|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 28, 2011 21:45:44 GMT -5
Among the more bizarre of the commentators to get in the fray on this:
levarburton
#Egypt we are with you!!! #Mubarak, the World is watching!!!
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 29, 2011 0:09:15 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 29, 2011 1:52:31 GMT -5
Thanks for everyone's concern. We are so isolated out here it is pretty safe -- the joke is that we live in a secure, gated community with a 24-hour on duty armed guards.
Unfortunately, all transportation to Cairo and Tel Aviv cancelled for today, so no Mike's Place in Tel Aviv for the game. AFN lists the Nova game on its schedule and it is likely I can watch it here on base, assuming we get the right feed from Europe.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 29, 2011 6:29:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 29, 2011 12:25:26 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 29, 2011 17:55:39 GMT -5
The BBC's liveblog is also quite good: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/9380534.stmSounds like things have become more violent, with bands of looters taking advantage of the chaos. The police are doing nothing to stop the looters, which may be a deliberate plan to enable the government to portray the protesters as looters and criminals, thus turning the Egyptian populace against them. Al Jazeera was even speculating that the government would turn loose its own bands of looters in order to sabotage the protests. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 30, 2011 11:43:52 GMT -5
State is urging US citizens to leave Egypt and has arranged flights beginning on Monday. Reading the tea leaves, it seems like the Administration is not pleased with the direction of events.
Unfortunately, Al Jazeera's studios/offices were raided, so they may be going offline to some extent.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 30, 2011 18:14:42 GMT -5
The BBC's liveblog is also quite good: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/9380534.stmSounds like things have become more violent, with bands of looters taking advantage of the chaos. The police are doing nothing to stop the looters, which may be a deliberate plan to enable the government to portray the protesters as looters and criminals, thus turning the Egyptian populace against them. Al Jazeera was even speculating that the government would turn loose its own bands of looters in order to sabotage the protests. I subscribe to a service called Stratfor, which has mentioned that there's a massive divide between the army and the police/ministry of the interior, and that the police have worked sabotage to lead people to question the capability of the army (police tried to buck the demonstrators but failed - the army, which has more respect, has been doing better at restoring order). In other, Graham Allison-esque words, "Egypt" or "the Egyptian government" is not a monoltithic entity. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 30, 2011 18:17:30 GMT -5
The problem with supporting Mubarak is the risk of blowback. These protests certainly were NOT anti-American to start. But the riot police throw tear gas at the protesters, the protesters pick up the tear gas canisters and read "MADE IN THE USA" written on the canisters. Suddenly the protesters who had no beef with the US suddenly start shouting anti-American slogans. Are there risks with turning on Mubarak? Absolutely. Suddenly a US promise of support to a foreign leader doesn't mean nearly as much. Friendly foreign leaders who would otherwise give us unconditional support slowly start hedging their bets, hoping to get in the good graces of other countries (like China) who will support them no matter what, even when they shoot their own people. I think the US's lay low attitude is probably the best (i.e. least bad) choice right now. I'm a big fan of Natan Sharansky's "The Case for Democracy", which makes the argument that, in the long term, it's in our best interest not to work with dictators, even if it's "easier". This has gotten to the point where it's the Egyptian people deciding the future of their country, as they should. The US should encourage that these gyrations occur without the loss of life and then move to the side. |
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Jan 30, 2011 18:18:26 GMT -5
GU has decided to evacuate the 15 students studying at AUC and they're headed to SFS-Qatar tomorrow hopefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 30, 2011 23:39:44 GMT -5
As the protests continue, I remain troubled by the trajectory in Egypt (not to mention Tunisia). The movement toward what is being advertised as democracy or "rule of the people," I think, risks legitimating the Islamist impulses and political groups.
Egypt seems on a track toward regime failure. The business folks have long since left for Dubai, and security forces are defying the regime on a large scale. The question is only how much more blood will be shed before it fails IMO.
