Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/05/2011 12:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The author Jerry Pournelle has many sensible things to say about the situation in Eqypt without the wishful thinking contaminating most other commentators, a lengthy quote: The Army is now apparently trying to stop both protestors and counter protestors from reaching the city center. I have heard little about logistics operations: the Army has to feed its troops. Who is feeding the -- people, crowds, mobs, gangs, goons, protestors, choose a noun -- in the public squares? Supplying those manning the barricades has always been the major problem when revolutionaries try to take over a country by barricading the city streets. Napoleon III thought to end Parisian revolutions by rebuilding Paris, tearing down buildings and widening major boulevards, paving them without the cobblestones which Parisian had used to barricade the narrow streets of Paris in more than a dozen uprisings. That didn't save the Second Empire, but it did change the course of the revolt after France's defeat by the German Second Reich. But the Third Republic is another story for another time.
Food supplies are running low. The Army has the logistics to feed crowds. Which crowds will it feed? Without food and water, big protest crowds have a limited existence.
The Voice of America has chosen the protestors. This will not be remembered fondly by the Army, which would be far happier with an orderly change from Mubarak to another government with a President of the Army's choosing. Note that an instant departure by Mubarak is likely to benefit organized political groups -- such as the Muslim Brotherhood, read Hamas -- since Mubarak has not allowed much in the way of an organized opposition. If Egypt is to have an orderly successor with some voice for the opposition -- about the best anyone can hope for -- then the opposition needs some time to organize. If Mubarak goes tomorrow, they will not have that, and if that is followed by a "fair" election, it is likely to look a bit like Gaza when it ends. That is known as one man, one vote, once, and has been the fate of many African nations. We can endure chaos in the Congo; Egypt is a different story.
If Egypt democratically elects a pro-Hamas government, the "land for peace" deal under which Israel gave back Sinai and let Egypt have a border with Gaza will be remembered with contempt and fear.
The United States should not rejoice at the precipitate fall of an ally who has maintained the peace. Egypt needs reforms; but the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are not the answer. The Mamelukes know this. They also know that if the President -- their President and Commander in Chief -- flees from a Cairo mob. the world will be a different place. The Hashemites and Saudis know this also.
It is not yet time for the American people to dance in the streets as much of the Arab world did on September 12, 2001.
=================
I note that the crowd is now described as "tens of thousands." If government have to fall because 100,000 people turn out to barricade the capital, we are in the kind of world envisioned by the Framers, who built Washington DC with the Capitol in the center, and broad open streets and malls radiating from it -- designed so that one regiment of Federal soldiers could defend it with a battery of cannon. The crowds would have been smaller in those times, of course, but rule by a capital city mob was one of the options rejected by those who designed DC. The Convention was held two years before the French Revolution, but the evolution of the Federal government came simultaneously with the turmoil that followed 1789.
Plebiscitary democracy is no friend of good order or the American republic. An instant election in Egypt will reflect the abilities of the organized against the disorganized.
#2
Tough shit, if we can't deal with a change in government in Egypt then we have bigger problems that we can dream of. I suspect the juices can take care of the 3 passes again if necessary. No big deal, let 'em find their way or let 'em get lost again.
#3
Zombie, that's not even a half-intelligent troll.
Egypt sits at the nexus of the problems in the Middle East. It has a border with Israel, Gaza, Sudan and Libya. It's right in the middle. It has a thin veneer of a pro-western military officer elite and a substantial proportion of the male population that has both military training (compulsory draft there) and a strong dislike towards the West, America and Israel.
Our power to 'deal' with a change in government there is limited. Our aid goes mostly to their military. Cut that and you cut the last strings that keep that military oriented towards us. We have little leverage over Mubarak now that Bambi has chosen to cut him down in his hour of need. We have no leverage over the Muslim Brotherhood (e.g., the Egyptian version of Hamas). We have no leverage over its catspaw, ElBaradei. We have no leverage with other opposition parties in Egypt because -- there aren't any other opposition parties in Egypt.
It's said that a big part of the rebellion in Egypt today is a middle class rebellion, led in part by people who are tired of oafs and thugs running the country. But they aren't organized and they'll lose out in the end.
