The US Is Working to Keep Egyptian Military In Power & Will Leave Protesters in Lurch

[snot]

You can hear the program at http://www.kcrw.com/media-player/mediaPlayer2.html?type... .

Rough transcription of remarks of Prof. Springborg, which start 9 min. in:

US negotiations are on track; its intent is to retain the Egyptian military in power, w/o Mubarek; but Frank Wisner's probably done what he was assigned, i.e. to come to terms with the military bec. our intent is to retain the military in power. Prof. thinks far better to open discussion with the opposition so as to legitimate them, but no doubt Pres. Obama instructed Wisner NOT to do that, and so as time goes by the opposition will become not only marginalized but they'll fear for their lives bec. they're being left in the lurch.

Q: What about the idea of a civilian democracy?

A: We didn't entertain that. To entertain that, Wisner would have had to publicly embraced the opposition, but he didn't do that. Ambassador Margaret Scoby held little sessions with them on the side but those were meaningless. The military will of course have some kind of civilian face, and so we saw Amar Moussa show up in Tahrir Square, who now when he's asked come elections can say he was there; and he's someone the military can live with. And he's Sec. General of the Arab League, and he's known to be someone who's had a bit of a tiff with Mubarek; so he's the most acceptable face that the military's going to allow.

Q: How can the gov't get away with killing of the opposition?

A: Just yesterday, security forces rounded up members of the Center for Legal Rights and they haven't been seen since. Two hours ago we were told, Mohammid Rashid has been arrested, passport taken, assets seized -- a prominent, independent thinker with real integrity, opposed to some of the things the military's done. And if they can do this to these people, they can do it to anyone, and they will.

Q: Why would the US want the military to remain in power?

A: Bec. they've done our bidding. We do not trust the pro-dems. What we see is fascist behavior by the military. Yet we are making it possible. We pledged continuation of foreign assistance to the military. Our VP has been speaking directly to the military, etc.; our lines of communication are entirely with them.

Next, Prof. Shehata agrees entirely.

The program is well worth listening. Again, I found the best part began around 9 min. in.

[Prometheus Bound]

1. Without any doubt.

[EFerrari]

2. I tried to ask today, here and elsewhere, how could a dialogue with the opposition

even go forward if their physical safety is not guaranteed? :shrug:

[snot]

5. Good question!

The analysis in this program fits only too well with everything else I've been hearing and reading.

I really hope word gets out about this.

[tabatha]

9. I don't think you understood the question.

[EFerrari]

13. Another thing. The original intention last week was for the protesters

to march to the presidential palace. And for some of us observers, it's been frustrating that they decided not to take that step. In fact, one of the activists that has been on air said today, "we should have marched".

But thinking this over, there is a really good reason they haven't done that. There are activists at Tahrir whose lives are literally at risk if they leave the square. Egypt is a police state. There is no just marching anywhere unless the state allows it. And if you defy the state as these people have done, your live is worth squat when they catch you.

The basic premise that a government exists to protect the people is turned on its head in Egypt. The state asserts the right to prey on the people.

[JDPriestly]

17. The Hungarian Uprising was in 1957.

In 1968, Czechoslovakia enjoyed their Prague Spring.

Both of those movements failed. But, gradually, the strong-arm regimes spent their strength trying to push their people around, trying to impose their order. The Soviet authority began to give way around, as I recall, 1980-1981 when the security relaxed and the problems crossing the border between Hungary and (neutral) Austria were reduced (but not completely done away with). Then came the Polish Solidarity movement. Finally, the Hungarian border gave way, the East Germans rushed through, and then the wall in Berlin and across Germany came down. It was a slow process. I had a sort of front-row seat, watched it happened, talked to ordinary people who were living through it. The hatred for the Soviets grew and grew until there was so much hatred that the Soviets no longer had enough power in spite of their military strength, to frighten people into lying, into submission.

So that is how these things happen in our modern age.

One sit-in does not make a movement. And that is just as well. Revolutions need to mature to succeed.

Think of it. Our Revolution began in 1776. But the British did not really acknowledge our nation until after the War of 1812. It took so long. And we were on a separate continent at a time when travel was time-consuming. The Egyptian protestors have started a process that will take some years at the very least.

I would expect a military take-over after these events.

[EFerrari]

19. The military won't take over from itself. nt

[PhillySane]

28. Tunisia emboldened them.

But Egypt is not Tunisia.

[PhillySane]

26. They are holding on to the ground they have.

That for now is the best they can do. The army will try to take back the square soon. Maybe tonight.

[EFerrari]

27. I tend to think that's theatre on the army's part.

Mubarak or Sulieman may want these people to go home but in the grand scheme, the military will remain the power in Egypt for a long time.

