The Guardian newspaper of London reported today that Vice President Omar Suleiman threatened that an enormous Egyptian protest march on the Presidential Palace on Friday could lead to a military coup if the protesters don't accept Suleiman's terms for a timetable on transitioning the government.
The implications of this are profound, particularly with the new revelation that the military has been actively involved in the torturing of protesters since the revolution began sixteen days ago. It leaves the entire question of where the military's overall loyalties lie -- with the people on the streets or to the chain of command under Suleiman and Mubarak.
Friday's protest demonstration in front of the Presidential Palace will represent the acid test as to which way the world will see the Egyptian revolution flow. If the military peacefully supports the rights of the demonstrators and prevents violence from agent provocateurs, then there will be clear signals that the military is officially insubordinate and Mubarak and Suleiman's days are indeed numbered. If on the other hand, the military responds with a show of deadly force in guarding the Presidential Palace or provocateurs are successful in creating a major incident, there will be a massacre and hopes for any kind of democratic transition will be doomed.
The role that the United States plays in this demonstration will be critical. Vice President Joe Biden has already signaled that the current regime needs to rescind the emergency laws that have been in effect for many, many years along with calls for freedom of the press. But at the same time the Obama administration has generally sided with Suleiman in recognizing that constitutional difficulties in transitioning to democracy will mean some time is necessary before there can really be a more open and honest government in Cairo.
From a military standpoint, it must be remembered that until the 28th of January, huge elements of the Egyptian high military command were in Washington, DC discussing foreign aid arrangements even as the protesters were demonstrating in Takhir Square. Thus it must be assumed that the US military has the closest working arrangements with the top brass, and should be able to telegraph to the Egyptians which way the wind is blowing in Washington.
Barack Obama must at this point be torn between his personal urge to encourage democracy and the conservatives' impulse to defend the Egyptian military as the central source of authority within the US government. It's obvious that Israel would vastly prefer that the existing Mubarak regime stay in place.
From a wild card angle, while the US may have very cozy relations with the Egyptian generals, in many coup d'etats in the past it's been the colonels (disaffected with their chances for promotion) that have been the deciding factors in throwing their troops support in favor of one faction or the other.
Friday will be a critical and dramatic chapter in providing clues as to how Egyptian society will shake out, as well as a potential road map as to how other dominoes in the Jasmine Revolution will follow.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Inverted Interrobang
kenneth houck
Paul Fassett
Donegal Descendant
Steel Breeze
l'Heure Bleue
Salon.com
Comments
Perhaps there is still hope that Egypt's protests will not drown in the US manipulations and the control of the corrupt current government.
See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/alamin02082011.html
There's an optimistic scenario for the coup. Let's suppose the current ruling powers genuinely want, or are willing to accept a liberal democracy. One problem right now is that to do everything by the book - change laws, alter the constitution, takes time. And who can authoritatively speak for the protesters? Whatever interim concession may be offered by the rulers, who on the other side has enough authority to say to the protesters that this is enough of what we wanted, go back to your homes, your jobs, and all will be well very soon?
But if the military is committed to a real democracy, all those time-consuming legal niceties can be dispensed with. The military rules by fiat.
It's a longshot but there could be a silver lining. Not that I'd want to bet a lot of my own money on this particular outcome. I hadn't known that so many key military brass were in Washington at such a key time. That adds a wrinkle.
Mubarak and Suleiman should be hanged. Why anyone extends a hand to them is beyond me.
It's an act.
The elite are looking at this situation to see how best they can salvage as much of their present money draining position as possible. Once they decide they'll see to it that the US government falls into line.
Same old, same old. It goes on forever.....
.
The one point of disagreement I have is that a massacre spells failure with any certainty. It might, of course, but I think it might also not. A large crowd may perceive no turning back and it could equally well galvanize their will. I think it's a wildcard.
It saddens me in our Democracy that I don't think I believe our leaders when they give press conferences on policy in times like this, and so We The People have difficulty auditing what is being done in our name, especially in real time when we might affect it. Yeah, yeah, we're free to later elect someone else if we don't like what they're doing, but that's a little late and the consequences could be steep. A phone or email campaign at the right time could be very effective if one had the facts. Absent facts, it's too easily dismissed by a sitting administration as th opinion of know-nothings, except the knowledge of nothing is administration-induced.
I fear that leaders, democratic or otherwise, often automatically back one another out of some secret desire that if, shall we say, a Second Amendment Festival were to spring up in their own country, they would hope leaders elsewhere would automatically side with them and against their people. (I suspect a similar rationale for why Ford pardoned Nixon and why Bush's team is not prosecuted by Obama—presidents worry that if they prosecute, they could be next to be prosecuted, and that a policy of no accountability serves their personal interests best. Just a theory. But if I'm right it bodes ill because it means our leaders are, as a matter of routine, concerned with the wrong things.)
A first requirement of democracy must be truthful, accurate and complete information in time for the citizens to make a useful input before action is taken. The western "democracies" are a long, long way from anything even remotely similar to this - and getting further away every day.
To complete the move away from democracy, the governments we live under have developed the means to keep complete and accurate information on all citizens. I has gotten to the point where the government can do a fair job of determining what a citizen's position will be well in advance of that citizen even deciding upon it. This allows them to manipulate the citizens fairly easily.
ORWELL must be spinning in his grave!
.
