A Rush and a Push and the Land is Theirs
This was touched on briefly before I went on sick call, and it's nice to have taken the time to see things develop so completely. Egypt is in the throws of almost full on revolution and that's not a word to be tossed around lightly. After eight days of protests, mild calamities and the government losing its mind, things are starting to change. Hosni Mubarak, president for the time being of Egypt, has declared he will not step down until elections in September. He has, however, fired most of his government, named Omar Suleiman as vice president and Egyptian air force top gun Ahmed Shafik as prime minister. (A small note here, I will try my best to Romanize Arabic names in accordance with AP/media standard practices. There are times when it will look less standard because sometimes I know the letter they're going for is a "k" rather an "q" and vice versa. My Arabic isn't perfect, but I know, roughly, what they're usually going for. time in). These changes have not appeased most of the people marching in the streets, who are very vocally calling for Mubarak to step down. Like last week's overthrow of the government in Tunisia, people are taking to the streets, amazingly without weapons, and demanding a responsive government. While this might sound ironic to Americans, it's exactly how every successful revolution has begun: a statement of grievances, an overreaction by the government and a willful show of will and force by the people. Any of those steps goes wrong, the revolution goes wrong. It's how the American revolution got going, true of Haiti, France and just about everywhere the British Empire got kicked out of. Now, what exactly this means for the future of Egypt is anyone's guess. In the long term. In the short term, however, it can means only a few ways forward. And for the Middle East, things are going to change, but not overnight. But that doesn't mean people are going to stop anytime soon.
But here we are, about nine days into what could have been over in nine minutes. Ordinarily, history would be the important to get into here, but there's not enough room here to do it justice. This a country at least 5000 years old with a pretty rich history for all of that, and the Egyptian people are, to a person, very proud of it. Also, it's a little simplistic to just reach back into history and proclaim "it's always been this way, therefore it will always be that way". Some writers, like Thomas Friedman, will point to Egypt's past with the Pharaohs and previous authoritarian regimes like Nasser and Sadat and blithely proclaim there will be no democracy in Egypt. They'll point out the Muslim Brotherhood and poll numbers showing more and more average citizens in the Middle East are more hardline than they have been in years. They'll say borderline racist things like "they're so far behind socially and oil has kept them that way" (transcript here). Oddly, Freidman makes no similar explanations about Texas, Russia, Venezuela or other top oil producers, but no matter. The point being, Egypt has a long history of powerful rulers, as did Italy and Germany, yet they're perfectly fine democracies. Egyptians are a very proud people, especially of their history; witness the mobs who joined with the army to secure museums from looting. This is not the usual sense of uprising just because they're bored on a Saturday, at least a million people marched together on Tuesday to demand, again, for Mubarak's resignation and the formation of a new government. While all of this is very significant, both in terms of numbers and duration, the really significant thing is what is not going on.
For the first week, there were no mentions of the US or Israel. No attempts to link Mubarak with the great Satan that the US is usually cast as. No real attempts to claim that the Jews are behind Mubarak's rise and claim to power. There have been signs in English, for the American audience at home, but they all want freedom. Nothing about getting the US out of the holy lands, nothing about US getting out of Iraq. Why? Because the Egyptians, right now, don't give a fuck about the US except inasmuch as we directly impact them. They want the Americans to see they want Mubarak out. There were two other things missing from these rallies. The oddest to American idealists would be guns. None of these protests were armed. Yes, they were often marching against armed police and later army units, but still, no guns. Everyone at these things was unarmed. It was everything the Tea Party would want it to be, people redressing the government, people trying to topple a dictator, people wanting more rights but without the guns. Most accounts of people being shot are from the police/Ministry of Interior troops (not the regular army) shooting people, not protesters or would be looters. These are not people looking for a violent coup, these are people looking for a change in government. The other thing missing for the first week or so was the Muslim Brotherhood. As soon as Egyptian politics gets brought up, one of the first things that gets mentioned is this party. They are Shari'a loving political party that has been banned in Egypt for years because Mubarak was afraid they'd take over and turn Egypt into a Muslim theocracy. It's true they have ties to Hamas and other groups, and it is true they have violently opposed Israel. But, they also haven't gone as far as say Hezbollah in declaring the US as the enemy. More importantly, they're not as influential as people think. People like them, but that's as much response to tyranny (ie anything is better than Mubarak) as it is true belief in their political mission. So, this is a revolution without guns and little real religious conviction, so the only thing slowing this down is inertia.