[PhillySane]

29. And the US will help.

[defendandprotect]

33. That's been the problem all along ... otherwise Mubarak would have fallen and his regime with him!

[emulatorloo]

3. SELF DELETE

[tabatha]

4. I disagree

"but no doubt Pres. Obama instructed Wisner NOT to do that"

I thought the military was on the side of the anti-Mubarak protesters.

It is the military police that are the bad cops.

The only reason there was no more bloodshed today is because the military stopped it.

On edit - I am so tired of people guessing and assigning motives to people that may not even be there.

[snot]

6. The military has repeatedly failed to do all they could do to help the protesters.

I've been following events closely, and I believe most of the protesters have gone from feeling mystified as to why the military hasn't done more to help them to being actively wary of them. (I'm basing this on the news, tweets, etc. directly from those in Tahrir Square, as reported on Al Jazeera's site and in the excellent threads maintained on DU by L. Coyote and Catherina.)

Granted, the military's not as bad as the police and the pro-Mubarek hired thugs. But the military could easily have prevented the thugs from killing and injuring so many protesters yesterday -- as they military in fact DID do today -- and they stood by and did nothing.

Indeed, the military had frisked the anti-Mubarek protesters as they came into Tahrir, so they were largely unarmed, while yesterday they allowed the heavily, openly armed pro-Mubarek thugs to enter without objection; and that's what led to the worst of the violence.

Seriously, if you go back and read all the news posted on DU and Al Jazeera closely, I think you'll agree.

[tabatha]

8. I also heard

that military and the protesters were on the same side; that were were friendly towards each other.

Some of the stuff that they did not do, may have been because they were not prepared - i.e. you are assuming reasons that may not even be there.

That is why I hate conjecture.

Sometime people just make mistakes or are not efficient, especially in a frightening situation for which they had no preparation or forewarning.

[EFerrari]

10. No. It's not a "mistake" to carefully frisk everyone one day

so no weapons can go into the square and the next day to sit back and not take the same measures.

[tabatha]

12. Is that true?

[EFerrari]

14. Is what true? One day, the army very carefully screens hundreds of people

and the next day, they lay back, shrug and say they are neutral. Today, they were screening everyone again.

Now, there's probably a colossal wrestling match going on right now in the ranking officers' club because they know some kind of change has to be made. But, they are going to make sure it's a change that doesn't put them out of business and that will be hard to work out while these kids keep asking for some kind of basic rights and some kind of basic representative government.

[snappyturtle]

15. I just assumed if the the army was sent in to the square to protect the

protesters it must have had a plan. You sound as if the soldiers were flying by the seat of their pants. The soldiers had enough fore thought to bring smoke canisters or whatever produced the smoke, so they must have been aware that protection was needed.

Surely, under the control of a dictator the army was versed in crowd control and what to expect. I haven't listened to the link yet and wonder if the army is giving the protesters a false sense of security aimed at the protesters' best interest...for the present. I only know what I saw on live on tv. Hopefully, I am wrong and the protesters and army are aligned. and of course...imho

[defendandprotect]

38. Originally, I think the army was in the Square to protect real estate and Mubarak ....

and when instructions seemed to have been given to reign in and attack the protesters,

the soldiers wouldn't do it. Otherwise, this would have all been over very quickly.

At least that's my interpretation of what happened -- perhaps some others might give you

more info or better info?

[defendandprotect]

40. Obviously, there was some military betrayal at some point -- that's how the "thugs" got in

to attack the protesters on Wednesday --

Someone let them in --

[defendandprotect]

35. It's like saying our solders in VN or Iraq could just walk away .... leaders control this--!!

It's the heads of the military that instructs them -- they understand these soldiers

won't want to act against their countrymen -- they'll find a way around that --

but neither are these soldiers acting FOR their countrymen -- so far!

And that's where the human chain fails as it continues to obey authority, imo!

The Egyptian protesters have well understood this -- and have tried to make the soldiers

see what they are supporting. These are young men and probably very fearful of military

authority.

We need less military -- and less military authority -- and less military leaders in the world.

THEN we will all be safer!!



Obedience to authority -- be wary of it!

[EFerrari]

11. The army cannot be genuinely on the side of the protesters

because in order to exist, they depend upon the military's relationship with the Pentagon and so, being the real power in Egypt.

They are, though, respected by the people. So, it is to their benefit to present as paternal a front as possible with respect to the protesters. That way, Mubarak gets all the blame. That doesn't matter. When he's gone, the military still holds all the strings.

[defendandprotect]

39. Protesters have tried to get the military to act in human interests here ... big hurdle however....

when these young men could face military retribution if the wrong side wins!

Don't think these young men are thinking about the Pentagon -- they're young -- 18-20 --

and as I recall it, they disobeyed orders to attack these protesters originally/?

Isn't that the way it happened? People thought they checked with parents as to what to do?