We'll end up with either a Mubarak beholden to his new vice-president, Suleiman, and on the outs in September, or Suleiman taking power now with the understanding that America is pretty much useless to him, or another military strongman, or a Muslim Brotherhood run government led by ElBaradei and backed by the Iranians.
Tough shit, indeed.
That last option will precipitate a new war. Israel will NOT allow a mobilized Egyptian army in the Sinai; the whole point of the Camp David accords was Israel giving up the Sinai in return for a guarantee that Egypt would NOT move in its military. With all the problems Israel has on its northern border and with Gaza, it simply can't allow itself to have a 'three-front' war.
It won't.
So keep talking tough, Zombie, and let's see how quickly you dive under your bed when the shooting starts.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/05/2011 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Keep in mind that Israel's "Land for peace" deal with Egypt is tied closely to the West's "Oil for Jihad" deal.
Hat tip, Instapundit
Even Islamists have to eat. It is unclear whether President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt will survive, or whether his nationalist regime will be replaced by an Islamist, democratic, or authoritarian state. What is certain is that it will be failed. the speculation about the shape of Arab politics to come, a handful of observers, for example economist Nourel Roubini, have pointed to the obvious: Wheat prices have almost doubled in the past year.
Egypt is the world's largest wheat importer, beholden to foreign providers for nearly half its total food consumption. Half of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day. Food comprises almost half the country's consumer price index, and much more than half of spending for the poorer half of the country. This will get worse, not better.
Not the destitute, to be sure, but the aspiring and frustrated young, confronted the riot police and army on the streets of Egyptian cities last week. The uprising in Egypt and Tunisia were not food riots; only in Jordan have demonstrators made food the main issue. Rather, the jump in food prices was the wheat-stalk that broke the camel's back. The regime's weakness, in turn, reflects the dysfunctional character of the country. 35% of all Egyptians, and 45% of Egyptian women can't read.
Nine out of ten Egyptian women suffer genital mutilation. US President Barack Obama said Jan. 29, "The right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere." Does Obama think that genital mutilation is a human rights violation?To expect Egypt to leap from the intimate violence of traditional society to the full rights of a modern democracy seems whimsical.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Whoever took the decision to mobilize the pro-Mubarak protestors on Wednesday morning, having them appear riding camels and horses and use brutal violence -- as we saw -- against the youth in Tahrir Square committed a fatal mistake that Egypt, and President Mubarak himself, will not soon forgive.
On Tuesday night, President Mubarak issued a second speech to the nation, saying that he did not intend to stand at the next [presidential] elections, that he would implement all the constitutional amendments demanded by the protestors, and that it was his intention to die on Egyptian soil. Following this emotional speech the Egyptians and the opposition divided [with regards to their response to this], and even those in the Arab region who opposed Mubarak did not know what to do. Egypt is for all the Arabs, and it seemed that [following this speech] those giving vent to their feelings felt that there was some light on the horizon, and even the die-hard [protestors] in central Cairo were seriously discussing the necessity of responding to the president's call [to return to their homes], until the violent protest undertaken by the supporters of the president destroyed all hopes of a rational solution that would protect the security and stability of Egypt. The question that must be asked here is: how can the million-strong protest undertaken by the Egyptian opposition occur without a single drop of blood being spilled, whilst the supporters of the president protest in the terrifying manner that they did? Is it reasonable for the anti-Mubarak Facebook generation's protests to be responded to by attacks on horseback and with camels, as if we are watching the classic [Arabic] film "The Battle of Al-Qadisiyyah"?
What further complicated the situation was the statement issued by Egyptian Vice President [Omar Suleiman] in which he said that the government would not negotiate with the opposition until after the protestors left the streets and returned to their homes. How can he say this and then say that the Egyptian leadership is committed to Egyptian democracy, particularly when the president said that Egypt is a far more democratic country now than it was when he first came to power? I am still convinced of the pure history of Egyptian geriatric President Hosni Mubarak, for he is not a Zine El Abidine Ben Ali or a Saddam Hussein, regardless of what his opponents say. However the handling of this crisis, particularly what happened following the president's last speech, is surprising, harmful, and a source of anger! Even some of the foreign [television] channels have not rushed to label what is happening in Egypt as a revolution. The BBC English service has been the most profession in dealing with the Egyptian crisis; far more than its Arabic service which is less professional than even the official Egyptian media. The BBC [English service] has not described what is happening in Egypt as a revolution, and the same goes for CNN. However the mishandling of the situation by those who took part in the Camel and Horse attacks [on the anti-Mubarak protestors] may transform this into a genuine revolution, especially as more of Egypt's elite have begun to take an anti-regime stance.
