Situation in Egypt

[Guest JamesG123]

Not really, the CIA/MI6 took an active role in installing the Shah and in suppressing the opposition to him all the way to the point where the Iranians stormed the embassy.

 

In comparison our support of Mubarak has been "passive". He's the big man in Egypt, and so that's who we dealt with.

[WRW]

there is a very tenuous rumour going around that khartoum is going to have mass demonstrations tomorrow - does not make much sense to me but all we can do is wait and see

[Marek Tucan]

There was some RUMINT about army clashing with police, anyone else caught it?

[Sardaukar]

Problem with natives nowadays is that following poem is no longer true...:

 

Whatever happens, we have got

The Maxim gun, and they have not.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Sardaukar

[Guest JamesG123]

Which is an improvement. Turning on its own population is the ultimate failure of government.

 

 

There was some RUMINT about army clashing with police, anyone else caught it?

 

Hasn't been verified. The Army seems to be attempting to providing security to physical facilities, governmental offices, and (of course) wealthy neighborhoods and ex-pat compounds while leaving "interacting" with the demonstrators to the Interior Ministry (police).

[WRW]

for those with face book = http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166512193395282

[Guest JamesG123]

for those with face book = http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166512193395282

 

Its mostly in Arabic...

[Archie Pellagio]

Lessons from Iran. The US is trying to stay on good terms with everyone least we aliente who ever winds up in charge.

 

In large part the enabling factor for the Iranian revolution was staunch criticism from the Carter administration and a distancing of support for the Shah.

The US was the first country to recognise the post-revolutionary government.

It was the other side that didn't like America and stirred shit accordingly.

 

Not really, the CIA/MI6 took an active role in installing the Shah and in suppressing the opposition to him all the way to the point where the Iranians stormed the embassy.

 

In 1953 and the years following the 'White Revolution' that is true, but by 1978 the CIA had an obscenely small presence in Iran and certainly wasn't 'propping up' the Pahlavi regime at all.

We in the west had by the late 60's handed over the keys to the Iranians and relied on SAVAK and the Iranian interior ministry for information, problem is even they didn't know how little we were invested there.

[Guest JamesG123]

In 1953 and the years following the 'White Revolution' that is true, but by 1978 the CIA had an obscenely small presence in Iran and certainly wasn't 'propping up' the Pahlavi regime at all.

 

 

That was because of the before mentioned policy decision by the Carter Admin, and the otherwise dis-inclination to get involved in another internal revolution so soon after Vietnam. By '78 it would probably have taken direct US intervention to prevent the overthrow, something the US had neither the will nor the capacity to undertake.

 

 

It was the other side that didn't like America and stirred shit accordingly.

 

Who quite rightly remembered the excesses and interventionism of the West for the past couple of centuries. The embassy hostages were unexcused, but the Iranians didn't wake up one morning and start chanting "Death to America" ya-know.

[Jeff]

In large part the enabling factor for the Iranian revolution was staunch criticism from the Carter administration and a distancing of support for the Shah.

The US was the first country to recognise the post-revolutionary government.

It was the other side that didn't like America and stirred shit accordingly.

 

In 1953 and the years following the 'White Revolution' that is true, but by 1978 the CIA had an obscenely small presence in Iran and certainly wasn't 'propping up' the Pahlavi regime at all.

We in the west had by the late 60's handed over the keys to the Iranians and relied on SAVAK and the Iranian interior ministry for information, problem is even they didn't know how little we were invested there.

Exactly

[Paul in Qatar]

As a practical matter, what does 'propping up' a regime mean? We support the local royal family, but Lord knows we don't give them money. We sell them equipment and training, is that about it?

 

So we 'support' Mubarak. We shovel aid to Egypt as required by Camp David, but I do not imagine any Americans (CIA or otherwise) are running things. No Americans as an inner guard. So what horrible thing does 'supporting' Mubarak mean?

