Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[Bob's World]

Hmm. Subtle inter-service jab at my AF and Navy brothers went off course a bit...

I'll try to regroup my point a bit: The upfront costs of buying influence and subtly thwarting popular will in favor of stability with a semi-cooperative government is indeed cheaper than what an Iraq or an Afghanistan costs; there are subtle costs that are being ignored because we have misplaced the causation for what is going on in the world.

Are we in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending Billions there, and spending billions on increased counter-terror security initiatives across our society; and spending billions re-framing the military from one well trained, postured and equipped to deter and defeat major threats to our nation because of Islamist ideology?

Or has Islamist ideology taken root across these populaces due to 65 years of increasing US manipulation of political processes and the resultant impunity in which these governments (All on the Freedom House list of least free states) have come to treat their own people with while secure in the support of the US?

Making matters worse is this information and transportation technology that allows the oppressed in Yemen to connect with those in Jordan, with those in Egypt, with those in Algeria, with those in Libya, etc, etc, etc.

A critical part of the quid pro quo from these governments was that they would control their populaces. With today's information age, they can't. There is a tremendous synergy and it is no longer possible to "separate the insurgent from the populace."

The same thing happened on a slower scale when Great Britain connected the world with a great network of telegraph cables and steam powered fleets. Events in South Africa affected India, events in India affected Malaya, etc. Co-options of local systems of legitimacy that result in local national governments that grow emboldened in their foreign protections and come to act with increasing impunity can survive in isolation through strong military action. They cannot survive once connected and exposed.

So, while a billion here and a billion there may have been a economical model of securing national interests over the past 65 years, it is a model that is unsustainable. It is a model that is now requiring us to drop a $100 Billion in various places where we are acting out to try to keep the wheels on. Do we now intervene in Egypt and drop a $100B/year there as well?

The irony is, that we are not being attacked by the populaces of our enemies, we are being attacked by the populaces of our billion dollar a year friends. Then, in response, we ignore those populaces and those governments and instead go to Afghanistan and Iraq and attack them. We are chasing symptoms of the problem and pointedly avoiding the root causes.

The root causes are that we have allowed our foreign policy to get out of line with our national ethos and principles. We have backed shady characters, and they have grown more shady as they became emboldened by our backing. Now that house of cards is coming down. To act out to continue to prop up these governments is a suicide move for US power and influence. We've run out of fingers to jam into this dike.

We need a new approach that is more tuned to the growing power of connected populaces. We need a new approach that is more in line with our national ethos. This is where I came into the SWC to begin with. I wrote a paper and published it here on the SWJ.

Populace-Centric Engagement – A Positive Change of Strategic Perspective for Winning the Long War. Small Wars Journal
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...ic-engagement/

Then, a couple weeks later some guy named Slap sends me an email and says that people are arguing about my paper and that I should weigh in. I had no idea what he was talking about, but followed the link he sent me to here:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=win

Don't blame me, blame Slap...

[CrowBat]

If Wikipedia is correct, 12.8 million tourists visited Egypt in 2008 spending $11 billion and employing 12% of the workforce. When I saw the horses/camels running through the crowd, it was not difficult to imagine them as irritated workers losing tourism revenue rather than paid thugs. I'm sure there are plenty of those courtesy of the Interior Ministry, but an objective observer would probably admit that many more are unhappy with the economic disruption this is causing and the starvation it risks.

I had a talk with several Egyptians on the telephone today. A friend of mine, who grew up in Egypt, called his family and friends too. The outcome was quite similar: shop-owners, middle-aged people are scared to death and want the protests to end, and the protesters to go home. "It's bad for business".

From what I hear from a member of a bedu family now working in the tourist industry in the Sinai, many from that sector think exactly the same. What is going on in Egypt since eight days practically caused a collapse of tourism, and is thus surely to have grave economic consequences.

