I was watching the O’Reilly Factor the other day when Bill had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about Obama’s policy towards Egypt. I heard them both suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over if Mubarak wasn’t able to stay in control, all the while talking about the greatness of democracy and how people should be able to not live under a tyranny (even though both systems are atrocious on different levels). How neocons think dictators should serve our interest in the Middle East all the while saying the war in Iraq was justified to spread democracy only to say democracy is bad when a place like Palestine elects Hamas is beyond me.
Anyway, O’Reilly claimed, “it’ll be Al-Qaeda” if the Muslim Brotherhood gains majority support. While it seems obvious that Egypt will mimic a theocracy, it will not be controlled by religious elites in a dictatorship. Obviously it will suffer all the failures of democracy, but I was reading the other day that the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda are enemies. The MB focuses on political reforms that include democracy and the rule of law while toning down the Sharia nonsense, at least in recent years (i.e., they’re our fundamentalist “Religious Right”) whereas AQ attracts the most radical Muslims and encourages active terrorism. The MB, I also read, does partially support defense against Israel, but even if they did gain control of the Egyptian state, I heavily doubt a war with Israel makes sense (after all, they tried it in the 60’s and should have learned from that lesson).
This is all notwithstanding the fact that the main revolt is being led by more secular, young Egyptians. Ultimately this is a complete waste of time, because these people are living in a pre-industrial world and will more than likely fall prey to social democratic nonsense. So I don’t have my hopes up. But I heavily doubt the neocon hawks will be accurate when they say that Egypt will be Iran 2.0 in terms of being controlled by Mullahs.
Here is the link (do a Ctrl+F for “Chapter 7” to read the relevant material):
The fears have to be overstated in order for the state to justify its actions (whatever they will be) to the American people and the rest of the world and force us all into submission. Lies are the foundation of fear.
Fox News has gone further off its rocker. Glenn Beck was saying the other day that this is just the start of the worldwide Caliphate movement. And showed a map with all the countries in the world lighting up with Islamness… starting in Asia - china, india, japan… and then Russia and then europe. Once that happens, only good Christians in the United States will be able to possibly save us. Though, I think the rest of Fox News is downplaying his hysteria. Usually with some bit about Muslim Brotherhood or our Israeli interests as on the line.
A guy from MB was on CNN… on that Spitzer show. He said that they had no connections to Al-Qaeda or violence and that they have no intention to fight Copts or anyone else. Even al-jazeera surprised me when it said that ‘people without faith’ are protesting. Though, as per the media’s bias…Spitzer had to ask him again and again about Israel and if he supports Israel unconditionally as his Lord and savior. As if it was a baptism. The MB duder gave a great response.
“Do you support and will you keep a peace agreement with Israel?”
and he said something like " I want a peace agreement. But does it look like Israel has ever supported peace to you?"
He did say that he opposed zionism. But I think zionism is the belief that Palestine cannot exist at all, isn’t it?
They also questioned him about 9/11 and he said he was supportive of the US in finding out who did it, but stipulated that a trial must take place to convict someone of this crime. And there must be evidence to suggest who was behind it.
They had John McCain on right before this guy. And in the most profound doubletalk, the Maverick said it is a huge mistake to support the types of dictators we have supported. And that we can’t sacrifice liberty of others for our own stability. Almost as if he regretted all the wars and imperialism. But of course not, a second later he said that we have to fight at all costs for democracy.
Beck said on O’Reilly that America shouldn’t interfere with the political processes in Egypt and elsewhere in the world. But Beck toes both sides of the conservative and minarchist line so often that I never know what to expect from what he says.
I don’t know. I know they want the Nobel Peace Prize guy to be next in charge (his name escapes me at the moment). This individual has stated that the MB will have a seat at the table, but if it turns out they are a radical Muslim group hellbent on turning it into a theocratic state, then I’d be wrong. I’m just saying the political arm of the MB has turned the Sharia-esque rhetoric down a notch in the last few years and has pushed for democratic reform in Egypt. I certainly don’t believe they will befriend Al-Qaeda.
The guy you’re thinking of is Mohamed Elbaradei. The guy from MB on CNN the other day said that Elbaradei was one of 10 guys or something that will be on a ballot. He didn’t say they favored him exactly. Maybe they will back some beard-y Muslim guy instead. But he didn’t say one way or the other. Remember, even if it is a ruse – though that wouldn’t be much of a difference from now – they will still hold an election.
i liked sniegoski’s february 4 piece “the neocons cool off”.
to his credit, he penned a great work on the neocons and their gulf war. the portfolio of powerful enemies he gathered after that effort is testimony to his incisive analysis. it would have been nice to see a lvmi review, but the material is obviously too contentious.
Of course the fears are overstated, as they have been for many years. Mubarak has always ran the lines that without him the MB would take over. It’s his oldest trick in the book! The Egyptians and the MB all know that the MB isn’t that popular to take over. Western media is just now playing the fool to Mubarak’s fear mongering, but the Egyptian people won’t buy it anymore.