 

He may think he has American support, but when it come right down to it, he is on his own.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Interesting analysis

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Another one

[thekirk]

As a practical matter, what does 'propping up' a regime mean? We support the local royal family, but Lord knows we don't give them money. We sell them equipment and training, is that about it?

 

So we 'support' Mubarak. We shovel aid to Egypt as required by Camp David, but I do not imagine any Americans (CIA or otherwise) are running things. No Americans as an inner guard. So what horrible thing does 'supporting' Mubarak mean?

 

He may think he has American support, but when it come right down to it, he is on his own.

 

You're mis-stating the problem, Paul: It's not that we are actually supporting the regime, it's that we're perceived to be doing so by the locals... We've lent our "good name" to helping Mubarak (and, Sadat, before him...) establish legitimacy.

 

It's pretty much a no-win situation, for us. Thirty years ago, if we'd said "Mr. Mubarak, you're not a democratically elected leader... We're not recognizing you...", the US would have been the bad guy for interfering in Egyptian internal affairs. Since we didn't say anything, or take any actions against Mubarak over the years, we're stuck with the image in popular Egyptian thinking as being his backers... Yet, I guarantee you, if we'd said or done anything in the last thirty years to effectively distance ourselves from the regime, we'd have gotten tagged for sticking our noses in where they don't belong. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and because we've done business with Mubarak, rightly or wrongly, we're getting seen as supporting his regime against the Egyptian people.

 

Hell if I know what the right course of action would have been. It's pretty much a no-win situation, in some regards.

[Paul in Qatar]

Well said.

 

I will go out on a limb here. It seems to me Obama is following the best course open to him. It seems Mubarak is doomed, and he is getting on the good side of history. Of course if Mubarak survives, we will have egg on our faces.

[crazyinsane105]

Well said.

 

I will go out on a limb here. It seems to me Obama is following the best course open to him. It seems Mubarak is doomed, and he is getting on the good side of history. Of course if Mubarak survives, we will have egg on our faces.

 

Moubarak can care less how long the protesters are out in the streets for, he's hunkered in and willing to fight as long as possible. The deciding factor will be when the Egyptian military decides enough is enough and moves in and throws him out of the country. That's my opinion at least.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Good points. People who say that the United States should or should not do in this situation make the mistake of vastly overestimating the ability of the United States to influence events that are fundamentally driven by matters over the United States has no control.

 

As a practical matter, what does 'propping up' a regime mean? We support the local royal family, but Lord knows we don't give them money. We sell them equipment and training, is that about it?

 

So we 'support' Mubarak. We shovel aid to Egypt as required by Camp David, but I do not imagine any Americans (CIA or otherwise) are running things. No Americans as an inner guard. So what horrible thing does 'supporting' Mubarak mean?

 

He may think he has American support, but when it come right down to it, he is on his own.

[Jeff]

As a practical matter, what does 'propping up' a regime mean?

In reality, it's the people of Egypt(and the army) who will decide but there are certain measures of support or a push out the door that could tip things a bit I guess.

[Guest JamesG123]

It's pretty much a no-win situation, for us. Thirty years ago, if we'd said "Mr. Mubarak, you're not a democratically elected leader... We're not recognizing you...", the US would have been the bad guy for interfering in Egyptian internal affairs.

 

No, thirty years ago he would have run back to the Russians (or maybe the French?) and maintained an antagonistic relationship with the West as a long term attrition gambit to regain territory and to keep the population distracted with an external conflict with Israel. Basically the same historical course as Syria.

 

Mubarak today is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is rapidly losing control of the country and external support. "We" don't need him any longer as a foil against the Soviets and he's not exactly going to embrace Al Quadia and become a terrorist state. His only real course of action is to gracefully bow out.

 

Interesting analysis

 

Meh,

Remember the Iranian revolution when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.

 

Egypt is not Iran.

 

Remember the Beirut spring when people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Hizballah is now running Lebanon.

 

Egypt is not Lebanon.

 

Remember the democracy among the Palestinians and free elections? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.

 

Egyptians are not Palestinians.

