Ok, so before I start this, I just want to let any Egyptian members realise that I do not relish the thought of any future conflicts with their nation, that said, with the current political upheaval in the country, here is a possible scenario.
Mubarrak is forced out sometime in the next few weeks, and a fledgling democracy starts to grow. Before long, an Islamic extremist party comes to power.
So what are the security implications for the West, and other nations neighboring Egypt? What if, a year from now, Egypt were to close the Suez canal in response to a wider middle east crisis?
With the Egyptian military now lavishly equipped, would they be able to guarantee Egyptian sovereignty? What would it mean for procurement in Israel and other nations?
I honestly hope that nothing like this will ever happen, but what seemed to be democratic revolutions before have turned into extreme regimes.
By: Sky High - 23rd February 2011 at 08:07
No.
By: PeeDee - 22nd February 2011 at 21:40
An Egyption chap today called his newborn girl “Facebook” after the website which co-ordinated the uprising.
She has of course got normal fore and family names following the primary name of Facebook.
Would you do that?
By: Sky High - 12th February 2011 at 13:57
🙂
By: Grey Area - 12th February 2011 at 13:48
I didn’t say anything to the contrary.
I know you didn’t. 🙂
By: Lincoln 7 - 12th February 2011 at 13:34
GA it may well not be Obamas or the West’s Country, but you can bet your bottom Dollar, Obama will be licking someones backside to get his feet under the table even more, no doubt by showering them with even more money.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 12th February 2011 at 13:31
Exactly right and a statement of the bl****ding obvious, if I may say so. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. The outcome of any election in any country can be seen as “good” or “bad” by other countries but this has nothing to do with the democratic process being carried out by the electorate of the country in question.
By: Grey Area - 12th February 2011 at 13:17
It’s not Obama and the West’s country, it belongs to the Egpytians.
The decision as to the nature of a democratic government must be theirs, and theirs alone.
By: Sky High - 12th February 2011 at 08:48
Precisely. The military have no choice other than to declare allegiance to whichever party wins the elections, which must be transparent. Obama and the West may not get what they hope for, and desire.
By: Grey Area - 12th February 2011 at 08:33
To further compound the problem, the Egyptians would then have the perception that peaceful protest gained them nothing.
This could only be of benefit to the extremists, who propose a considerably more violent “solution”.
By: Sky High - 12th February 2011 at 07:47
Your argument exemplifies my concern precisely. If the military are not happy with the results of a “free and fair democratic election” then military rule will prevail and the protesters will have gained little.
By: J Boyle - 12th February 2011 at 00:48
The military have been the power behind the throne in Egypt since the assassination of Anwar Sadat and there’s a fair chance that what the Generals desire above all else is stability.
Having worked with and trained high ranking members of the military, I’d agree with you.
They want the status quo…which means being pro-west.
It’s not in their best interests to see radicals take over and since the fall of the Soviet block, that option isn’t open to them either.
They get aid and tourism money from the west.
They don’t want radicals because they would possibly be shot as supporters of Sadat & Mubarak.
They know that Israel would still defeat them in a war so they don’t want a war.
By: Sky High - 11th February 2011 at 18:04
That is exactly my concern.
By: Grey Area - 11th February 2011 at 17:28
The military have been the power behind the throne in Egypt since the assassination of Anwar Sadat and there’s a fair chance that what the Generals desire above all else is stability.
Hopefully, the military will now supervise an interim government until a free and fair election leads to a democratic government at which point the military will hand over power.
But what will happen if the outcome of any election is not to the taste of the military – or whether the Egyptian military even speaks with one voice – are, however, different questions altogether.
By: Sky High - 11th February 2011 at 17:14
and power to the military. So I wonder what now…………….I hope the thousands of people calling for his head will not rue the day.
By: Creaking Door - 11th February 2011 at 16:13
President Hosni Mubarak has resigned:
By: Creaking Door - 10th February 2011 at 23:27
Mubarak still doesn’t get it does he!
Listening to his speech tonight it seems he thinks that Egypt’s population is facing an external threat, and he clearly sees himself as somehow protecting them from that threat. He’s clearly delusional but surely the Generals and advisors are not afraid of telling him the truth; that his power is gone. Drip-feeding small concessions to the people is not going to suddenly overturn popular opinion (even if Mubarak has the TV in his control); the more he tries to cling on, the more the people will only accept his unconditional resignation.
Thankfully the army, at least the rank-and-file, are maintaining their neutral stance and the longer this goes on the less likely they are to side with anybody but the people I think. Sadly the Egyptian economy is being badly damaged so whoever ends-up in power after Mubarak isn’t going to have an easy time sorting-out the problems that caused the original protests.
By: Lincoln 7 - 5th February 2011 at 14:59
No criticism of US politicians in particular intended, it is just that US foreign policy tends to have somewhat of a greater effect on the rest of the world than, say, UK foreign policy. 😉
Well, the last two UK administrations seem to be doing a ****-poor job of that with respect to UK foreign policy!
Hi C.D. I totally agree with you, can you take a step sideways, and make a space for me to stand besides you! on your soap box!!
😀
Lincoln .7
:diablo:
By: 19kilo10 - 4th February 2011 at 00:37
Looks like its gettin bad over there.
By: Flying-A - 2nd February 2011 at 22:13
And some here say the same about US administrations. Since 1917!
Change may be coming:
It’s time to end Big Government internationalism
Washington Examiner
28 January 2011
by Thomas M. SkypekWhen it comes to foreign policy, it can be difficult these days to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are advocates of big government internationalism. Their differences on a range of issues—from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran and North Korea—are more stylistic than substantive. And when it comes to the big strategic questions (e.g., For what purpose does the U.S. engage in foreign affairs?) the major parties are in lockstep. Both subscribe to a Wilsonian, liberal international agenda of democracy promotion and nation building with little regard for cost—or the Constitution.
A reformulation of American foreign policy is long overdue and the Tea Party movement is in a unique position to expand the ongoing national debate on federal spending into Washington’s costly and overly ambitious grand strategy.
By: J Boyle - 2nd February 2011 at 17:23
Creaking Door…
I agree as well.
From my interactions with the Egyptiam military, the ranks and file are conscripts.
I think Interflug62m’s comment “certain powers outside Egypt will have played a major part in Mubarak’s final decision” is probably accurate as well. Someone will provide a safe place for Mubarak to live out his days.
Clearly Obama is trying to pointing Mubarak towards the door, but without pushing him, just in case thinks don’t go well.
Sign In
January 31, 2011 at 1:04 pm