A quick election would not be wise IMO, particularly when folks are riled up as they are. They'd be well-served by a transition that develops the infrastructure for a meaningful election with monitors and allows for greater participation from Egyptians who may want to return. Egyptians would also be well-served by learning more about candidates (as would the rest of the world).
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 31, 2011 0:17:42 GMT -5
As the protests continue, I remain troubled by the trajectory in Egypt (not to mention Tunisia). The movement toward what is being advertised as democracy or "rule of the people," I think, risks legitimating the Islamist impulses and political groups. Egypt seems on a track toward regime failure. The business folks have long since left for Dubai, and security forces are defying the regime on a large scale. The question is only how much more blood will be shed before it fails IMO. A quick election would not be wise IMO, particularly when folks are riled up as they are. They'd be well-served by a transition that develops the infrastructure for a meaningful election with monitors and allows for greater participation from Egyptians who may want to return. Egyptians would also be well-served by learning more about candidates (as would the rest of the world). I REALLY don't like this. Stuff like "particularly when folks are riled up as they are" is the apex of "we know better than you do" paternalism. And democracy almost certainly would legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood, who seem very eager to actually compete in a free and fair election. If there's a transition where Mubarak promises to abdicate in six months or something and everyone's OK with that, fine. But, if not, saying that the brown people aren't ready for the complicated poltiics of democracy leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 31, 2011 0:47:19 GMT -5
Well, the notion that democracy itself is preferable or some preordained human right is highly paternalistic, perhaps more than anything I've said. The Obama administration seems pleased as long as there is something that we can call a democracy, but should the Egyptian people be allowed to choose the regime they prefer? Are we not bound to support them if they choose a dictator - that would be an awkward situation?
The Muslim Brotherhood is exactly my concern. This weird and cheap "brown people" snark is your own, and I disassociate myself from it. I don't know why that term belongs here. What I do know is that our democratic experience in the US has been tough enough and if recent rhetoric is any indicator, oppression is even more widespread than in Egypt. Even if you think that democracy is worth it on a blank slate, there is enough out there to think there is some risk that democracy would further destabilize the Middle East. Why? Democratic regimes are more likely to start wars. A democratic peace is achievable when there are other democracies (but see Israel/Lebanon skirmishes this decade). Regardless, the hopey changey thing starts to lose traction when you consider Iran, Syria, Sudan, and the like and remember that even the "democracies" in the region are not democratic, so query how much the western democratic peace literature can really tell us.
Still, I think there's enough in the literature to suggest that you're better off with an election on top of good institutions, transparency, etc. I would be surprised if that's even controversial. For example, if you asked people to show up and vote in Somalia tomorrow, how good would it be? Perhaps this is why the Iraqi parliamentary election took place in December 2005, some 33 months after the start of the war. Recall also that we had at least one false start in our own country.
Returning to your comment about who you describe as "brown people," the point is that some cultures do not have the same institutions and practices that allow for a democracy. So to suggest that there could be an American-style democracy elsewhere cheapens American exceptionalism to the extent you believe in it and even if it would be desirable to replicate it. I suspect that they'd be more successful if they can build a government around the civil society kinds of things than they do have than to rummage through the streets for somebody to reinvent the wheel or to import a system that is not part of their national experience.
Regardless, just because I want something to happen does not mean that I don't think the Egyptians should decide for themselves. They are putting on a great display that may ripple elsewhere. It will not be surprising if they welcome the international community to help with any elections because those "paternalistic" folks happen to know what they're doing (or at least they are the best at what is an imperfect operation even in good circumstances).
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 31, 2011 14:36:28 GMT -5
Egyptian Army Says It Will Not Fire on ProtestersExcerpts
CAIRO —The Egyptian Army announced Monday for the first time that it would not fire on protesters, even as tens of thousands of people gathered in central Liberation Square for a seventh day to shout for the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.