Furthermore, I know from own experience that the Ministry of Interior's Central Security Forces (CSF) have plenty of informers in the tourist industry, so it might not surprise if some of them go protesting, then get caught by the anti-Mubarak protesters only to have police or CSF IDs with them. However....

The problem is that there are only a very few such people compared to the numbers of those that do not own shops, or can only dream about working in the tourism industry.

Even more so, believing in anything like "spontaneous pro-Mubarak demos"...borders on believing in miracles - or simply denying reality. Ordinary, "everyday" people don't have printed placards, or stocks of flags, sticks, rocks, and even less so lenghty convoys of buses ready to take them to Cairo - where most of them then did not know their way around (!) - and even less so are they ready to voluntarily charge a crowd on horseback or riding a camel; ordinary people staging "spontaneous" demonstrations do not challenge their opponents for a violent confrontation, grab one or two and then beat them, shot them and then drop their bodies in some alley...they do not loot and then burn down one of largest shopping mals (happened 3 days back in Alexandria), and I also do not know of ordinary people who shot at the others with a sniper rifle from the roof of the nearby building. If this is not enough, ordinary people involved in protest of whatever kind also do not launch decisive attacks on offices of two major human-rights associations, beat and then take away around a dozen of people in "some civilian bus", escorted by the Central Security Forces car...- and this while explaining to the crowd around them that these are Iranian-paid, Hezbollah agents.

Nobody does that unless he's paid and ordered to do it and promised to be backed up and protected later.

And at that point this all turns into a SOP for a dictator clinging to power - against all odds, and regardless the cost.

[Bob's World]

The American Revolution was horribly disruptive on the economy and stability of the society for at least a generation. The majority of the populace had little interest in revolution going in, and perhaps even those who were enthusiastic had "buyers remorse" once it was over.

Egypt and her people have a long, hard road in front of them. The easy path is to simply submit to despotism. To accept one's role in life as assigned to them by birth and the government. Populaces will typically submit to this unless something jolts them to action.

Sometimes it is a period of major economic hardship that turns the bad into the intolerable, and the people act out. This is why so many believe that economics are the key to such revolts. My take is that bad economics without a corresponding high-level conditions of insurgency due to perceptions of poor governance is spark without fuel.

Sometimes it is an internal or external leader who emerges, armed with some ideology tailored to speak to the target populace that provides the spark.

Sometimes, as in the Middle East today, you have a vast "fuel supply" of despotism, with economic and ideological sparks flying, all connected through real-time communications. A spark in Tunisia ignites a conflagration in Egypt. Far too many of those fuel supplies link directly back to the US. Breaking those linkages, and applying influence to help keep these inevitable events from getting out of control is a prudent course for the US. Insanely difficult, but prudent.

[Cole]

The problem is that there are only a very few such people compared to the numbers of those that do not own shops, or can only dream about working in the tourism industry.

Even more so, believing in anything like "spontaneous pro-Mubarak demos"...borders on believing in miracles - or simply denying reality. Ordinary, "everyday" people don't have printed placards, or stocks of flags, sticks, rocks, and even less so lenghty convoys of buses ready to take them to Cairo - where most of them then did not know their way around (!) - and even less so are they ready to voluntarily charge a crowd on horseback or riding a camel;

As you probably know, tourists ride horses/camels at nearby Giza where the Pyramids are. I did. My wife has a horse. I don't ride it because anytime I tried, I went plop...plus it hurts other areas. An untrained thug would not ride like that.

ordinary people staging "spontaneous" demonstrations do not challenge their opponents for a violent confrontation, grab one or two and then beat them, shot them and then drop their bodies in some alley...they do not loot and then burn down one of largest shopping mals (happened 3 days back in Alexandria), and I also do not know of ordinary people who shot at the others with a sniper rifle from the roof of the nearby building.

Yeah, saw some pretty big boys being treated for injuries. When folks are concerned about losing their jobs as interior ministry and other police, that does not automatically mean that Mubarak's orders are behind it.

