Tag Archives: revolution

The Evolving Egyptian “Revolution:” Naivete Gone to Seed

San Diego – We were all told that the “revolution” in Egypt was what Democracy should look like and that it would lead to a proper democracy where the rights of the people, human rights, political rights, freedom, were in the forefront of this twitter and facebook led event.  And I was bashed and flamed a bit because I said that view was factually inaccurate, politically naive, historically ignorant, and an expression of terminal wishful thinking.  There is no point to rehashing my arguments, you can look at them in the older posts on Egypt and then Libya.  But let’s look at what this wonderful Facebook democracy is beginning to look like, shall we, and to make it more real to you we’ll use only information gathered from that bastion of accurate and fair reporting (if you never do your own fact checking, that is) the New York Times.

  • The now ruling army counsel is planning on how to prohibit and stop all future protests and sit-ins.
  • There is now evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood (who was claimed as small, secular, and completely national in outlook) has brokered a deal with the army to expedite elections.  Why?  Because the MB is the only group sufficiently organized to win an election and know how to run a state to their satisfaction.  And they are already helping the military to crack down on suspected anti-muslim behavior.  This from a group we were told hated the military and vice-versa.
  • Women who were protesting were arrested and the non-married women were stripped and checked to prove their virginity (and therefore given a ticket to live a bit longer) by the demoocratic and humane MB.
  • MB has renewed its calls for an Islamic State.
  • MB has openly stated the first order of business will be in canceling the peace treaty with Israel.

Wow, that is going pretty well, don’t you think?  Why was this not seen coming by all of you who said I was way off base?  There are very few alternative explanations.  (1) The NYT could be lying but since this contradicts their own earlier stance I doubt it.  (2) THe first analysis was based on virtually ZERO data since facts are not needed when ideology can supply an answer.  I vote for #2.

It seems that some on the deep left are desperate to finally see ONE social/governmental experiment following in the warm and fuzzy tradition of Godwin, Rousseau, Marx, that will actually lead to the utopia they claim will happen if only given a chance.  That it has not happened in the history of the world bothers them not a bit.  Unfortunately it forces them to embrace events based on seeing the world through ideological blinders rather than based on history, facts, and human nature.  That would simply be funny to watch were it not a time in the world when stability is fragile, and our own country is at a major low point economically and in terms of geopolitical respect.   And since it is a view shared by the administration, it leaves us open to pursuing courses of action based in virtually no part on the realities of the situation.

These are truly frightening times!  If we don’t start seeing the world as it is not as we want it to be, and getting ourselves a leader who is, well, a leader, then we are really in deep trouble.


1 Comment

Posted by on March 25, 2011 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,

Revolution Revisited: Libya, Bahrain, and More to Come.

I can’t tell you how much flak I took because I suggested that the recent events in Egypt not only did not amount to a revolution per se, but that they were not a democratic upswelling of the populace nor the progeny of social networking.  In fact, I asserted they were what amounted to a bloodless coup by the military using the protestors as cover.  For the gall of suggesting that “the people” had not risen up and overthrown a dictator I was seen as reactionary at best and an more likely an idiot… and then it got ugly.

Amazingly I got it from all sides.  The left-leaning were incensed because I cast water on the fires burning for their messiah-in-Chief and suggesting his apparent foreign policy was amateurish and dangerous, that is if it existed at all.  The right-leaning were incensed that I cast water on the fires burning for their martyred hero, “W” by suggesting that his dream of spreading democracy by example was naïve.   And the youth were incensed that I cast water on the fires of their fervent belief that youth and exhuberance coupled with the sacred Facebook could accomplish anything by virtue of its own sincerity and enthusiasm and that anything so accomplished would, by definition, be a good thing.

Let me introduce you to Bahrain and Libya.   Perhaps the people in those places too were emboldened by those misconceptions and thanks to the cheerleading of the media believed that a groundswell of democractic ideals was in the process of sweeping the middle eastern dictators and theorcratic tyrants from their thrones.  They certainly had reason to wish a change in their own oppressive autocratic regime as would so many in that region.  It does not take that much education to see that the monarchies are too self serving to worry overly much about the populace as long as their own coffers are kept full to overflowing.  So long as they can hop on their own jetliners and escape observance they can flaunt their devotion to Mohammed in public and then engage on whatever manner of debauchery and excess they desire in practice and away from scrutiny.