Today, Egypt the State, is in real danger, for Egypt is more important than any of its individuals, especially as the wolves -- of all kinds -- have begun to circle Cairo, from states to militias to ideologues. This is something that threatens us all, for Egyptian strength and stability is vital for the whole region. What is happening there today is madness, especially given that the regime is on the verge of seriously clashing with the international community that has begun to distance itself from the regime in a clear manner and call for Mubarak to leave in an unusual and unexpected scene, one that even the greatest pessimist could not have imagined.
The question that must be asked now is: where are Egypt's intellectuals? Is it right for the Mubarak regime to end in this manner? This is truly a shame!
Posted by: Fred ||
02/05/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This isn't about Democracy and there was no clear agitation by any specific leader before this. This is just anti Mubarak, not pro anything. Egypt will go from one dictator to another just as they always have throughout their history.
This didn't start with Tunisia, this started with the murder of the Coptic Christians.
#3
The big question is not will they become a democracy, but could they become a republican-democracy?
What they have now, to a great extent, is like a European social democracy, with all its failings. They are ruled by a wealthy elite, the majority rules with disregard to the minorities, they have a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy and sky high unemployment.
And yet they have some good things as well. A fairly professional and well-liked military, considerable agriculture and industry. Lots of potential for growth and entrepreneurship.
Which points to what they need. They need much less government and regulation, and a more laissez-faire marketplace. They need a more secular government, especially the police and courts.
They also have some incredibly bad problems, starting with their 40% unemployment, but leading to the horrific problem that 10% of their population are infected with hepatitis C.
#4
It doesn't seem like the anti-Mubarak protesters have much direction or organization. I'd worry that there are opportunists who would exploit the chaos such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. They do have organization and focus. I'd worry.
#5
Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an op-ed for the New York Times talking about exactly that concern, JohnQC. I'd no idea she'd been an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood in her youth.
In 1985, as a teenager in Kenya, I was an adamant member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Seventeen years later, in 2002, I took part in a political campaign to win votes for the conservative party in the Netherlands.
Those two experiences gave me some insights that I think are relevant to the current crisis in Egypt. They lead me to believe it is highly likely but not inevitable that the Muslim Brotherhood will win the elections to be held in Egypt this coming September.
When I was 15 and considered myself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, there were secular political groups in the diasporas of Pakistanis, Yemenis and Somalis, who lived in exile in Nairobi like my family. These loosely organized groups had vague plans for building their countries into peaceful, prosperous nations. These were dreams they never realized.
The Muslim Brotherhood did more than dream. With the help of money from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries, they established cells in my school and functioning institutions in my neighborhood. There were extracurricular activities for all age groups. There were prayer and chant hours, as well as communal Koran readings. We were encouraged to become volunteers, to help the indigent, to spread Allahs message. They established charities to which we could tithe, which then provided health and educational centers.
It is true that the movement was violent, but we tend to underestimate in the West the Brotherhoods ability to adapt to reality and implement lessons learned. One such adaptation is the ongoing debate within the network on the use of violence. There are two schools of thought within the network, and both of them invoke the Prophet Mohammed.
Those who want instant jihad hark back to the time when the Prophet had small armies that defeated massive ones, as in the battles of Badr and Uhud. The nonviolent branch of the Brotherhood emphasizes the Prophets perseverance and patience. They emphasize dawa (persuasion through preaching and by example) and above all a gradual multi-generational process in coming to power and holding on to it. Above all, they argue for taqiyyah, a strategy to collaborate with your enemies until the time is ripe to defeat them or convert them to Islam.
