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
America Doesn't Believe In Democracy
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/
Washington Looks Clueless on Egypt?
I am sure that the Israeli reaction has appeared in the US media, although I have missed it here in the UK. So courtesy of Real Clear Politics an article 'Washington Looks Clueless on Egypt;, by Caroline Glick, of the Jerusalem Post, which scathing of US actions to date:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_108731.html
Indicated by these unlinked portions:Rightly the author points to elections elsewhere in the Arab World, citing the Palestinian vote in 2006 and Egypt in 2005, where when given that chance the voters voted for parties who stand for a very different agenda. Her argument falls by failing to explain how tyranny can end without some form of democracy appearing...the character of the protesters is not liberal...According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists....it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.
davidbfpo
The Army statement says
I noted the clear change of policy by the Army and found a link to the actual statement:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12332488
The main points are:Tonight's news reports that the machine guns on the armour deployed have been removed and one clip showed soldiers without AKs.Your Armed Forces acknowledges the legitimacy of the people's demands and is adamant on carrying out its responsibilities in protecting the country and its citizens as ever.
We stress the following:
1. Peaceful freedom of expression is guaranteed for everyone.
2. [No-one] shall carry out an action that could endanger the country's safety and security or vandalise public and private property.
3. It is not acceptable that some outlaws have terrorised citizens. The Armed Forces will not allow it. It will not allow the safety and security of the country to be tampered with.
4. [To citizens] Keep safe the assets and capabilities of your great people. Resist any vandalism against public or private property.
5. The Armed Forces is aware of the legitimate demands of the honourable citizens.
6. The Armed Forces' presence on the Egyptian streets is for your own sake, safety and security. Your Armed Forces have not and will not resort to the use of force against this great people.
davidbfpo
Mubarak rule: the context
From Abu M's Londonistani, who has lived in Cairo, a long article on the context for events of late and one funny tale about tuna:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...ak-and-me.html
Which ends with these paragraphs:Some of the US and UK coverage of the anti-Mubarak demonstrations happening now suggests that extremists are waiting to take over. Considering Mubarak's manipulation of feelings towards the United States and suppression of moderate Islamists and secularists, it's a surprise that the demonstrators are not all extremist Jihadis.
However, the legacy of Mubarak's rule means that there are few leaders with any of the contacts, stature and relationships that would allow government to function if Mubarak's regime was removed root and branch. Few people outside the ruling circle even have any idea of what the country's real financial situation is. Those who demand that the peace treaty with Israel be cancelled have no idea what part it plays in keeping their country solvent.
There is hope. The Egyptians who turned up to prevent the looting of the Cairo Museum, the popular committees, the Muslim-Christian cooperation show glimmers of hope that Egyptians - despite the best efforts of three decades of Mubarak - have retained the civic values that will be vital for their future.
davidbfpo
Nice catch...
Back at ya from Lebanon's Al Manar TV (our acquaintances at Hezbollah)...link to story.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
More from the LA Times regarding Recep Tayyip Erdogan: TURKEY: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan joins call for Egypt's Mubarak to make big changesTurkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a “sincere warning and piece of advice” for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak telling him, “we are all passing, and we will be judged by what we left behind.”
Wikipedia backgrounder regarding Recep Tayyip ErdoganTurkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan sided with the Egyptian protesters against their president in a televised speech on Tuesday in which he rebuked Hosni Mubarak and urged him to take a bold step before more blood is spilled.
Sapere Aude
This article is a little ridiculous...
Slap-
I have a little problem with this article - it claims that the US doesn't believe in democracy, but then goes on to criticize Pres Bush's attempts to use Iraq to bring democracy to the region.
So which is it - does the US fear democracy or support it?
Folks like this who criticize everything the government does aren't helpful.
V/R,
Cliff
I have a few problems with it myself, which is why I put it up here to get the other side of the story. As you point out there does appear to be a contradiction in his basic thesis on using democracy to achieve some sort of stable End but at the same time criticizing it.
No.31 flew MiG-17PFs (radar-equipped, "night/all-weather interceptor" variant) originally acquired by Syria before that country joined the UAR, in 1958-1961 period.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.
Re. "friends": I've got quite a few on both sides of 1967; that makes the research about related topics far more easier.
Re. Mubarak and Suharto: except for both rulling for 30+ years, I do not really see much similarity. Suharto was instrumental for establishment of the Indonesian military and personally involved in fighting the Dutch, when he distinguished in action, in the late 1940s. He pursued a successful, and quite well-documented military career right up to 1965 or so.
For comparisson, practically nothing is known about the details of Mubarak's military career, and I think there are a few good reasons for this. For much of his early career, Mubarak served as instructor at the Air Force Academy in Bilbeis. While I know that many other instructors flew combat sorties during the 1956 War (on Spitfire F.Mk.22s), for example, I never heard Mubarak did the same. In the early 1960, at the time any other professional Egyptian officer (see Riyadh, al-Ezz etc.) was purged out of the military by FM Amer and FM Fawzy, Mubarak rose in rank and was appointed the commander of the Academy (in my eyes, this makes him one of typical Egyptian "political" military officers, like Naguib, Nasser, Amer, Fawzy, Sadat etc.). While many Russians recall Riyadh's stint at Frunze very well, nothing comparable can be said about Mubarak...