If this is not enough, ordinary people involved in protest of whatever kind also do not launch decisive attacks on offices of two major human-rights associations, beat and then take away around a dozen of people in "some civilian bus", escorted by the Central Security Forces car...- and this while explaining to the crowd around them that these are Iranian-paid, Hezbollah agents.

Allegations. Can you prove there were not Hezbollah agents or Muslim brotherhood instigators? I read that many folks with closely cropped beards (supposedly characteristic of that group) were up front throwing rocks.

Nobody does that unless he's paid and ordered to do it and promised to be backed up and protected later.

Not sure $20 bucks is much motivation to get beat up...unless your job is at risk and you are broke because the banks are closed, and you feel like kicking troublemaker booty anyway. Just can't picture guys paying tens of thousands of thugs and nobody saw it.

And at that point this all turns into a SOP for a dictator clinging to power - against all odds, and regardless the cost.

Or a series of overzealous officials screwed up trying to please the boss (or hang onto their job) and now find themselves under house arrest.

[CrowBat]

Allegations. Can you prove there were not Hezbollah agents or Muslim brotherhood instigators?

Actually yes. It took me a while, but I even found an online report of the same event on the website of The Guardian:

Specifically:

8.03pm GMT: Ahdaf Soueif emails from Cairo:

A good friend just saw 8 to 12 people being dragged out of No 1 Souq el-Tawfikiyyah St and bundled into a civilian micro-bus while a military police vehicle waited nearby. The people were being beaten and the street had been told they were "Iranian and Hamas agents come to destabilise Egypt" so the street was chanting against them.

No 1 Souq el-Tawfikiyyah St is the home of the offices of The Hisham Mubarak Legal Aid Centre, The Centre for Social and Economic Rights and The 6th April Youth.

The Hisham Mubarak centre is a partner of Oxfam International, which has put out a statement:

The offices of two Egyptian human rights organisations in Cairo supported by Oxfam in Cairo have been attacked today and several staff members arrested by the Military Police.

The offices of Hisham Mubarak Law Center and the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights were raided at 14:30 and eight people were arrested including both directors, Ahmed Seif, director of the Hisham Mubarak Law Center and Khaled Ali, director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights.

They have been taken to an unknown location in Cairo.

Catherine Essoyan, Oxfam Regional Manager for the Middle East and Maghreb:

"We are extremely worried about the fate of these human rights defenders who have been providing critical legal aid and support to their people over the past days of protest. We deplore this assault against Egyptian civil society organisations dedicated to promoting respect for the rule of law. We call for the safe and immediate release of those detained."

********

I read that many folks with closely cropped beards (supposedly characteristic of that group) were up front throwing rocks.

Frankly speaking: are there Islamist extremists on the streets of Egypt, participating in the protests? Yes, no doubt, there are.

Do they or other Islamist extremists work behind the scenes, seeking a way to take advantage of this crisis? Yes, no doubt, they do.

This is as indisputable as that the sun is going up in (what we call) the East, and down in the West.

But... how many of them are out there, how influential they really are, what are they able of really doing, what are they eventually going to do, and - first and foremost - are they going to prove capable of taking over entire Egypt once this brawl is over...?

Well, sorry, but the matter of fact is: nobody can say for sure. Means: we don't know.

The reason we don't know is that there is a brutal dictatorship in Egypt, controlling the media and feeding us "news" at its own discretion. Between these news is the idea that the Brotherhood is ah so powerful, that without this dictatorship in place we all - but Israel as first - are in jeopardy of being blown away. And, this stance of that dictatorship is supported by all the possible talkingheads between Tel Aviv and Washington DC.

So, we have a guess, but don't really know whether this is going to happen.

As a "convinced and practicing pluralist", I simply can't find this satisfactory. That's why my standpoint is: when you're in doubt and have no clue what to do, stick to the two most basic rules. The Rule No.1. says: personal freedoms, pluralism and democracy first. And the Rule No.2 says: if in doubt, see rule No.1.