This is where chaos can cause an agenda driven regime to come in and take advantage of a people who only want to Live Free. If Mubarak leaves now, the people will only have caused a vacuum that could be filled by anyone with their own political agenda. The people may have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
Why is Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO and Code Pink butting into the Middle East? They have no business being in Middle Eastern Affairs. They are only adding fuel to the fire and causing more hostility. They are working the People’s anger into a frenzy that will resolve nothing. America needs to butt out of other country’s internal affairs and that includes politicians and agenda driven American organizations. A Global Agenda is doomed for failure due to the very differing cultures of the People in this world. They may each use each other to gain their own agenda, but afterwards, they will be fighting each other to disavow the other’s agenda of control. People just want to be Free, not controlled by a tyrannical government or union organization. People just want to be Free to make their own destinies.
The armed forces hold allegiance to a President, supposedly to keep order, and should not be making up their own minds on whether or not to follow the President’s orders. To do otherwise would be Anarchy. What would happen if the American military decided they did not like what Obama was doing and did not follow his orders? I may not like Obama, but he is the President. I am an extreme proponent for Freedom, but in no way, an Anarchist.
Many people do not believe in the “Second Amendment” here in America, but I will bet the Egyptians wish they had a “Second Amendment”. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Tench Coxe made this point in a commentary on the Second Amendment. Coxe explained the purpose of the Amendment this way:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Similarly, Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." Madison contrasted the situation in America with that obtaining under the European governments, whom he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and argued that the new federal government need not be feared because Americans possessed "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
In other words, a well armed People keeps a government going tyrannical, in check. A Free People who are organized and civilized enough will keep a government honest.
Whether Egyptians like it or not, they will have to have Mubarak in control until they make their minds up on a successor, who will serve the Egyptians and lead them as a Free People and not a radicalized political party. Until that moment arrives, chaos will be the order of the day.
From Jan Sand; "The Egyptians are fed to the teeth with the brutality of the government and US support of it is clear indication that the USA is not interested in democracy or freedom."
I'd qualify that as, "the USA government is not interested in democracy or freedom".
They are typically not us.
"who controls the Past
controls the Future...
who controls th
Present
controls the past..."
(1984)
................................
We have a fine organization here in the usa called
"big brothers".
I was for a brief time Mr. Obama's big brother,
but he sued for
emancipated minor
& won.
Newspeak, i told him back in ..um, '84 or so...
was a fine idea. I tried Orwellian newspeak on him:
(twas doublethink newspeak, kind of a double negative thing)
"to accept civilization AS IT IS
practically means accepting
decay..." (essays)
.............................................
He wasn't a good student in doublethink newspeak,
so I didn't contest the lawsuit and reluctantly
let him go.
There will be no new "chip" in the negotiation process between Israel and its neighbors. The US has "thread the needle" successfully and few recognize the difference. It's simply a matter of watching it play out and counting the few martyrs to the cause who refuse to get that they have lost.
Time to look elsewhere for hope. I'm not sure its even worth discussing any more. I'll bet Mubarak even stays in the country until his successor takes over when he moves to the South of France and enjoys the quality of the light.
Luv u kid, keep it poppin'. Your fan, truly,
Good point about colonels and promotion, like the Free Officers Corps, who had been let in late to the Army because of lower social class background.
It looks like the citizens will be storming the Bastille.
The bottom line: Expect a military coup tomorrow (just as I said previously).
As for what our government is doing or not doing, I think it is analogous to the cliche about officiating in a football game. The less you notice the officials, the better of a job they are doing. The way we handled the Shah of Iran seemed like the right thing to do, but it misunderstood the social psychology of a nation. It helped to fuel a revolution. The fact that we are not seeing the "Death to America" signs that have become so familiar over the past several decades in Middle East demonstrations is significant and positive. So far, we have managed to not alienate the people.
I think this situation could break in one of at least three ways. All sides are stepping carefully to keep from appearing to be the belligerent so that a majority coalition does not form against them. The PR battle, being waged on television with this situation's only viable weapon, seeks to define the debate. The likely debates are in descending order; power of the oligarchy versus the people, religion of the Islamists versus secular power, and finally economic with some sort of worker versus capitalist tilt. The latter two cases are the ones which most likely cause the problem to spread outside of Egypt's borders. Most sides, including the U.S., Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and all monied interests, are probably biased in favor of the first case. Barring a cataclysm, we will probably see a new wrapping paper on the old system. Right now they are looking for someone who appears to be a Mohamed El Baradei, but functions like another Mubarak, in hopes of avoiding a Castro or a Khomeini. Over the past 30 years, we were willing to make Mubarak the wealthiest man on the planet, as far as anyone knows. An armed populace cant do anything against that kind of power. It never has in the United States.
This is getting interesting in multiple directions. The Saudi monarchy is now telling Obama to cool it and not to give up supporting Mubarak this soon. The military has announced two things:
1. They will support Mubarak's offer
2. They will hold Mubarak's administration to the commitments they made
Mubarak just blew it. Everyone, including I think Obama, thought he was about to step down and then refused. He might have been able to get away with it if he'd ended the State of Emergency but, without that, the protests will only get bigger. He needed the extra concession to defuse his situation and made the mistake of putting too little on the table. He doesn't have the option of adding it later without looking like 1. he's caving and, more importantly, 2. it's not enough by itself. His commitment to stepping down coupled with ending the State of Emergency might have been enough as a package, but that opportunity has passed.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
In the case of the Middle East, it's sort of like our Tea Baggers. As insane as they are, they're like cockroaches: everywhere. If there were upheaval, they and their AR-15's would take over most statehouses, even in otherwise Blue States. In the Middle East, it's the Muslim fundamentalists. While these insurrections appear driven by an educated, but unemployed, young underclass, they don't have the weapons. A largely fundamentalist Arab Middle East is not out of the question, once the dust settles. Israel, how you like dat?