Unfortunately both monarchs and theocrats bought into the same mistakes Marx did in not really recognizing the cultural-social positive impact of the middle class and established socialist/communist style economies so that the leaders are getting rich while the people are getting poorer and more subservient and dependent.  Many of those countries are ripe for a revolt; if the revolt went well – a complete uncertainty and not the statistical norm – then such an event, after the smoke cleared and the blood was washed away, would be good for them.  Sadly the history of revolutions is not one filled with good endings for the world or for the people.  The lure of power and ill gotten gain is too powerful and most end in what has been referred to as a “kleptocracy” or a rule by thieves of the people.  Machiavelli is still the most accurate predictor of their behavior because his directions to his own Prince, Lorenzo de Medici, actually worked and worked well.  To understand the holding of power read him.

To bolster their regime’s security and longevity no matter how disgruntled the populace, those countries have followed the obvious and successful tactics of every dictatorship in history: they disarmed the people.   Things were different for, say, the French revolution.  Pitchfork-armed citizens were, in sufficient numbers, a better match for musket and sword wielding soldiers.  Now, virtually no number of pitchfork, knife, sword, or even pistol wielding citizens can match automatic weapons, artillery, ordinance, air power, and chemicals used by the army.  Ask the Kurds in Iraq, or the protestors in Tripoli for examples.  No amount of enthusiasm, sincerity, desperation, anger, or need can overcome a larger number of better armed, better trained, better led, and better fed body fighting for their privileged position.

I said in the first piece that the protestors in Egypt could protest in relative peace for one reason only: the army allowed it.  And that meant, necessarily, that the army had something to gain by it.   In Bahrain the people also rose up to protest the situation.  And they rose up in some pretty good numbers vis-à-vis the proportion of the population.  And they were routed from their assembly area by gas attacks like swatting flies.  By whom or what?  What, according to the press and wishful thinking could so easily route such enthusiasm and sincerity?  The Army.  They were beaten by the army that, in that case, is interested in maintaining the current government.  Similarly in Tripoli the security forces are in control.  But in Benghazi, the army appears to have sided with the protestors and there THEY are in control.  In both cases, who is in control?  The army.  And in Libya this is far more a tribal row fomenting civil war than a true overall revolution.  Also the Libyan despot, who completely understood what i just said, kept the military fragmented so it could NOT perform a coup d’etat against him so the end game will be somewhat up for grabs here.

Over the next few days this will play out to some conclusion.  There are several optional scenarios.  Will enough of the citizens join in to where the army realizes it has a loyalty to the country that is higher than its loyalty to the individuals leading it?  If so the ‘revolt’ will succeed.  But if not; if the army remains firm, then they could decimate the entire population without breaking a sweat.  If the army is made up of more fundamental Muslim thinkers then the individual is of far less importance than they would be to us and it will get really ugly.

I was also called to task for my characterization of the “peaceful” Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt.  After all, our own intel man in the White House called them secular and moderate and driven only by Egyptian Nationals interests.  That man is either a political pawn, an illiterate idiot, or has a position to promote that is not in any western country’s best interests and certainly not ours.   That view can only come from following someone else’s talking points and doing no, I mean ZERO, ZED, NADA independent research into the matter on their own.  To substantiate that I included a URL to the page of the Brotherhood’s own website that displayed their Mission Statements and By-Laws.  Why would you not believe their own charter?  Well here is a reason: the response, not just from me but from others was so great that the English language site for MB just took down the page with their by-laws on it so outsiders could not read them.   Hmmmmmm.  Go to that link and you will see the message that the page is “no longer available.”  Why not unless it was not something you wanted to outside world to see?  Fortunately some of it i copied down the first time i visited it.   Clearly, the purpose of the MB or Ikhwan was to unify the predominantly Islamic countries under a new caliphate and subordinating all lands to the rule of a single caliph, under shariah law.  In its bylaws The Muslim Brotherhood makes clear the organization’s objectives and how it intends to achieve them:

“The Muslim Brotherhood is an International Muslim body which seeks to establish Allah’s law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion which are namely the following: . . . (F) the need to work on establishing the Islamic State; [and] (G) The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia.”

Chapter II, Article 3 of the MB’s bylaws states:

“The Muslim Brotherhood in achieving these objectives depends on the following means: . . . (D) Make every effort for the establishment of educational, social, economic, and scientific institutions and the establishment of mosques, schools, clinics, shelters, clubs, as well as the formation of committees to regulate zakat affairs and alms; (E) The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic state.”