Not sure $20 bucks is much motivation to get beat up...unless your job is at risk and you are broke because the banks are closed, and you feel like kicking troublemaker booty anyway. Just can't picture guys paying tens of thousands of thugs and nobody saw it.

Again: there is no trace of evidence for "spontaneous" pro-Mubarak demonstrations.

That aside, well, the Ministry of Interior pays some 390.000 of thugs of the Central Security Force alone (the black-clad Father Mubarak's "Basiji" we've seen in the first days of the unrest), plus another 60.000 of the National Guard (responsible for the protection of the royal palace, between others) - and thus there is plenty of choice. That aside, in a country where average monthly income ranges between US$ 100 and 150, 20 bucks is "plenty of money" (oh, and I do recall several inmates on deathrow in various US prisons, sitting there for murdering people for less than 20 bucks).

Or a series of overzealous officials screwed up trying to please the boss (or hang onto their job) and now find themselves under house arrest.

I doubt this. Available indications point at the fact that all that is currently undertaken by Mubarak is nothing else but his regime launching it's efforts to do "yesterday" (to paraphraze Robin Gibbs) what it planned to do in period September-November this year any way.

The current flow of Mubarak's (re)actions actually follows much of what's been anticipated already since years. The only difference is that it became easier to expose his lies. When Mubarak fired the old government and appointed Soleiman as VP, he did not do something that was "new", or "unexpected", and even less so did he do that in reaction to the protests. He did something that has been expected since years. See Egypt's Next Strongman as example.

When, in the interview with Amanpour/ABC, aired yesterday, he stated he's "fed up" with politics and power, he was lying: back in 1981, immediately after climbing to power, Mubarak explained he's going to run for only one term (sorry, no citate here; there was no internet in 1981). So, another lie.

Finally, if this report - Mubarak's Last Gasps - is to be trusted, there are no "overzealous officers", but the Mubarak's clique (including his new Minister of Interior, Gen Waqdy) acts at least in agreement with him, if not on his own orders.

[jmm99]

Here are three more "trinitarian scenarios" - all suggesting somewhat different outcomes (on which, no one is placing bets).

Washington Post - ANALYSIS, Three possible scenarios for Egypt's future, By Glenn Kessler, Friday, February 4, 2011

As the Egyptian political crisis grows more violent and uncertain, analysts have begun to turn to historical parallels for answers. Will an Islamist movement or a new strongman - or both - emerge to seize control, in an eerie repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution? Or will Egypt's secular tradition and powerful military allow for a messy transition to democracy, as happened in Indonesia in 1998? Or will it be something in between, such as the initial outcome of the Romanian revolution of 1989? ... (more in the article)

Huffington Post - Egypt: Possible Scenarios, Amir Madani, Author, Le Letture Persiane, Posted: February 2, 2011:

....
There are three sets of players in the Egyptian scene right now...

The first players are the members of the ruling elite, supported by security forces and an army which, still as this article is written, has Mubarak's face as its symbol. There may be other faces symbolizing power in the future, but these too will be military ones. The military is Egypt's most powerful institution and one embedded deeply in all aspects of life. It will do its best to retain its purpose and power. In order to make sure that his regime stays in power, Mubarak resorted to a coup in which he appointed Omar Suleiman, his right-hand man and the country's intelligence chief, as vice-president.
....
The second player in this scenario are the Egyptian people: millions of men, women, youth, workers, intellectuals, writers, journalists, and ordinary citizens who demand rights and freedom and aware of the dangers of sectarianism. The best-known opposition figure is Dr. ElBaradei, a moderate diplomat who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his working in leading the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. A headline recently read: "El Baradei asks Obama: Take Egypt's Mubarak off life support." Other prominent figures like the jurist Ayman Nour and Osama al-Ghazali Harb have also struggled to build popular followings. But there could emerge other figures from the wider civil society and from the ranks of Kefayah (Enough) as well.
....
The Islamists are the third set of players. Egyptian Islamism (like all social phenomena) is complex and divided. It encompasses a myriad of trends, ranging from enlightened moderates to extremists who exploit the concept of jihad (originally based on catharsis) and promise a land of desolation. The Muslim Brotherhood could be expected to win a large part of the vote in any fair election as it is rooted in Islamic society and has gained a certain popularity for the work of its charities.
....
Here are some possible scenarios for how the situation could play out among these groups.