Which is where the Egyptian army comes into play. For the first few days of all this, Mubarak wisely sent out the police and Ministry of Interior security personnel to deal with the protesters. They're completely loyal to Mubarak and have never shown a history of trying to be anything more than. Of course, it is also with good reason that Mubarak doesn't trust his army: his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by a couple officers who went rogue after his treaty with Israel. In that time, the army became a professional corps of like minded soldiers rather than punks with guns. Note, it's also somewhat hereditary, but then again, Patton, MacArthur, Ridgway, and Lee also came from military families. The bottom line is, the Egyptian military, much like the Egyptian people overall, cares for the overall well being of Egypt (by and large) as opposed to just preserving Mubarak. If that were the case, they would have arrested every protester by now and called it a day. Nor are they totally for rapid change, lest they would have arrested Mubarak for something or just shipped off to London or France. Mubarak tried to shore up the allegiance of the military by appointing Suleiman as VP (he's a military favorite, as well as a favorite of Israel and the US, but he actually is an okay guy) and a top air force guy as prime minister. The army, like the United States, has a longer term goal here, which is to be liked by as many sides as possible to have influence over them when the time comes. The army, like Obama, is looking for change to happen organically and to happen somewhat orderly and slowly.
The real rub in all of this is that if Mubarak were to step down tomorrow, they would be elections within 60 days. given the amount of chaos going on, these would not be great elections. These would be made even worse by the current constitution in place, which has been greatly modified by Mubarak to keep Mubarak in power as long as possible. So, for now, they're keeping things steady to prevent something worse. It will no doubt be a general or two who nudges Mubarak out the door, but like your average Ruskie they won't take a dump without a plan. Which means a new constitution will be have to be called for, or at least massive re-writes to all kinds of laws. Mohamed el-Baradei has generously offered to lead a transition Egyptian government, and he also would be a great choice. If a magical unity government could be formed, that would be ideal. Right now, if Mubarak is not in power, Suleiman takes over. He's been in charge of the Egyptian version of the CIA and has worked with every major government on the planet. He's won respect from the Saudis, the UK, the Americans, the Israelis and the Jordanians, making him one of the few things all these countries agree about. He's been noted as being pro-rights before and he might be exactly the kind of transitional leader Egypt needs until full, free and fair elections can be held.
Because that's how the people out there would keep this land they have.
So it is written, so do I see it.
But here we are, about nine days into what could have been over in nine minutes. Ordinarily, history would be the important to get into here, but there's not enough room here to do it justice. This a country at least 5000 years old with a pretty rich history for all of that, and the Egyptian people are, to a person, very proud of it. Also, it's a little simplistic to just reach back into history and proclaim "it's always been this way, therefore it will always be that way". Some writers, like Thomas Friedman, will point to Egypt's past with the Pharaohs and previous authoritarian regimes like Nasser and Sadat and blithely proclaim there will be no democracy in Egypt. They'll point out the Muslim Brotherhood and poll numbers showing more and more average citizens in the Middle East are more hardline than they have been in years. They'll say borderline racist things like "they're so far behind socially and oil has kept them that way" (transcript here). Oddly, Freidman makes no similar explanations about Texas, Russia, Venezuela or other top oil producers, but no matter. The point being, Egypt has a long history of powerful rulers, as did Italy and Germany, yet they're perfectly fine democracies. Egyptians are a very proud people, especially of their history; witness the mobs who joined with the army to secure museums from looting. This is not the usual sense of uprising just because they're bored on a Saturday, at least a million people marched together on Tuesday to demand, again, for Mubarak's resignation and the formation of a new government. While all of this is very significant, both in terms of numbers and duration, the really significant thing is what is not going on.