The announcement came after the opposition dismissed Mr. Mubarak’s cabinet reshuffle as inadequate and as concerns over violence were heightened by the presence of security police officers clustered near the square’s entrances, their first deployment there in three days. Most people seemed to think the army would never fire on their own citizens, but now it's official. Seems to me they are putting pressure on Mubarak to head for Switzerland.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 31, 2011 16:23:18 GMT -5
"A quick election would not be wise IMO, particularly when folks are riled up as they are. They'd be well-served by a transition that develops the infrastructure for a meaningful election with monitors and allows for greater participation from Egyptians who may want to return. Egyptians would also be well-served by learning more about candidates (as would the rest of the world)."
Maybe Obama should hire Bush to help institute in Egypt what he did in Iraq. Only half kidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 31, 2011 16:43:31 GMT -5
An Iraqi solution in Egypt would not work since the Iraqi solution was Iraqi (and not American). The solution in Egypt has to be Egyptian.
There are civil servants from the Bush administration who could contribute significantly (and probably are) to whatever plans/proposals/white papers are being drawn up now.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 31, 2011 17:36:57 GMT -5
I believe elections have been scheduled for some time and are to take place in September. WHy can't they just keep to that schedule, but this time have REAL elections? Let Baradei and/or the new VP run the country via the Army for the next 7-8 months, then hold elections as scheduled. That would give everyone a chance to make their case before the Egyptian people as to whey they should be elected.
Meanwhile, the Army is the real power in Egypt and has been for decades. So let it get back to work.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 31, 2011 22:15:26 GMT -5
I believe elections have been scheduled for some time and are to take place in September. WHy can't they just keep to that schedule, but this time have REAL elections? Let Baradei and/or the new VP run the country via the Army for the next 7-8 months, then hold elections as scheduled. That would give everyone a chance to make their case before the Egyptian people as to whey they should be elected. Meanwhile, the Army is the real power in Egypt and has been for decades. So let it get back to work. Why can't they do that? Because Mubarak doesn't want to. Simple as that. Mubarak isn't gone yet. While the military has said it won't shoot the protesters, it's still unlikely that they'll step in and remove Mubarak. He's been one of them, he's been good to them, and his new cabinet is mostly well-respected military officers. Will the military really turn on their own like that? Tunisia made this all look deceptively easy. The reality is that Ben Ali gave up very quickly. Mubarak has made it clear that he's not going to do that. Tunisia made people forget how difficult it is to remove a dictator who refuses to leave and who has the support of the military. If he refuses to resign and the military refuses to remove him, he's not going anywhere. I still think that Mubarak has about a 50/50 chance of being in power at this time next year. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 1, 2011 2:04:27 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 1, 2011 8:23:40 GMT -5
SSHoya, I do not have any expertise on Egypt whatsoever (but when has that ever stopped any of us from posting on the B&G Board?) However, reading Reidel's piece I noted the following: Reidel
They should not be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood. Living with it won’t be easy but it should not be seen as inevitably our enemy. We need not demonize it nor endorse it. In any case, Egyptians now will decide their fate and the role they want the Ikhwan to play in their future. And, reading the piece by Heather Hurlburt linked earlier by The Stig, I also noted the following: The ‘Islamist Menace’ is overblown
(1) The Brotherhood has renounced violence and it has been active in Egyptian politics, transformed by an internal debate about whether and how to participate, for some time now;
(2) Thus far, observers on the ground report that it is young, secular Egyptians who are leading this revolt;
(3) The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition organization in Egypt, is a first-rank enemy of Al Qaeda, and has been for decades. Finally, we don't have much to say about who will come to power in Egypt, a largely Islamic nation. It is likely Islamists will have more influence than before. It seems to me the best course of action is to: 1. support the legitimate concerns of the Egyptian people 2. do whatever we can to ensure a peaceful transition and more inclusive/representative government 3. be prepared to develop a productive relationship with the Islamic leaders who may take key roles. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean we can't engage effectively with them (e.g Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc) Possibly our number one concern is Israel. Whomever comes to power in Egypt, we want to ensure a commitment to the existing peace treaty with Israel for everyone's benefit. That is in Egypt's best interest too. |
|
?