One scenario that could play out is a clash between the ruling elite (with or without Mubarak) and the elements of civil society. In this scenario, the ruling elite will promise formal security and stability by fighting the fundamentalists, and will continue to receive aid from the US, the support of Israel. It would be shock therapy, a treatment resolution that promises future explosions.

The second scenario is the emergence of a power vacuum that could lead to some form of civil war and a Lebanization of Egypt; a sort of chaos in which armed fundamentalist groups might thrive and the army would need to take over the running of the state, but without the necessary forces to defeat them. This scenario, which is the wishful thinking of the enemies of Egypt, would certainly be prevented by the Egyptians themselves. As Amr Shalakany wrote from in Tahrir Square in Cairo: "This is a sweet, sweet revolution; it is peaceful. Tell everyone we are peaceful." And the government has offered talks with protesters after the army said it will not fire on them.

A third scenario is that the army, as the key institution, indicates to Mubarak that he must resign as he is a cause of instability. In this case, the army takes charge of the country's security. In such a scenario, chaos and violence are avoided, and Mr. Mubarak could leave gradually. This would allow the necessary time to exclude President Mubarak and his closet associates, but also to let the surviving parts of the ruling system exist as warrant to prevent fundamentalist groups from flourishing. This is probably what Washington means by an "orderly transition." In this scenario, Mohamed ElBaradei (or another figure) could emerge as a compromise to oversee the transition and a free and fair election for the presidency and parliament. This could only happen if only the Egyptians decide to follow through along this path. ... (again, more in the article)

BBC News - Egypt unrest: Possible scenarios, By Tarik Kafala, BBC News, 31 January 2011:

For Egyptians, and the millions of Arabs watching closely across the Middle East, these are hugely exciting times. But for all the hope for change, there are also enormous dangers. These are three broad scenarios that could result from the events in Egypt.

CUT AND RUN: MUBARAK GIVES UP PRESIDENCY
.... (explanation and analysis)
....
STICK TO HIS GUNS: MILITARY AND POLICE CRUSH PROTESTS
.... (explanation and analysis)
....
TRANSITION: PROMISE TO LEAVE, OPPOSITION JOINS GOVERNMENT
.... (explanation and analysis)
....

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

The current opposition tactic seems to be to
a) keep the protests going, the pressure up
b) do behind-the-scenes homework: building an opposition interim leadership

Meanwhile, Mubarak seems to
a) try to sit this out
b) discredit the opposition movement,
c) discourage it and to
d) mobilize supporters


The answer to the obvious question why the opposition doesn't storm Mubarak's palace seems to be strong and loyal defences there.

The police seems to have proven ineffective.
The intelligence service has already failed in preventing demonstrations and is now likely employed in infiltrating and discrediting them.
The army seems to be neutral, yet still willing to intervene for order and less bloodshed.


I do not recall a revolution that looked similar to this one.

[Bob's World]

This is surely more complex than any of us will ever know.

With so much at stake, why would Israel or even the Saudis sit on their hands and watch?

When I read about Operation Ajax in 1953 Iran the thing that amazed me most was how such a Keystone Cops operation could actually work to topple a government. The key was that the British had been there a long time and had a well developed UW network in place, which they then convinced the US to lead the operation and loaned us their network. (They still work us like that far more than most Americans would like to admit, btw). The US employed that British network to incite the riots that supported the events that put the Shah into power. Just as insurgents leverage the populace in insurgency, so to do state and non-state actors in unconventional warfare.