She lays out a powerful argument that unless the diverse secular, anti-Mubarak groups find unity in a powerful idea of what they are for, and work the politics of the people as effectively as the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing for decades, they will lose.
#6
I don't think this is a serious question. Especially in view of the issues raised by 'Spengler' on his Asia Times column, mentioned elsewhere today on the 'Burg.
The attack on the institution of marriage is not only the biggest cultural but also the biggest fiscal issue of our times, and political and judicial attacks by gays are only part of the problem. Marriage is being assaulted by unilateral divorce, feminist hostility toward marriage, the bias of family courts against fathers, and the taxpayer-paid financial incentives that subsidize illegitimate births.
...A lack of marriage causes poverty. The poverty rate for single parents with children is 36.5 percent, while it is only 6.4 percent for married couples with children. We just suffered the largest increase in government-designated poverty: 3.7 million more Americans moved into the "poor" column in 2009. The number of Americans receiving food stamps just rose to a record 41.8 million.
Obama's solution for the poverty problem is more redistribution of money from taxpayers to the poor. But there's no evidence that more money is the remedy because we've been increasing handouts every year and the problem keeps getting worse. Contrary to a lot of chatter, this isn't a teenage problem (only 7.7% of new single moms are minors), and it isn't a failure of birth control, and it isn't the accidents of unplanned pregnancies. These single moms want their babies and confidently expect Big Brother to provide for them.
#3
These single moms want their babies and confidently expect Big Brother to provide for them.
A hundred years ago you had a lot of children hoping that some of them would make it to adulthood, since child mortality rates were much higher. That's because there was no social security or major pension systems in place. Your children were your old age support [as in - honor thy father and mother]. Today the state et al provides bankrupting levels of support for the older generations in their last 10-20 years, so now the kids are produced to provide support for the first twenty years.
#4
Marriage is being assaulted by unilateral divorce, feminist hostility toward marriage, the bias of family courts against fathers, and the taxpayer-paid financial incentives that subsidize illegitimate births.
Might I also add, a culture of self-absorption and immediate gratification that romanticizes immature drifters, whose fear of responsibility and loss of youth and independence permanently outweighs any desire to put down roots and reproduce.
Good news is, it didn't take me long to lose the zero and find a hero. :)
#6
Might I also add, a culture of self-absorption and immediate gratification that romanticizes immature drifters, whose fear of responsibility and loss of youth and independence permanently outweighs any desire to put down roots and reproduce.
Flawed logic if I have ever read it. Beg to differ on most cases of childless adults. It takes self awareness in some cases, not all, to admit to oneself that one is not cut out for parenting, and furthermore much better to realize this pre not post child. It seems awfully overly simplistic to call childless people immature on that count alone, going either way. Some people ARE mature enough to know they SHOULDN'T or don't want to reproduce. Wish there were more of them, actually, because there are too many terribly bad parents today who should have used contraception.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/05/2011 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
TW, thank you.
FaI, relax. Just a cheap shot at my ex. If I may close the logical circuit, I agree that these types may well do everyone a favor by self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool.
In the 1970s, Reagan spoke often of a populist "prairie fire" of resistance to big government, and he saw the tax revolt as the match igniting the fire that swept him to office in 1980. Yet the Tea Party makes the "prairie fire" of the tax revolt look like a small campfire by comparison. It is distinct from and superior to the tax revolt precisely to the extent that it represents a populist constitutional movement, challenging out-of-control government in a way that goes beyond arguments about tax rates.
It is exactly on this point that Reagan's far-sightedness and his legacy become relevant. During the 1980s, there was little popular ferment behind Reagan and Meese's campaign to revive constitutional originalism, but they pursued it anyway. When today's liberals disingenuously invoke Reagan against the Tea Party or Republican attempts in Congress to restrain the government, Reagan's constitutional views should be thrown in their faces. The tea partiers might well be considered Reagan's children.
Several pundits suggested that the 1994 election, which delivered the first GOP House majority in 40 years, should be thought of as "Reagan's third landslide." If so, November 2 of last year could be regarded as his fourth. And if conservatives remain faithful to Ronald Reagan's principles and practices, it won't be the last. Happy 100th birthday, Mr. President.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
