Egyptians resist Morsi; US-supported military to step in on Morsi's side

What do we have to do with any of this?

 

Great post. That is also what I would hope for. I hope they find a form of government that is inclusive of their Islamic tradition and even the more moderate followers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but pushes their more extreme members, like the leader that was just arrested, clearly outside of the spectrum of acceptable political discourse. They have to find a way to separate state and religion. Basically, they need something like Atatürk has managed to achieve for Turkey. I have been to Egypt several times, and I am aware it will be a long and difficult road ahead for them. But I hope it will work out over time. Them standing up against Islamist oppression has been an admirable thing to watch.

 

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

 

The problem is the same reason why the military was probably compelled to remove Morsi---once you write in certain provisions like the fact that the military is not included in civilian oversight, you already have the beginnings of a state where the new normal is military independence, and corruption as it were. You seem to be positing the long-term view that someone will be able to overcome the military evantually. I'd like to pull a Keynes here and say that in the long run, we're all dead.

Regardless, I think the short term implications of this overthrow are troubling, and I don't quite see how military entrenchment of rule will benefit the nation in the long run either, other than serving as something the nation will have to overcome, so in the end, I'm still left on the side that condemns this.

I also think application of American history is all well and good, but America was a trailblazer. Growing pains for Egypt should be a lot smaller considering how many examples there are out there of liberal democracies.

The issue of a state within a state isn't something that can be solved with small incremental shifts in power either. It would take acknowledgement of civilian oversight over the military---which, if the military has its' say, will be written out of any constitution, and blocked at every possible path on the way. As much as some people think there needs to be seperation of state and religion in these new Middle Eastern regimes, the need for a consolidation of civilian oversight over the military, and not the other way around, is as pressing.

 

Egypt is in the midst of a revolution. That revolution resulted in Morsi being elected, getting votes by many who saw him as the best choice out of who was available, but who were not associated at all with the Musim Brotherhood, who make up a third of the electorate, at most. It is those Egyptians, along with the just shy of 50% who voted against Morsi, who led what was a continuation of the revolution in Egypt. The crowds were huge, larger than they were at the height of the Arab Spring. Was that the result of the military's desire to "grab power?" Those who paint the military with a broad brush do it a misservice, in my opinion.

Yes, the leadership contains many who were there while the former president was in power, but their actions in response to the people were far different than those at the overthrow of Mubarak. They surrounded themselves with just the people the majority of those in the streets wanted to see taking charge prior to new elections. And it is wrong to assume that the current leadership reflects the feelings of the vast majority of the conscripted Egyptian military. They know that if they simply return to clear military rule, that they very well may lose the bulk of the military, the friends and family members of many no doubt in the streets with everyone else, calling for the ouster of a man clearly intent to create an islamist state.

It bothers me that so many look at events through a narrow pane of glass. Nothing is ever as simple as one might believe, or one might wish for. We should all wish for one thing... that Egypt gets through this period with as little bloodshed as possible, and a return to free elections, and that those elections don't result in, again, putting someone in office with a hidden agenda. Egypt deserves better. It has a long and proud history, and there is no reason she can't return to the forefront of the nations in the region in prosperity, and as an example for others to follow. I've been there. To steal from one of my favorite films, it is time for them to be great again.

 

Morsi was the military's puppet---he had agreed to key Constitutional provisions that entrenched the military's power. Had the crowds not reacted, I do not think the military would have cared. It's why with Mubarak there was status quo for decades.

I would err on the side of caution when it comes to any military intervening in civilian affairs---but especially the Egyptian military, lest anyone forget how Mubarak gained power in the first place.

 

You are always wrong. Your posts are so stupid that it is mind-boggling. If he had been their puppet, why would they have had to oust him? Your posts simply defy logic and common sense.

 

Any civilian leader is and will be under the power of the military. In the Constitution, Morsi gave the military key concessions, including independence from civilian oversight. Because the military has the guns and the power, they decide their own fate, and ultimately, if push comes to shove, the nation's fate (as has happened now, with Mubarak, and before Mubarak when the military first ascended to power).

The Brotherhood has nothing---the police was part of the Mubarak system, the military rules over them and not vice versa.

The military decided the furor of the crowds was enough, so they gave up on this arrangement, just like they gave up with Mubarak evantually.

A great piece on this---that I referenced before---

 

You and Mathloon should share a room.

In some mental institution.

Also, you didn't provide a link.

 

oh, I had before, I thought. In any case, if you had been following your world news, you would know where this came from.

The Grey Lady herself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/w...erts-its-allegiance-to-its-privileges.html?hp

 

Could someone who speaks Arabic please translate what this gentleman is saying?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/v90HtmrJPOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I gotta agree with ATW here. Morsi wasn't the military's puppet. He made some big concessions to them but that no more makes him their puppet than Obama making concessions to Congressional Republicans makes him the Republican's puppet.

The relationship between Morsi and the military was never good and at best it was mutual tolerance without full trust. Whether the military would've removed him without the protests is an interesting question but given how quickly they moved to do so it indicates there really wasn't any love lost there. Keep in mind that the military really wants stability and once mass protests started just showed that Morsi couldn't deliver on stability.

Anyway as the thread title shows this idea that Morsi and the military were supporting each other was very mistaken. The idea that the US would support Morsi or is pulling strings to control things in Egypt is also highly questionable. The Obama Admin. is trying do it's utmost to distant itself from the situation and is taking criticism from many for not doing more in Egypt.

 

I consider a constitutional amendment that protects the military from civilian oversight more than a big concession. The equivalent would be if the President suddenly pushed forward and tried to get the 14th Amendment struck down, in which case calling him a puppet of the Republicans is both accurate, and fair.

Regardless, I feel like I'm endlessly stuck on this tangent of defending semantics---suffice it to say the military will defend anyone it wants to maintain its' power, and that it is not a pure force for the will of the people, as some would have it. Its' history suggests that is far from the case. That is the basis of my argument---whether or not you want to argue the degree of dependancy of Morsi et. al on the military and vice versa, the original point stands.

You agree with me that the military above all craves stablitity. I'd add maintained power to entrench its' corruption as well to that---the point being that the military will support or abandon whoever they think will have the best chance of protecting the military from scrutiny.

Thus why I condemn both sides.

 

The worry is . . . in the new elections
a DIFFERENT third of the country don't like the new guy
and start this up all over again

Imagine is all the Anti Obama people rose up in protest
and Obama was Actually OUTTED!
Then the new guy comes in . . . . well all the Obama Supports
start to protest. . . and they want Equality
so .. the NEW GUY is OUTTED

how long can you do this. . . IS that a concern here?

Rocket River

 

I'm more concerned about the outbreak of widespread violence in Egypt, RR, than I am with your scenario. The Muslim Brotherhood may feel like they have nothing to lose by going to the barricades, fighting in the streets, even though they are a minority. I certainly hope it doesn't play out that way. My guess is that the next president will be a well known moderate. Seems to be what the majority wants. A moderate, secular government. That's what I hope for, and I'm sure it's what President Obama hopes for, as well.

 

IF that is the case. . . how did the last guy get elected?

Rocket River

 

How about starting off with not comparing Egypt to well developed democracies like the us

 

Egypt is a much older country than the US.

 

You do know even us civilized folks had a civil war well into our history