Three-strikes policy: Egypt military fires AGAIN on unarmed civilians and now reporters.

Yes that is very clear. House arrest means that Mubarak while not in jail but is still under the control of the authorities. Also they have taken his passport and his accounts are frozen.

It is highly doubtful the military government will ever let Mubarak free. That is one thing that might unite the secular opposition again with the Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt they would be willing to risk that.

 

Just to summarize:

 

Except Obama isn't pro-Muslim Brotherhood or the US backing the Muslim Brotherhood. If that was the case then the Obama Admin. would've called Morsi's removal a coup right away and done away with US aid.

 

The problem is that most Egyptians perceive Obama to be backing the MB. Support for what the military has done is running quite high - which I think is a very good sign. If the Egyptian people have truly recognized the MB for what it is and have rejected it, then that is a very hopeful sign. I admit I am a bit surprised. It would be nice if the West would recognize what the Egyptian people appear to have glimmered, but I'm not holding my breath.

Some light reading:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/25/muslim-brotherhood-bid-to-scapegoat-christians-failing-say-egyptians/

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/does-obama-support-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt/

Perhaps had the administration come out and denounced the MB as soon as it became apparent that they were bent on creating a radical islamist dictatorship (which has been obvious for years to anyone who was paying the slightest bit of attention) then this perception would not now be in place. But it is what it is, and we just have to deal with it now.

 

it would be very difficult for the administration to denounce the Muslim Brotherhood and keep a straight face when Obama's half brother, Malik Obama runs oversight of the MB's international investments. Not including the money we gave them before the overthrow. Now those monies are being used to prolong Egypt's turmoil. Looks like the administration was all in with MB before the Egyptian military just threw a wrench into their plans. I can see why Egyptians are skeptical of the current administration.

 

Except the US government pays for the Egyptian military. If the US were to cut off their aid the Egyptian Military would collapse.

 

If that had happened after a popular election where the people voted in the MB, then the US would have been accused of opposing the will of the Egyptian people. I'm sure there are people that believe the US is on the side of the MB, but that doesn't really make it true, and it doesn't necessarily make it a majority or even a lot of people - all we have are a bunch of signs from protestors and activists claiming it. If anything, the fact that we refuse to stop aid to the military suggests we're quietly on their side.

Saudi Arabia has already said that if the US pulls aid, they will cover it. It would change who has influence (though how much influence we have is in question), but it wouldn't hurt them much.

 

Er, no. The US government gives Eqypt's military around $1.5 bn a year. Their military would hardly "collapse" without it, and at any rate it is highly likely that the Saudis, UAE, etc would make up the shortfall because none of them wants to see the Egyptian military fail or Egypt descent into long-tern turmoil.

We could cut every penny and it wouldn't make much difference. Everyone knows it, too. We have no leverage.

 

I'd like to see some reliable polls done on the subject, but I doubt we'll see that. It's all anecdotal at this point, but it does seem like the MB isn't gaining any traction. I am still worried that after all of this when Egyptians go to the polls again the Salafists end up winning the largest share and decide to form a coalition with the MB... We'll see.

I'd say that the point at which Morsi decided to "temporarily" give himself "unlimited" powers would have been a good point for to denounce them. Instead, silence. The Egyptian people have apparently interpreted that silence as support for the MB. I'd trend to think that we'd rather see the military succeed here but I do understand why at this point, after the violence, we are reluctant to openly endorse them and denounce the MB.

I know that's not going to happen, but I'd like to see us do it.

Yep.

 

Stay out of it, none of our business. We can't solve every conflict.

 

Yeah - the next election, whenever that may be, will be fascinating to see.

I agree - this would have been ideal. I can see the admin's rationalization for not doing it and not encouraging the second revolution, but this does seem like it would have been the best time for the US to separate itself from that government.

At this point, like you said, the US is reluctant to aggressively support anyone because everyone seems like a bad guy to some extent.

 

I wish they would take the same position in Syria.

 

I think the main difference is the breadth of the fighting. In Egypt, you have hundreds (?) dead in fairly limited and controlled clashes. In Syria, the death toll is well over 50,000, now including innocents that have been gassed by their government. While there's no particular good guy there, there IS one really, really, really bad guy. The US did *try* to stay out of this to the point of being criticized as being weak, but this is now more of a humanitarian crisis than anything strategic.

 

I consider Assad to be more rational than the Al Qaeda operatives on the ground. I also do not believe one second that he was behind the gas attack. I think this was Al Qaeda work.

 

You believe the official Syrian narrative that it was a false flag operation by the rebels in order to get Western sympathy and support?

Either way, I think this is a bad idea.

 

Yes.

Assad had nothing to gain by doing this. He was winning this war. He knew that as long as he would not use gas, it was probably more likely that the US/UK would not get involved.

Why would he do it?

The rebels were losing. They knew that the only way to tip the scale in the other direction would be to get the US/UK involved, even though the Al Qaeda part of the rebels hate the US/UK, but they would love to make them their useful idiots.

Who has more of a motive to do it?

 

Rational, yes. But rational doesn't mean not terrible. For the latter, that's all speculative. If it turns out true, then certainly the US shouldn't be involved, but there's no evidence of it as of yet as far as we know - and evidence against like the government bombing the area afterwards, which would make no sense if the rebels were responsible for the gassing. But it will be interesting to see what more we learn there - lots of unknowns at this point.

 

The evidence should be 100 % clear before engaging in any kind of war. And even if there is evidence, one still needs to think about the consequences. Russia is supporting Assad. Worst case, this could escalate badly. Very badly. Obama, Kerry and Cameron need to check themselves before they wreck themselves.

 

I agree with this. At the minimum we need the Europeans, who are pushing for action more than the US, to step up. To me this is another example of the disproportionate balance of power. For better or worse the US gets dragged into all sorts of things while getting blamed for not getting involved in other situations.

 

Germans are certainly not pushing for action.