So tell me again about their secular nature and interest only in Egypt.  Ah, but it then got even better.  E-mailed responses tried to tell me that Islam was completely and thoroughly a religion of peace and that true believers abhorred violence and condemned it.  Really?  And where are those voices of condemnation to be found, much less heard occupying the world stage?  This is a religion with lots of believers scattered around the world.  So where is the world-wide murmur of condemnation for acts of terror and the murder of both muslims of other “denominations” and non muslims all in the name of Mohammed?  I don’t mean a few isolated rational voices which certainly exist, but a ground swell of push-back against the apostate terrorists?  If these extremeists and Jihadists have truly highjacked the religion then where are the voices of the highjacked believers complaining about it?

The truth is that what we call extremists are simply following the words in their sacred text.  Again, if you don’t believe me then read the book; read the Qu’raan itself.  It is not long, it uses simple words, and it does not ever, ever equivocate.  You will not have to “interpret” anything, unlike the often cryptic Judaeo-Christian Bible.  For your own purposes you may be able to force spin in it some direction or the other (and it even clearly says a believer is encouraged to lie to non-believers to advance their cause which might explain some Muslim Brotherhood statements that contradict their own By-Laws ) but it will require you to do it in contravention of the clear meaning of the words themselves.

I’m waiting…

And while I’m waiting to hear the litany of world wide voices condemning terrorists and murder as being anti-Islam let me ask this… even if they actually materialized, how does one reconcile them with such Qu’raanic verses as, Surah II, 216 which states clearly,

“Warfare is ordained for you though it is hateful to you. It may happen that you hate something that is good for you or love a thing that is bad for you.  Allah knoweth, you know not.”

There is an apparent huge contradiction of attitude in the book but it is easily explained by history.  Early on when followers were few and surrounded by enemies they were told to be nice and cool and friendly to avoid being simply exterminated.  But by the time Medina was taken and Mohammed was in tight control of an impressive army, the gloves came off.  Now he could have kept to the original peaceful vision that got him that far… had it been what he really wanted.  But instead, once the ability was there with virtually no risk of self destruction, his real goals and beliefs were given free reign and he had no problems seeing every non-believer as someone to be converted or killed or, when it was a population segment that possessed special and needed skills, allowed to live and work but under very restricted and oppressive conditions.  Islam was not spread by the good word, it was spread by the sharp sword.  Still think I’m making it up?  Then read on in the good holy book of these peaceful folks:

Surah III, 196-197.  Let not the vicissitude of the success of those who disbelieve deceive thee.  It is but a brief comfort.  And afterward their habitation will be hell, an ill abode.

Surah V, 10.  They who disbelieve and deny our revelations, such are the rightful owners of hell. .. (14) And with those who say, “Lo, we are Christians,” we made a covenant but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished.  Therefore we have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection.  (51.) Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends.  They are friends to one another.  He among you who takes them for friends is one of them.  Allah does not guide wrongdoing folk.

Surah VIII, 12-13.  … So make those who believe stand firm.  I (Allah) will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.  Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.  That is because they oppose Allah and his messenger.  Lo!  Allah is severe in punishment.   (38-39) Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease from persecution of the believers that which is past shall be forgiven them.  But if they return thereto, then the example of the men of old hath already gone before them for a warning.  Fight them until the persecution is no more and religion is all for Allah.  (65) O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight.  If there be of you (believers) twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred and if there be one thousand steadfast they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah.  Allah is with the steadfast.  It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.

Surah IX, 36. … Wage war on all the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you.  And know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto him. (123) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto Him.

So, hey, if you want to go on believing that the Egyptian event culminating in the removal of the dictator Mubarak was the result of some protestors following the call of Facebook and Twitter or that any Muslim organizations that might wish to coopt it are really only interested in peace with their neighbors, then go ahead.  But start now practicing the explanations for why in other areas (can we spell “Iran”) that same approach has been, shall we say kindly, somewhat less successful.  For me, I would assert, rather, that the way to carry off a successful overthrow of an oppressive government or at least to survive the attempt, is to first gain the ear and sympathies of the army.  Don’t spend time putting your money on demonstrators, spend time putting money on the ones with the weapons.  Protests and Demonstrations are not revolutions; regime overthrow is a revolution.  Figurehead replacement is not a revolution; replacing or converting the real power often behind the thrown is revolution.

Pay attention to the events of history.  Remember Tieneman Square in China.  The revolt failed but one lone man did the unthinkable and stood in front of a tank moving in to clear out the rest of the protestors.  The cause was already lost but this one incredibly brave soul had one last act in him.  The tanks and army had already brutally crushed revolt-minded citizens but then one tank driver, dealing not with a hostile crowd but with one brave citizen, would not run him down.