Does Israel or Saudi Arabia or Great Britain or the US, etc, etc, etc have such networks in place in Egypt?? I don't know. I do know they have a confluence of long term access and national interests, so I recognize that it is likely such networks exist. Are any of these nations either employing their own network to shape events, or loaning their network to others to employ?? Again, we may never know.

Bottom line is that these things are complicated, and where interests are high, external forces will always come and work to shape things to their own advantage. Enemies become friends, and friends become enemies, it is all about shared and conflicting interests and leveraging what one can to gain an advantage. Egypt has to deal with all of this in addition to their own factions at work.

Things are rarely what they appear to be. There are those with anti-Iran agendas that are pointing fingers at Iran. There are those from the "ideology/terrorism" community who point fingers at the Muslim Brotherhood. There are those who are pro-Israel who rail about the implications to Israeli security.

The voice getting lost is that for transitioning as peacefully as possible to a more stable Egypt under a government of their own determination, with a legitimacy recognized by their own populace, and that participates rationally within the global community.

[Cole]

This is surely more complex than any of us will ever know.

With so much at stake, why would Israel or even the Saudis sit on their hands and watch?

Or Iran, or Hezbollah, or China/Russia, or Hamas.

Word of Omar Suleiman's (new V.P.) attempted assassination several days ago may cast some light on timing of the pro-government crackdown. The sabotage of a natural gas pipeline leading from Egypt to Israel is another example.

The voice getting lost is that for transitioning as peacefully as possible to a more stable Egypt under a government of their own determination, with a legitimacy recognized by their own populace, and that participates rationally within the global community.

It's easy to claim we own the high ground and to bad mouth perceived despots for exploiting unseemly advantages in their own world. Then you look at appointment of former GE CEOs to the government who have supported one political side, and then see new initiatives for light bulbs, look at unions getting health care exemptions, and attempts to legitimize illegal immigration to gain votes...we start to not look a lot different than Mubarak and his cronies.

Where we DO stand out is the example of the U.S. military in the past twenty years in showing reasonable use of force. Would Egypt's Army have shown this kind of restraint in earlier days? Doubtful.

So when folks say we should use a heavier hand in places like Afghanistan, just think of the example that would set to other militaries of the world. We should thank our lucky stars that pop-centric COIN in Afghanistan, democratization of Iraq, and suppression of genocide in the Balkans is leading by example in ways far more constructive than talking the talk on how democracy makes all the difference.

[CrowBat]

This is surely more complex than any of us will ever know.

With so much at stake, why would Israel or even the Saudis sit on their hands and watch?

Why not the USA themselves?

For example, see the following cable released by WikiLeaks to The Telegraph and published on 28 January 2011: Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising

Here's the text of the cable: Link

Did something like "Operation Ajax II" back-fire this time?

I can easily identify 33 years of provocations of Arabs by the U.S. (taking the first delivery of F-4 Phantom II in 1968 as marking).

I would start with saving al-Sauds from starvation with help of a shipload of silver Dollars, back in 1942...

[slapout9]

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=win

Don't blame me, blame Slap...

Yea,it's all my fault

[Bob's World]

Yea,it's all my fault

Taking responsibility is the first step toward getting healthy...

[jmm99]

Well, the How to Win thread was a bit of nostalgia - deja vu all over again.

I chimed in with post #34 A Failure to Communicate Here ?, shortly before Bob came on board, which started:

I've had difficulties with COL Jones' articles, which mix legal and military language and concepts in something of a pot-purri. That accords with his background.

E.g., Juris Doctorate from Willamette University (1995); Masters in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College (2006); also a Deputy District Attorney in Portland, Oregon (2001).

Without doubt, his is a brave attempt to create a needed interface between communities that use different terms (for the same or similar things), all derived from different cultures.

And soon, I responded directly in posts ## 48 & 49, Hi, Bob's World - Governance & Ideology & Formal & Informal Governance:

Ending up with Ideology, you and I would have some differences as to what is the "American Ideology" - even in (or perhaps because of) the stripped-down version you present. However, there is little point to two lawyers yammering on about Con Law and the Foundations of our Republic.