For the first week, there were no mentions of the US or Israel. No attempts to link Mubarak with the great Satan that the US is usually cast as. No real attempts to claim that the Jews are behind Mubarak's rise and claim to power. There have been signs in English, for the American audience at home, but they all want freedom. Nothing about getting the US out of the holy lands, nothing about US getting out of Iraq. Why? Because the Egyptians, right now, don't give a fuck about the US except inasmuch as we directly impact them. They want the Americans to see they want Mubarak out. There were two other things missing from these rallies. The oddest to American idealists would be guns. None of these protests were armed. Yes, they were often marching against armed police and later army units, but still, no guns. Everyone at these things was unarmed. It was everything the Tea Party would want it to be, people redressing the government, people trying to topple a dictator, people wanting more rights but without the guns. Most accounts of people being shot are from the police/Ministry of Interior troops (not the regular army) shooting people, not protesters or would be looters. These are not people looking for a violent coup, these are people looking for a change in government. The other thing missing for the first week or so was the Muslim Brotherhood. As soon as Egyptian politics gets brought up, one of the first things that gets mentioned is this party. They are Shari'a loving political party that has been banned in Egypt for years because Mubarak was afraid they'd take over and turn Egypt into a Muslim theocracy. It's true they have ties to Hamas and other groups, and it is true they have violently opposed Israel. But, they also haven't gone as far as say Hezbollah in declaring the US as the enemy. More importantly, they're not as influential as people think. People like them, but that's as much response to tyranny (ie anything is better than Mubarak) as it is true belief in their political mission. So, this is a revolution without guns and little real religious conviction, so the only thing slowing this down is inertia.
Which is where the Egyptian army comes into play. For the first few days of all this, Mubarak wisely sent out the police and Ministry of Interior security personnel to deal with the protesters. They're completely loyal to Mubarak and have never shown a history of trying to be anything more than. Of course, it is also with good reason that Mubarak doesn't trust his army: his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by a couple officers who went rogue after his treaty with Israel. In that time, the army became a professional corps of like minded soldiers rather than punks with guns. Note, it's also somewhat hereditary, but then again, Patton, MacArthur, Ridgway, and Lee also came from military families. The bottom line is, the Egyptian military, much like the Egyptian people overall, cares for the overall well being of Egypt (by and large) as opposed to just preserving Mubarak. If that were the case, they would have arrested every protester by now and called it a day. Nor are they totally for rapid change, lest they would have arrested Mubarak for something or just shipped off to London or France. Mubarak tried to shore up the allegiance of the military by appointing Suleiman as VP (he's a military favorite, as well as a favorite of Israel and the US, but he actually is an okay guy) and a top air force guy as prime minister. The army, like the United States, has a longer term goal here, which is to be liked by as many sides as possible to have influence over them when the time comes. The army, like Obama, is looking for change to happen organically and to happen somewhat orderly and slowly.
The real rub in all of this is that if Mubarak were to step down tomorrow, they would be elections within 60 days. given the amount of chaos going on, these would not be great elections. These would be made even worse by the current constitution in place, which has been greatly modified by Mubarak to keep Mubarak in power as long as possible. So, for now, they're keeping things steady to prevent something worse. It will no doubt be a general or two who nudges Mubarak out the door, but like your average Ruskie they won't take a dump without a plan. Which means a new constitution will be have to be called for, or at least massive re-writes to all kinds of laws. Mohamed el-Baradei has generously offered to lead a transition Egyptian government, and he also would be a great choice. If a magical unity government could be formed, that would be ideal. Right now, if Mubarak is not in power, Suleiman takes over. He's been in charge of the Egyptian version of the CIA and has worked with every major government on the planet. He's won respect from the Saudis, the UK, the Americans, the Israelis and the Jordanians, making him one of the few things all these countries agree about. He's been noted as being pro-rights before and he might be exactly the kind of transitional leader Egypt needs until full, free and fair elections can be held.
Because that's how the people out there would keep this land they have.
So it is written, so do I see it.