That is how you win your revolt.  That moment of revolution failed, but that image has, in the end, done more to bring about change in China than all of those other protestors who died combined.  And it happened because he was lucky enough to stand in front of a soldier who would not kill his own peaceful people.  Others may well have had no problem driving over him but not that one driver.  One citizen and one soldier connected in that time and place and a continuing massacre was averted.  One citizen and one soldier were photographed and flashed around the world and the government could simply not pretend it did not happen.

And finally I was assailed because I said it was better in Egypt that the army remained in control than if the “democratic” protestors had actually taken over.  I said that because stability in the region and the potential of improving the lot of the Egyptian people is, to me, a better goal than simply some change of governmental form with a name that we like.  Creating a government, especially an otherwise unknown and untried form of government is not an easy or quick task.  How many revolutions do we have to review to understand that when the mob wins, for whatever reason, it is usually unable to rule?  That job falls to the better organized groups waiting in the wings to let the others get bloody then take over.  It happened in the Russian revolution which was taken over by the thuggish Bolsheviks once the Tsar was toppled.  It happened in Iran.  It happened in Cuba.  It happened in China.  Never forget that Hitler rose to power in a completely democratic way winning his elections to power as vestiges of the old republic were swept away.  The iconic revolution of the French saw desperate people topple the monarchy and then fall under Robespierre and the reign of terror.  America is one of the very few revolutions in history that came out OK but it was led by people who already had experience in the administration of a civil government.

The Shia/Sunni divide is simmering just under the surface in the middle east, power brokers for both sides are looking for every chance to advance their territory in preparation of a great internal struggle they know is coming and we are ignoring or denying.  They are watching these countries in turmoil and looking for an opening provided by a desperate people wanting change from despots but unable to actually govern for themselves due to lack of organization and experience.

We need to be very, very careful what we ask for from these so-called revolutions.  We may be sorely troubled by the results if we get it.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 23, 2011 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Wishful Thinking Over Egypt’s So-Called “Revolution.”

For once I agree, more or less, with a statement of our messiah in chief: we are seeing a (to me “potential”) world changing event in the making.  The good news is that on the surface it appears that the Egyptian “People” were able to rise up and toss out a despicable dictator.  What great news for democracy and what wretched news for other dictators around the world.  If it were only true it could send major shock waves through tyrannical regimes all over the place but, alas, to be a tyrant you have to, on some level, be a realist and, in order to hold on to your ill gotten power as long as someone like Mubarak, you have to be able to read things well and have a firm understanding of your basic “Machiavelli” well at hand.  Mubarak simply forgot the real regime was not him and never had been, it was the military.  And when he got a bit big for his britches, as they used to say, and bit the hand that fed him, the real regime reacted and bit back.

The “revolution” or even “democratic revolution”  line makes for great press here because it gives credence to the non-policies or confused policies we’ve seen coming from Washington by making it appear, even if only by coincidence, that we at least did the right thing by not overtly backing Mubarak who we confused with the real regime.  I personally think that lack of action was because, based on the incredible array of mixed messages coming out of the amateurish administration’s foregin policy people and the idiotic appraisals by people, like the Intel Secretary who, of all people, could have done his research and known he was mouthing patend falsehood, that the lack of movement was largely because they truly had no idea what do do and were hoping the situation would resolve itself and THEN they could comment on it.  It is dumb luck not brilliant policy making that reached a marginally good result for us.  Well, that is if you do not consider how it made us look weak-kneed in the eyes of the world once again.  Hey you don’t have to believe me, simply read the foreign press.  The major ones all have English Language versions.

It is of course laudable and notable that some of the Egyptian people evinced the courage and passion to risk going into the streets to protest the excesses and corruption of the so-called “President.”  I think that is fantastic and hope it truly inspires others to do so.  But I also think it is a huge mistake if our adrift foreign policy makers buy into that line and use it as the basis for real policy should they ever decide on one.  Think about the numbers and the situation.  All of the protestors, whose total participants never topped about 300,000 — a tiny fraction of the Egyptian population and truly miniscule compared to the proportions of the Iranian protestors who rose to topple the Shaw in a REAL revolution —  were allowed to concentrate in a small, contained area where if it had been desireded by the military who generally does not like demonstrations, they could have been cut down in a matter of minutes.   A great hue and cry would have gone out, obligatory disapprovals would be forthcoming, and then after a suitable display of handwringing all would have gone back to business as usual breathing a sigh of relief that one of our strong allies had not been toppled in an uncontrollable fashion and by a group laced with virulently anti-western characters and philosophies at that.  But that is not what happened, fortunately for all.

