service should not be totally discounted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

Sure. Still, this is not making certain "standard" assessments/conclusions any more true. In this case, it was my point that the usual ("schoolar"?) standpoint that the al-Qaida's efforts to promote Jihad against Arab governments met no notable success, is based on non-availability of sufficient information.

---

Definitions of who comprises al-Qaida (AQ) vary, and there are significant gaps between desire, capability, and motivations of those who populate AQ as well as other organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you think that Saad al-Katatny is strong enough to represent interests of the Egyptian branch of the Brotherhood and does his organization truly represent the will of the majority of the Egyptian people…or that of the Egyptian Army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrowBat

To add a third example: the lack of news about internal dissent, often even unrest in Saudi Arabia means not that there is none, and even less so it's a land of milk and honey there. It rather means that the state is doing very well at suppressing any kind of independent reporting about what's really going on.

---

I appreciate your provision of examples...;)

It is very interesting to think about what effects the events in Tunisia and Egypt are having upon the youth of Saudi Arabia as well as those in power in that nation. Some of the recent fluctuations in the price of oil of late appear to be an attempt to price in this uncertainty.

according to the linked article below. Article by former CIA officer(27 year veteran) Robert Grenier, he was also the former head of the Counter-Terror Unit.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...democracy.html

My latest post on this issue: http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/02/...-the-downside/