To me, there is a more basic issue which goes to the heart of the question - should we be marketing "American Ideology" at all (assuming arguendo that we could agree on what that is); and, if so, to what extent and to what purpose ?

If our focus is on the population of a foreign land, it seems more logical to me to learn the ideologies which are native to that land - and market the indigenous ideology that is most likely to aid us in reaching our endgoal (assuming that we know what that is). E.g., in a given country, communism might be the best answer, simply because the other ideologies are not going to be helpful (even if some of them are closer to "American Ideology").

Note that I have no objection to presenting the "American Ideology" (assuming arguendo as above) to explain where we are coming from - to inform others. Perhaps that is what you are saying; but you seemed to be propounding a broader agitprop agenda than that.

At least both of us have had some consistency in our respective positions.

I'd say both Slap & you should be "blamed" for making the last several years more interesting.

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

There are a few aspects of ideology that trigger a "cringe" factor in me:

1. When the US does not act consistently with the principles we hold out to the world in our three principle founding documents (Dec of Ind, Const, & Bill of Rights).

2. When the US publicly calls out foreign leaders for not standing for the same current values that the US gives those principles (A value being a principle with a judgment applied to it) in cultures that are in a very different place in their background and development than we are; and where leaders to not respond well to public condemnations of their character and abilities.

3. When "experts" blame insurgency and acts of terrorism as being "caused" by ideology or leaders who employ ideological operations.

All three of those factors weave directly into the events going on across the Middle East currently. The US has formed relationships that have gotten us at cross purposes with our own ideological principles; Our leaders go to these countries (or deliver from the comfort of the oval office) stump speeches that serve to embarrass these leaders and cause them to entrench even more, while at the same time making the US look ineffective at causing true change; and lastly exposed now is the firm bedrock of discontent across these nations that AQ, the Muslim Brotherhood and others have been building their influence upon. Take away that bedrock, and their ideological houses of cards will tumble.

Bob

[tequila]

Nice graph from Bloomberg News, via the IMF. Though it certainly doesn't explain Tunisia:

[Cliff]

Nice graph from Bloomberg News, via the IMF. Though it certainly doesn't explain Tunisia:

Tequila-

Great find! I think that Egypt (much more than Tunisia) is driven by economics almost as much as politics.

V/R,

Cliff

[Ken White]

From Bob's World.

With my standard quibble on the ideological aspect -- you discount that too readily. It is not pervasive, does not drive drive the bus. However it is an enabler; a fuel source. I note you're getting more cagey on that aspect, simply stating it is not generally causative. Generally, I agree...

I do particularly agree with your second item. I cringe whenever the press secretary of the day appears, whoever he or she is appears during these sorts of flaps. I firmly believe Senators should keep their noses out of foreign policy and most Representatives should be seen and seldom heard.

Some compare current events to 1979. Not a good match. 1986 is a better correlation.

[jmm99]

1. High level - ideology & policy

2. Middle level - opportunism (advancement of self and included others)

3. Low level - basic interests (primarily different forms of personal and group security, and insecurity).

Unique to specific population group - general principles often lead down blind alleys.

Less and less people are involved as you climb the ladder. He who aspires to the highest level must kinow the lower levels well.

Nothing new - with respect to the political struggle and less conventional aspects of the military struggle, Mao, Giap and the other PAVN folks all point in this direction. So also, Jack McCuen (from 1966) and Tim Lomperis (from 1996) - the next key reference (a joint effort by Ken and JMM) will appear in 2026 ().

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

February 1986 when 2LT Jones reported for duty with the 8th Infantry Division in West Germany?

[Pete]

Some compare current events to 1979. Not a good match. 1986 is a better correlation.

What similar things happened during 1986? Does it have anything to do with Kurt Waldheim's military service?