Instead, the crowds and protestors provided the perfect cover for what has amounted to a bloodless coup d’etat by the military.  Long at odds but now increasingly drawing away from Mubarak and his excesses but most especially his decision to name his non-military son as his successor and thereby creating another dynastic monarchy such as ruled Egypt before Nasser, the military could have easily driven off the smaller number of unarmed protestors that actually appeared, and done it in a way so as to put the fear of Allah in the rest of them.  But the military not only held back, it helped them.  Why act so against its normal nature and goals?  Simple:  it needed them and at the same time used them.  So in the background, after delivering a final straw speech asserting he would NOT step down, Mubarak is hustled off in in the wee hours (we do not know if it was in his pajamas or he was allowed to dress) to an out of town safe haven probably, in the end, headed for Saudi Arabia where he is friends with THEIR dictator King.  Immediately — IMMEDIATELY — his assets in Switzerland are frozen, something that could only happen with advanced notice and proper authority which could not have come from the protestors or even the would be heir or his newer named successor, his VP.   And when he is escorted away, does the heir apparent or even newly tapped VP take over as planned?  No, a Field Marshall and a military counsel takes over.  Don’t you “get” it?   He did not announce he was going to step down and then do it, he was removed from the palace, from town, from the area, and then allowed to announce that he HAD stepped down as a fait accompli.  That is not how one honorably abdicates.  You cannot connect the dots until you can see that there ARE dots.  There are several incredibly obvious clues in here waiting to be noticed…  But, I forget who is “leading” us and the fact that his sycophantic media will never step out of line to suggest anything other than sheer brilliance of thought and action no matter how tortured the facts or level of sophistry of reasoning it will take to do it.

The real geopolitical issues for us are what this means for regional stability now and what will happen next.  And we cannot deal with that wisely unless we admit what really happened so as to better understand the dynamics of it.  We totally misunderstood the Iranian protests in 2009 so I should not expect us to try to understand this but hope springs eternal because so much is riding on it.

In the short term I think this military coup is a far better outcome, from that perspective, than a leaderless nearly anarchic attempt to remake a government overnight by those with no skill or experience at it and, as I mentioned, laced with hard core extreme theocratists.  Egypt, like other middle eastern countries has no experience with or skill at a truly democratic form of government with competing parties, civil procedures governed by a workable commonly accepted document, or a clear political leadership.  Such things take time to build from scratch and in the meantime, were this the revolution the media seems to think, all that would have been created is a power vacuum into which could pour Iran.

The Military is famously secular and nationalistic.  And having a practical view of the world from a “country first” perspective is a very positive thing for them.  They know that Egypt is not in danger from Israel and they are not likely to ever successfully launch a conventional attack ON Israel for one reason: the Sinai; The Gaza Strip.  Their real vulnerability, besides, is from Iran which puts them on alert in a direction that also works for us.  Their secular view also prefers to see the country grow and prosper in a way it could never do under an Islamic Theocracy ruled by Sharia law as has been clearly demonstrated by every country that went that route compared to those who did not.  Further, no one in the region could topple them, much less their own people who, if they are allowed to prosper, will not want to.  The real hue and cry from the streets was a simple demand: Mubarak had to go.  The idea that they were fomenting to establish a true democracy is a media fabrication.  And if the military stabilizes things and adopts the reforms it has promised, which it has every reason to do since they do not threaten their continued regime and actually stabilize it by providing better for a country of followers, we likely will help fund that prosperity especially it it seems that finally the money is getting where it belongs instead of being skimmed off by Mubarak and his cronies.  That would further ally them with the interests of the Saudis and in concert against Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other extremist groups.

However, these are but the first days of the event and generally the euphoria of the moment runs high now.  History shows that all ‘revolutions’ follow fairly fixed patterns but we are apparently hoping that this one will finally be different.  Maybe…  But I would contend it is not really a revolution at all.  Nevertheless there are pitfalls into which the entire situation could fall regardless of its true nature.