They are going to be averse to attacking these people they identify with -- that's why the

military works so hard to create "aliens" and "them and us" situations -- and to make

attackers and the "enemy" almost anonymous/non-persons.

In this case, I think the Military leaders are going to find a way around this human

compassion which is in their way right now.

Had the original instructions been followed, this would have all been over on ... day 3/?



These young men if the military/Obama/CIA/Mubarak prevail will not be part of the "winners."

They will become part of the oppressed.

[readmoreoften]

20. No offense, but I'm going to go with what the professor at the Naval Postgraduate School is saying.

[PhillySane]

31. Listen and watch very carefully.

The military IS the power in Egypt and there is a very close tie between theirs and ours. They are playing a very delicate game right now. In the end it will come down to the military and the protesters. They have a big stake (the military) on many levels. And money is one of them. Maybe the most important one.

[defendandprotect]

41. Agree -- as far as military LEADERS go ... they have to however convince the troops ....

to attack their countrymen --

And that's why the military still struggles to train young men to kill --

but they get more sophisticated at it all the time. Now using videos to

create nameless/faceless enemies. Always easier to attack someone from a

plane -- you don't see them -- you don't hear the cries -- you're not in

jeopardy -- you don't smell the blood. You don't see yourself in them.



And, right there is the PARALLEL for our universal situation --

military = violence

military = obedience

As long as anyone obeys instructions to violence we will be in the

situation we are in now.

It was the problem during WWII, as well - and how we came to have the Holocaust

in Germany. Obedience!

[PhillySane]

42. Uh, yeah

but you know what? $$$$$$ goes a long way too.

[defendandprotect]

43. What are they paying these young soldiers? You're talking about the leaders

who are part of the MIC --

and those leaders connect with our own MIC -- which is a great part

of the oppression we are suffering here in America!

[PhillySane]

46. The army runs shopping malls and resorts there

converted military bases. Not quite the same as ours but-

I guess you're right. If the foot soldiers won't do it, if they actually desert. But then they face punishmnet, and oh yeah, have to find another job.

[bbgrunt]

7. a velvet glove to f you over--really, what else do you expect?

sometimes I think we really are drooling idiots to expect any other kind of outcome.

[stillwaiting]

25. I don't expect any other outcome. I'd love to be overwhelmingly happy and surprised though! nt

[snot]

16. Re- the relationship betw. the military and the protesters, you'll have to check

more than just the program linked to in the OP.

But there's tons of evidence out there -- read the AlJazeera blog posts and the threads by Catherina and L. Coyote.

The soldiers act when they have orders to do so. But there have been days, when they've clearly been ordered to do nothing; as a result a number of protesters have died and at least 1500 injured, while the military stood by and watched.

The pro-Mubarek forces have been allowed to enter the area openly carrying guns and firebombs -- but not today. That's why the day before there were so many injured, while today almost none.

[EFerrari]

21. Iirc, Ghost Dog showed me an OP by Springborg

that went into more depth in the last few days. Maybe on Tuesday.

Ha, here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x586188

[BeFree]

22. Exactly

The military controls the crowds. Two days ago they retreated and let the violent people move in. An ugly bloodbath ensued.

Yesterday they placed themselves between the violent and the peaceful. Peace reigned.

Who knows what they will do tomorrow. The army is not on any side, they are just puppets on a string of some higher up. The army guy showing up in the peace camp is part of a campaign. He may very well be the next president and take control of the strings - he may very well be trying to take control now - if he disappears soon, we'll know he was trying to do the right thing.

[chimpymustgo]

24. Who will control the strings? Is there any chance it will be these brave protesters?

[JDPriestly]

18. Dup

[guruoo]

23. Opinion. nt

[EFerrari]

30. History and so, experience. n/t

[Dappleganger]

32. If the military doesn't stay in power in the interim period, there's a good chance

of a radical Islamic group taking the reigns completely. It's hard to understand, but Egypt's military keeps their government secularized and this is important for their democratic struggle at this time.

[PhillySane]

34. Their military people

have a huge financial stake in this. It has nothing to do with religion OR politics.

[EFerrari]

37. Their MIC lurves ours. n/t

[EFerrari]

36. No, there's no real chance of that. That's hype. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

44. This sounds fictitious. "We pledged continuation of foreign assistance to the military."? Really?

Was he there during that conversation? Who did the pledging, and to whom?

This sounds like stuff this guy is just making up as he goes along. He's got his 15 minutes. Now it's time we turn our ears to the people who really know, and who matter.

But one point: The U.S. has leverage but is not in control of Egypt.

[bemildred]

45. Well, it's not really the "military", it's the current ruling elites.

Most of whom come from the military. But if the military as a whole could be relied on to shoot their fellow citizens, as opposed to their officers, it would have been done. So we are supporting the status quo, and it's a touchy business, because it is somewhat of a bluff.