egyptian president sacks the military chief

[bud]

On the whole, I tend to think that the second is the case. Still, it is not clear how this will evolve: The appearance of power can turn into the reality of power. Despite any sub rosa agreements between the military and Morsi, how these might play out in a year or two as the public increasingly perceives Morsi as being in charge -- limiting the military's options and cementing Morsi's power -- is unknown. In the same sense, Morsi has been supportive of security measures taken by the military against militant Islamists, as was seen in the past week's operations in the Sinai Peninsula.

while that is quite possible, we should not forget an important step that was taken besides removing tantawi and several generals, which is that morsi also canceled constitutional amendments issued by the military restricting the president and parliament.

[j44]

while that is quite possible, we should not forget an important step that was taken besides removing tantawi and several generals, which is that morsi also canceled constitutional amendments issued by the military restricting the president and parliament.

I think I may be missing your point.

[bud]

I think I may be missing your point.

he canceled the constitutional amendment imposed by the military which limited the power of the president and parliament. that's a big step towards the right direction and in theory, giving power back to the people. i'm sure there were some deals in the back rooms, but this move gives power back to the people.

[j44]

he canceled the constitutional amendment imposed by the military which limited the power of the president and parliament. that's a big step towards the right direction and in theory, giving power back to the people. i'm sure there were some deals in the back rooms, but this move gives power back to the people.

I think what the author's opinion is that this is exactly the impression that these moves were meant to give.

But like you said we have no idea. I just thought it was an interesting theory.

It should also be noted that since the Sinai attacks on Egypt's forces Morsi has sent troops into Sinai in violation of the agreement with Israel. Under the agreement Israel must give its permission for Morsi to move those troops there. Israel may have given the wink and the nod in a secret agreement but they may not have and these domestic moves by Morsi could be a way to shore up support so he could act militarily.

Edited August 16, 2012 by j44

[TheNewTeddy]

I've heard that on a number of recent occasions Israeli troops have crossed the border to get at troublesome elements without a peep, officially, from Egypt. I think the "wink and nod" theory makes sense and that both sides are committed on this - which again from where I stand backs up my point, as the way I see it, Morsi is working closer with Israel than the former government.

[dre]

Into another Iran, most likely. That does seem to be what the Muslim Brotherhood wants.

Actually they have consistantly pushed for democratic rule for about the last 30 years.

[j44]

Actually they have consistantly pushed for democratic rule for about the last 30 years.

We will see if they pursue that while in power or try to hold on as long as possible.

I do think that they are more moderate than they are often portrayed. At least I think Morsi and those at the top are/will be. However, moderates can be dictatorial and power hungry too.

Edited August 24, 2012 by j44

[bleeding heart]

We will see if they pursue that while in power or try to hold on as long as possible.

I do think that they are more moderate than they are often portrayed. At least I think Morsi and those at the top are/will be. However, moderates can be dictatorial and power hungry too.

Yes, quite true.

Part of it no doubt depends on what we mean by "moderate." When it comes to leaders in other countries, the term usually is defined by how friendly said leader is to the West; it's a political designation, not a behavioural one.

Saddam Hussein, for example, was a "moderate," as was General Suharto.

Hussein became a lunatic when he fell out of favour; it of course had precisely zero to do with the way he governed Iraq, or the crimes he committed.

As for what we might gnerally agree upon as actual, true "moderates," though, no doubt your point still holds true.

[j44]

Yes, quite true.

Part of it no doubt depends on what we mean by "moderate." When it comes to leaders in other countries, the term usually is defined by how friendly said leader is to the West; it's a political designation, not a behavioural one.

Saddam Hussein, for example, was a "moderate," as was General Suharto.

Hussein became a lunatic when he fell out of favour; it of course had precisely zero to do with the way he governed Iraq, or the crimes he committed.

As for what we might gnerally agree upon as actual, true "moderates," though, no doubt your point still holds true.