The Muslim Brothers are widely respected for their charity work and for having among their members many highly regarded scholars. In a Mubarak-free Egypt they would surely play an important role, be it in the government or in the opposition. But they aren’t the main force behind the revolution. That would be the various spontaneous movements like the “April 6 Youth”. Do you see a group of very learned elderly scholars organizing a revolution using cell phones and social networks? That’s for young people to do. That’s one of the reasons the previously efficient secret police proved ineffective to prevent and repress the uprising: there were no charismatic leaders to murder or torture. Once a young blogger was arrested two more popped up to take his/her place: the imprisoned youth quickly became one of the many heroes but there was not a single rallying point. When Mubarak had the Internet and the cell phone network shut down it was already too late.
Should Mubarak be replaced by a popular government (as opposed by another military strongman) all these spontaneous movements will ask to be represented. That’s the reason the revolution in Tunisia is far from over: Ben Ali fled but the transition government is still made up of the same old colonels and party hacks. That’s why that old fox, Mohammed El-Baradei run to Egypt as soon as his informants told him the situation was ripe. He has been offering his services as a mediator of sorts ever since but without too much success. It’s beyond doubt he expects to play an important part in the post-Mubarak years.
Finally there’s the question of the army. While there’s no doubt the army is highly regarded, it’s also beyond doubt their behavior has been puzzling to everybody. The Western public has been “groomed” to accept them as liberators of sorts, perhaps to keep the doors open to another military strongman in the same mold as Sadat and Mubarak. Problem is they didn’t exactly shine as the protectors of the people when the pro-Mubarak bashi-bazouk attacked the crowds in the past two days. They only stepped in (and very cautiously) once it was clear the bashi-bazouk had been beaten by the people in the streets. Disturbingly enough the incidents in Tahrir Square were engineered as to engulf the US Embassy and only the stern resistance offered by the people stopped this from happening. In short the US government should be grateful to the “rioters” for protecting their own Embassy from their own “good friend”.
I think the average Epyptian voter is not smarter/more intelligent than the average European/US voter.
The situation right now is at an impasse. Mubarak will not step down, that is for sure. He hopes to weather the storm. He is shut up in his Hitler bunker and hopes that by not giving in the people in the street will simply grow tired and go home. But his power base is gone. The immense security apparatus melted away and had to resort to hiring (non-uniformed) thugs to try and break up the protests. His police failed him. His Western masters have been caught completely unaware and cannot provide sound advice since they just don’t know what to do. The army, the same army he came from, is sitting on the fence, unwilling to take sides. The army has grown so large thanks to US largess (Egypt could never afford a 400000+ military on its own), many generals own factories, vacation resorts and other businesses. But at the same time the bulk of the army is made up from conscripts just like in the days of the Khedive: these same conscripts can stage a mutiny at any time and there are many ambitious lower ranking officers ready to lead them. Both Arabi Pasha and Nasser were hungry colonels. I can also add i personally believe Mubarak is so reluctant to leave the country because there are few places ready to grant him asylum: Ben Ali tried to flee to France but that ungrateful Sarkozy turned him down. He had to settle for Saudi Arabia, just like Idi Amin Dada. Will Saudi Arabia, which may have a revolution on its hand in a short time, grant asylum to a deeply unpopular figure as Mubarak?
The impasse could be broken by an external event. Oil is steadily climbing as speculators are betting on more revolutions in the area and European leaders are worried sick about it. They may threaten Mubarak to seize his personal assets if he doesn’t “do his bit” to defuse the situation. Popular sentiment against the euro is at an all time high and increasing prices are cracking the ECB’s credibility (“our mission is to keep prices stable”). The problem is Israel holds the ultimate power in this respect. Its diplomats have been instructed to stress to European leaders the importance of keeping Mubarak in charge for the “greater good”. I wonder if someone will the guts and the wits to reply “Maybe you’ll offer us asylum when our own people will kick us out power. How much for a seaside villa in Haifa?”. Wishful thinking but a man can dream.
I have been talking to some Egyptians, in English and Arabic. And following what people in Egypt are saying on TV and on the web.
I am surprised by the level of communication skills in English, a largely unused second language; as someone said before: this is definitely caused by the new educated middle class. I can’t think of another case where people have communicated as rationally or concisely. And without mythology. I have heard nothing zealous or self-serving or religious. That can’t even be said for American protestors and definitely not in Europe.
It’s not like the usual Islamist events the media shows where people are holding signs like “Death to all Juice!” hoping to intimidate Israel.
The truth of the matter is that places like Iran and Egypt are far more modern and cosmopolitan than the media will allow us to know. In fact, Israel is relatively barbaric compared to Iran; less religiously and ethnically tolerant.
There is trouble, however, that the educated middle class in Egypt and other places have largely been educated in social-democratic and socialist ideas. It is in no way evident to me that this would be an improvement upon Mubarak.