 

Remember democracy in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war.

 

Egypt is not Algeria.

 

It doesn't have to be that way but the precedents are pretty daunting.

 

He is presuming the worst case scenario where these Egyptian people who are demonstrating and in many cases bleeding and dying for a true and free Egyptian democracy would turn right around and surrender that to a new tyrany in the form of the Muslem Brotherhood or Sunni Mullahs. I doubt that, even if they promise "2 chickens in every pot".

 

The Brotherhood took up violence because they were so severely suppressed by Mubarak's govenment, they and the other religious parties will compete in the new political environment, but they will be deluted by all the others.

 

By Barry Rubin

 

Gee, no bias there.

[Colin]

The problem I see is that the islamic nutbars have an advantage when things fall apart, the Mosque becomes the place to gather so the can get news, orders and help each other. even with phone and internet down, messages from Mosque to Mosques will get through, they can coordinate and support each other better than most other groups which don't really have any firm organization thanks to the State keeping them disorganized. The Islamic nutbars are also more ready to use force and imtimdation to get their way as well.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

How do you know what most Egyptians want is a "true and free Egyptian democracy". I hope that is the case (and so does Barry Rubin, but how do you know?

 

He is presuming the worst case scenario where these Egyptian people who are demonstrating and in many cases bleeding and dying for a true and free Egyptian democracy would turn right around and surrender that to a new tyrany in the form of the Muslem Brotherhood or Sunni Mullahs. I doubt that, even if they promise "2 chickens in every pot".

[Ivanhoe]

The Islamic nutbars are also more ready to use force and imtimdation to get their way as well.

 

That is my concern. The IB and its satellite organizations have the thugs and the arms. And I assume we will see imported thugs, a la Chavez.

 

If the general purpose protestors ally with the army against the fundies, good things can evolve. If the GPPs ally with the fundies against the army, oy vey.

[Guest JamesG123]

How do you know what most Egyptians want is a "true and free Egyptian democracy". I hope that is the case (and so does Barry Rubin, but how do you know?

 

True. Most of my Iraqi and Turkish friends self-selected to be moderate and educated. So I guess I have a bias as well.

 

But since there really isn't anything anything "we" can do about it but to maintain the hypocritical status quo. We have to roll the dice and hope for the best. But I still think the odds are in the favor of a favorable outcome vs. the place going sideways for no good reason.

[WRW]

Its mostly in Arabic...

 

 

Have no idea - dont have facebook

Son uses google chrome for translation

[EchoFiveMike]

Problem with natives nowadays is that following poem is no longer true...:

 

Whatever happens, we have got

The Maxim gunICBM, and they have not.

 

Still works, just updated hardware requires the political to possess a little more fortitude than before, so we still muck about with the (shitty) old ways.

 

The Egyptians are gonna do what they're gonna do. We really need to stop our fucking overseas meddling. Not only do we invariably piss people off while pissing away money, but our DoS people are no good at getting favorable outcomes anyways and they really love to support dictators, which comes from being control freaks IMO. We need to face up to the reality that some people simply want to be savages who are our natural enemies. They don't like us, and never will. We need to get that shit out of our collective heads, as it's the root cause of our half assed foreign policy. Yes, there certainly are all manner of Machivellian interventionist actors on our side, but the majority of the American populace is either isolationist(or more accurately, "don't give a shit about you-ist") or fluffy bunny hugging morons who need to be loved. These crimp any possible decisive actions of the interventionists.

 

Another significant problem we have is that being our enemy is not seen in a proper frame. Oderint dum metuant truly is the only workable foreign policy we can have, now that the public(and therefore the politicians) is finally confronted with the reality of finate money. The old fashioned, speak softly and carry a big stick approach, which worked as well as anything else we've done for foreign policy.

 

If Egypt goes radical Islamic, we should simply repatriate all our hardware, military and otherwise, and step back while it collapses into yet another 3rd world basketcase. Sell them what they have the hard currency to pay for and nothing else. S/F.....Ken M