I kind of see your point but I disagree a little.

While our leaders say a foreign leader is moderate I don't think they all believe that.

I believe anyone who knew Saddam's actions would not call him a moderate. Unless of course a US President needed to justify a close relationship with a leader to the American people. I don't know if he ever used the term moderate but I'm sure Reagan didn't think Saddam was one.

I do believe Morsi is a moderate with regard to Egyptian politics. I don't think he is overly ideological, doesn't hate Jews and is probably reasonable in day to day political discussion with advisers.

[jbg]

Actually they have consistantly pushed for democratic rule for about the last 30 years.

Democratic in which sense?:

1. One man, one vote, one time;
   
2. Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner; or
   
3. Both
   

[bleeding heart]

I kind of see your point but I disagree a little.

While our leaders say a foreign leader is moderate I don't think they all believe that.

I believe anyone who knew Saddam's actions would not call him a moderate. Unless of course a US President needed to justify a close relationship with a leader to the American people. I don't know if he ever used the term moderate but I'm sure Reagan didn't think Saddam was one.

I do believe Morsi is a moderate with regard to Egyptian politics. I don't think he is overly ideological, doesn't hate Jews and is probably reasonable in day to day political discussion with advisers.

Yes, I pretty much agree with all this; my point was something of a distraction from your own.

No, I don't think anyone really considered Hussein a "moderate."

But whatever Reagan personally thought, he certainly had no qualms about saying such things; I can't speak directly to his use of the word "moderate"...but he went far worse, publically calling the terrorist Contras "freedom fighters"; even though the contemporary "Islamic head-choppers," to say nothing of the Taliban, were arguably not quite as brutal as were these lovely allies, most famous perhaps for rapes and torture-murders.

Edited August 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[j44]

Yes, I pretty much agree with all this; my point was something of a distraction from your own.

No, I don't think anyone really considered Hussein a "moderate."

But whatever Reagan personally thought, he certainly had no qualms about saying such things; I can't speak directly to his use of the word "moderate"...but he went far worse, publically calling the terrorist Contras "freedom fighters"; even though the contemporary "Islamic head-choppers," to say nothing of the Taliban, were arguably not quite as brutal as were these lovely allies, most famous perhaps for rapes and torture-murders.

Agreed. I generally think that if you have to blatantly lie in such a way about 'allies' your policy of supporting them is in trouble from the start.

[bleeding heart]

Agreed. I generally think that if you have to blatantly lie in such a way about 'allies' your policy of supporting them is in trouble from the start.

Seriously. And I'm not denouncing nations, including our own, because we "work with" dictators. Dictators are a fact of life, and can't always be ignored (nor, of course, their countries violently attacked; this method seems more often a failure than an answer, though some people might dispute that).

Vicious terrorist groups is another matter, in my opinion.

But either way, if glowing accolades are heaped upon monsters, in a manner that obfuscates the reality...I think it plainly begs the question: Why?

Edited August 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bud]

a wonderful article that looks at morsi's game plan and how he out-manoeuvred the establishment and came out of nowhere to push aside the power of the military in favour of his own as the elected president:

For the first month of his presidency, Morsi treated the military institutions and SCAF leaders not only with extraordinary respect but even with reverence as he sought to earn their trust. Many assumed that he had accepted SCAF’s constitutional proclamation that relegated him to a secondary role. Many foreign dignitaries visiting Egypt, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made a point in meeting not only with Morsi but also with Tantawi. While in the country even her brief statements were awkward as she counseled the president and SCAF’s head to work together as though the country had two functioning heads of state.

But what everyone failed to see was that during this period Morsi was studying the power relationships within SCAF and the other security agencies. He was able during this brief period to identify those military and security leaders whose loyalty were to Tantawi and his chief-of-staff Gen. Sami Anan. In short, he was waiting for the right moment to make his move with minimal confrontation. Luckily for him that opportunity came soon enough.

more

Edited August 27, 2012 by bud