The military leadership is all old and filled with veterans of the bloody losses against the Israelis. They have no taste for a rematch and know it would be costly because the Isaelis would fight desperately.  Egypt’s survival as a state was never in question in any of those previous encounters.  From their perspective they were all based on ideology and following a theology in which the individual is essentially irrelevant compared to the demands of the state and especially of the theology itself.  Until it reaches national critical mass, the body count of foot soldiers is meaningless if a theological goal is attained.   They could fight and lose hundreds of times an merely lose citizens which are of little consequence to them.  However Israel only has to lose once and it faces national extinction.  Their motivation is a bit more dramatic.

But even without the issue of israel and the Palestinians being real, there are still dangers.  The operative word for the military leadership is “OLD.”    The younger generation has never felt the sting of combat and losses and may well be itching for some misbegotten sense of glory in the belief that they lost before because of poor planning by their elders which, in some senses is actually true.

And the undercurrent of protest by the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be utterly discounted.   They were instrumental in putting Nassar in power along with the help of the Soviets in order to replace a monarchy that put and kept them down.  But he had their ‘number’ from the start.  Once in power, he killed most of that leadership off or sent it to prison and courted the Russians for armament to fight Israel.  That approach worked into the early Sadat years when Sadat foolishly attacked Israel again and the Egyptians Russian weapons and tactics were just destroyed by the American armament and tactics of the Israelis.  So Sadat did the only reasonable thing, to guarantee border security from an enemy that proved over and over to be superior and had every possible interest in securing THEIR border, he recognized a great mutual interest and made peace with them.  Israel needed that peace so it could put it greatest attention toward Syria and Lebanon.  So two old enemy warriors, together and simultaneously recognized that reality trumped ideology and using Carter as a cover to mollify their home constituencies, made peace.   And for that, operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated him.

The New York Times, that bastion of Liberal ideals trying to make Carter look good, announced authoritatively as only it can, in the first few days of the Iranian Revolution that drove out the Shaw, that democracy had triumphed and there was absolutely no chance it would be trumped by any of those Islamic extremists.  About one month later, to the day, the Ayatollah returned, our hostages were taken and  the rest, as they say, is history.  I think therefore that it is too soon to judge how this will all play out.  That the military is running this, to me, a better omen than if the crowds were doing it.  They offer, if they work to the benefit of the country and its citizens, a more stable regime in the short term.  And besides, much as the Theocratists are devoutly wanting a regional Caliphate to be centered in Egypt, there is no currently exiled cleric waiting in the wings to come back, al la the Ayatollah, and make it happen.  But the real test will come in September when they have promised elections.   Whether they allow them or not, it will certainly get interesting when they come due.

But it is interesting to note that the so-called (by our chief intel idiot) “secular” Muslim Brotherhood is not named the “Arab Brotherhood,” or the “Egyptian Brotherhood” or any name suggesting national or secular allegiance.  It is named as a brotherhood of the followers of Islam and its mission is clearly and graphically spelled out in its history of support for fundamental and extremist causes but most notably by its own documents and web site (there is an English Language version (which I’ll spell out to avoid a link here  — www dot ikhwanweb dot com/article.php?id=22687) where you can find its mission statement/by laws.  If you still insist on believing our leadership and their press please go to that site and make special note of Article II, A,B, E, F, and G and then try to tell me it is even remotely secular.  It is even clear it is a transnational society and not an egyptian-directed one.  Synthesized down to a single directive its goal is a large cohesive transnational Islamic State ruled by Sharia Law.  Secular; indeed.  Only this administration and the New York Times could be so obtuse as to believe that.

And as for Facebook, Twitter, and social networking being such an influence?  Puhleeeze…  The major gatherings took place days after all internet was shut down.  And a gathering of 300,000 +/- is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions that took to the streets in Tehran in 1979 long before there WAS an internet or even common PC usage even here.  And in 2009 the demonstrators in Iran still vastly outnumbered those in Egypt and they had only filtered access to the internet and certainly minimal if any social networking.  So get over it and get real.  That reality check just bounced.  When you have an administration and its pawns that have all accepted that old storyteller’s mantra to, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!” the citizens are forced to do a serious and seriously heretical thing… think.

So the 30-90 days will see the standard revolutionary phases start to unfold if this is/was a true revolution; and if not, then in six months when the promised elections come due will be the next critical moment.  If, in the meantime the military regime that has been the real power, and has continued to be the real power since Nasser, actually helps stabilize the country, end corruption, and help its people, it will have done a very good thing.  And it will owe a lot to the pawn protestors who covered its real behind-the-scene actions and helped them avoid explaining to the world community why they staged a coup, even a bloodless one.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 14, 2011 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,