By early 1967, Mubarak was back in Egypt and in command of an Air Group ("Wing/Brigade") operating Tu-16s. True enough, he personally led a number of daring, low-level attacks against the Yemeni Royalists in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, possibly even the fake raid against the Royal Palace in Riyadh (only flash cartriges were used), but very few details about these are known. Quite estranging given how much is meanwhile known about a number of other Egyptian Tu-16 and Il-28 pilots from the same period... Similarly, the most "distinguished" action by Mubarak during the June 1967 War was to lead a section of six Tu-16s that, by pure accident, took off five minutes before the first Israeli strike on 5 June 1967. Instead of doing something meaningful with his planes, at least fly them to the safety of Yemen or Sudan, he diverted them to an airfield well within the range of Israeli fighter bombers - and then made a call on an open line in order to ask the High Command what shall he do. Unsurprisingly, the Israelis intercepted that call and 30 minutes later smoked all six of his Tu-16s on the ground... Once again, not a single combat sortie flown by him during that war is known, as compared with missions flown by other Egyptian bomber pilots.
During the Attrition War he served in various staff positions until being appointed the C-in-C EAF. He was certainly never as popular as other air force commanders, particularly el-Hinnawy or al-Ezz, and I am yet to find out if he ever did anything "special". Many of sources available so far indicate something entirely different, but due to the situation in Egypt until now it was impossible to find out any specific details (that alone makes Mubarak's role appearing quite "suspect"). Thus, for the time being it's definitely sure that most of Mubarak's job consisted of completing various projects launched by his predecessors in that position.
Mubarak remained in charge of the EAF during the 1973 War, when the air force was first held back (much to disagreement of most of its officers) and then rushed to the battle when it was much too late. Afterwards, he definitely sided with Ismail and the rest of the "missile superiority" clique and became crucial in Egyptians generally being taught that the crossing of Suez on 6 October was the only significant action of that war... The only other act of his during the 1970s that was of any durable importance was to let one of leading fighter-bomber commanders write an official history of the Egyptian Air Force in 1967 War for internal purposes (important, since the original work to this topic, written back in 1968, was subsequently destroyed on order from Fawzy).
It was really quite surprising when he was appointed the President, following Sadat's assassination, in October 1981, and I really do not see him ever emphasising the core value of "serving the nation" in his entire life. While Suharto's "New Order" promoted stability and economic development, and significantly improved the standard of living of much of the Indonesian population, Mubarak excelled in nepotism and corruption, made the military largely dependent on US aid and did not seriously care about the state of the Egyptian economy before 2005. Except in making himself, his family, and his closest supporters obscenely rich, allienating vast majority of the Egyptian population, or keeping himself in power, he failed in almost anything else he ever did (that is, he successfuly presented his regime as a "bastion against Islamic extremism in Egypt"...).
The act of appointing Soleiman as VP should be seen as a (much belated) attempt to tame the protests and buy time, nothing else. Perhaps Mubaraks didn't get all of their money and gold out of the country (yet), or have to discuss their future exile in Saudi Arabia with the King...
I plead guilty for not providing a better definition. I'll excuse this with explanation that I took it for "granted" that it's clear who am I talking about, given that several of closest associates of OBL (including his leading theoretician) and four of 9/11 idiots were all Egyptians.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.
I do not think that anybody can reasonably say whether the MBs represent the "will of the majority" in Egypt. I hope there are going to be "trully free" elections there, and that such assessments are going to be dispelled.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?
What I know is that the current protest was largely organized by as many secularists as Islamists and simple "onlookers" from the impoverished suburbs. Actually, one of most prominent "organisers" during the first few days of protests were such organisations of the Egyptian "ultras" like al-Ahly or al-Zamalek: football fan clubs similar to those in Europe. And, their representatives stressed that they are determined to remain non-political.
That aside, even the MB supporters that I know in person are sure that the Brotherhood is 100% incapable of improving the condition of the economy (if for no other reason, then because much of the crucial Egyptian businesses are run by the Copts) - which is the critical drive behind the protest.
However, right now, I do not see this as important. The fact hardly anybody of "talkingheads" in the West (with exception of few that attempt pouring oil to the fire of specific fears) is mentioning in these days is, that nobody on the streets of Egyptian cities is currently talking about the USA or Israel, there are no flag-burnings, and nothing religious. And that Copts protest as much as Moslems do. I therefore see the situation as an uprising of the Egyptian people that want to get rid of Mubarak's regime and a complete change of the entire political system. I.e. a struggle motivated by domestic situation and aiming at finding solutions for problems very specific to Egypt.
Well...this post grew quite long (hope, nobody is going to mind that), and I'll stop here.
Former Amb Dan Gillerman from Israel to the UN on Fox. Very pro Israel as one would expect him to be. That is his job, to be an advocate. Harshly critical (in a very polite way) of President Obama's stance, and what he describes as an abandonment of Mubarak, who has been a staunch ally for 30 years, etc.
I will say the same thing regarding Mubarak as I have said regarding Karzai:
It is not the US who has abandoned Mubarak, it is Mubarak who has abandoned the US through his reliance on US support to treat his own people with growing impunity.
In contract law there is a principle of "first material breach," and while the US is certainly in breach of its contract with the Mubarak government, I would argue that Mubarak has been in material breach for decades. He remained true to the aspects he knew the US cared most about (stability with Israel, access through the Suez, etc), but has with equal consistency and growing impunity violated is duties to his own populace. If he was standing on his own two feet, such breach is between him and his people, but as he executed such breachs under a cloak of US support and tacit approval, he has made us complicit in his actions.
This is true for so many of our relationships across this region. There are solutions to this problem far short of demanding leaders to step down, or coming on in support of protesters, but those steps require these governments to act affirmatively to address these wrongs and rapidly seek to allow new voices to be heard and reasonable adjustments of government put in place.
Israel is important, but we have allowed our efforts to support them take us down a path to where we are today. We should continue to support Israel, but not at the expense of our own credibility, not at the expense of our own principles, and not in a manner that continues to fuel the flames of terrorism against the US as these sullied relationships with Arab strongmen have these past couple of decades.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Today's lesson: don't fvck with Anderson Cooper.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks