Looking at the live pictures from Tahrir Square it seems that there are more people there than yesterday.

The army has build concrete block barricades into many access roads to the square. They may be intended to stop or at least hinder the big demonstration the opposition has announced for tomorrow. A pro-regime demonstration has also been announced though it is not clear yet if the plan is to have both demonstration meet and fight it out.

Mubarak promoted some additional hardliners to cabinet positions. He clearly does not want to give up.

The international community, aka the U.S. and EU, now have a new incentive to push Mubarak out. Brent oil just broke the 100$/barrel mark. Oil prices over $100 usually pushes the U.S. economy into a recession. Obama certainly does not want or need another one.

Insecurity about Egypt and the Suez Channel demands that the world pays a high risk premium – or change the situation.

From Wikileaks cables we know that the U.S. "Leahy vetted" what seems to be every officer in the Egyptian Army. We can thereby be sure that the Pentagon has quite intimate knowledge about and good connections with, not only to the very top officers of Mubarak's army, but also to the Colonel and One-Star General level.

Some phone calls made, some money transfer arranged and a coup scenario suddenly becomes a real possibility. Brent at $100 makes it a necessity.

Writing in Newsweek John Barry uses historical revisionism to let Hillary Clinton look good:

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself put it last month, in a speech in Doha that now seems uncannily prescient, Arab leaders would face growing unrest, extremism, and even rebellion unless they reformed “corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order.” It was the starkest warning ever delivered by a senior American official, and a message brought home a few days later when Tunisia erupted in revolt.

Clinton held her speech in Doha on January 13. The very same day Reuters wrote:

Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, facing the worst unrest of his rule, said on Thursday he would not run again when his term ends in 2014, prompting scenes of celebration in the streets of the capital.

Ben Ali, only the second head of state Tunisia has ever had and in office for over 23 years, set his departure date in an emotional televised speech made after weeks of deadly clashes between protesters and police.

The speech Clinton held did not show "uncannily prescient" remarkable foresight, as Barry wants to make his readers believe, but was a quite late reaction nearly a month after Tunisia started to erupted in revolt.

Such overt bootlicking may buy the author more access to Clinton and other officials, but it is a disservice to his readers.

Overnight some protester stayed in the Tharir square in Cairo. Some sources say there were 10,000 people, other say 200.

The government is putting up concrete barrier on several roads in Cairo.

The opposition has called for a big demonstration tomorrow. That might be too early for the big push that is needed. People need rest and have time to discuss the developments. But keeping up the momentum is certainly also important.

The counter-revolution strategy of creating chaos and uncertainty, by pulling the police off the street and letting thugs and goons free to loot, was somewhat effective. Police is slowly coming back to the streets and is reported to be greated friendly.

There is a middle class in Egypt that has things to loose and will prefer stability over political freedom. The 1.2 million security personal are also likely to prefer a continuation of the regime. But the upper class is reportedly busy transferring its money out of the country. That may be a sign that the regime is crumbling.

I do not expect any big development today and will not do a running live coverage today. But revolutions are inherently unpredictable. If something comes up, I'll update accordingly.

What are your estimates and expectations on how the situation in Egypt will develop?

Some scenes and thoughts from watching AlJazeera live and other sources. Newest entry on top.

End of day comment:

Revolutions take weeks, not days. We will likely see a violent crackdown in the next days, possibly tomorrow.

The U.S. closed its embassy. The U.S. and other countries are is still evacuating their nationals. They expect more strife.

They likely know that a major violent crackdown is coming. With the interior security forces coming back tonight/tomorrow, that is a real possibility. There were less people in the street today than yesterday. There will be less tomorrow, giving a chance for a crackdown. That would not be the end but a significant setback. Maybe that an expected rumored crackdown is also the reason why ElBaradei came out tonight – too early, unprepared and rushed.

ElBaradei seems to have been more on U.S. TV today than on Arabic TV. His strategy is to have the U.S abandon Mubarak. He is thinking too U.S. centric. U.S. endorsement will not come and even if it would, it would not be enough. (Thanks to r'giap a fitting translation of Hillary Clinton speaking: What They really Mean)

The people have to take Mubarak down. If ElBaradei really wants to part of that -he currently isn't- he has to be with the people. Not just in a five minute unheard speech in Tahrir, but leading a big march. Endorsement from the Jewish financed Brookings' Indyk and the Brookings expert from Doha who is on Al Jazeera English all day has likely zero to negative meaning on the street.

The opposition should call for big demonstration after next Friday's prayer and repeat such demonstrations every week until the regime falls.

Revolutions take weeks, not days.

—live blogging from today below in time reverse order—

One correspondent on phone says five trucks of interior security forces seen in one suburb neighborhood.

Reuters has some bits from ElBaradei:

"I bow to the people of Egypt in respect. I ask of you patience, change is coming in the next few days," he said.
"You have taken back your rights and what we have begun cannot go back," he said as crowds chanted "Down with Mubarak."
"We have one main demand — the end of the regime and the beginning of a new stage, a new Egypt."

[Question: Isn't an Indyk endorsement a kiss of death?]

Sultan Al Qassemi (journo from The National) tweets:

BBC Arabic: Martin Indyk former US Ambassador to Israel & Brookings VP says that it seems the US government is leaning to @ElBaradei

[Question: Is ElBaradei a U.S. supported selection?]

18:00 GMT – 20:00 Cairo

Cont. reading: Jan 30 – Live Coverage Of Protests In Egypt

Some scenes and thoughts from watching AlJazeera live and other sources. Newest entry on top.

End of day comment:

Mubarak, after taking advice from Washington, has today installed three high militaries – Suleiman as VP,  Anan as second VP, Shafik as Premier Minister – as his follow on triumvirate. All three are well known and loved in Washington and Tel Aviv. Mubarak sent his children and their families to London. It seems Washington told him to get ready to step down if needed and, if he has to step down, to hand his military dictatorship over to Washington's selected officers. Washington may then later find or not find a better solution. 

Meantime Mubarak is trying to create chaos and fear by first pulling all police, even traffic police, from the streets for over 24 hours and then sending some of them back in civil cloth to loot and do other bad things. Some people who called AJ to report about looting seem to have been stooges supporting that strategy.

After the big win against the regime on Friday and the peaceful big demonstrations today the people are unlikely to accept these machination. The protests will continue.

The military has decided not to act against the people. That could change later, though I find it unlikely after seeing the ways the people and soldiers colaborated today.

ElBaradei is now nicely positioning himself as an interim leader within some temporary national unity government. That would be a good solution in my view.

—live blogging from today below in time reverse order—

Alexandria – some neighborhoods report no tap water

AJ just repeated the swearing in ceremony of Suleiman. After reading his oath, Suleiman gave a military(!) salute to Mubarak (both were in civil outfit).

AJ reports – Officials say NOTHING has been stolen from the "looted" museum [another hint towards a government "looting" strategy] – things have just been put on the ground and two mummies are damaged

19:00 GMT – 21:00 Cairo

Cont. reading: Jan 29 – Live Coverage Of Protests In Egypt

Some scenes and thoughts from watching AlJazeera live. Newest entry on top.

Me signing off – this day was big and changed some important global policy issues. The era of "Egypt  (80 millions people) supports the Israeli ( 3-4 million Jews)  position" is over. Aside from that, some other ME regimes will go down soon. It is unpredictable what will follow them.

21:00 GMT (23:00 Cairo)

Live pictures show some big gun tanks- M60 variant – deploying – new level of violence? [doubt it for now]

[I agree – this is extrodinary and Mubarak can't get it back – additionally – this very excellent AJ coverage today will make sure this will spread to more countries in the ME and possibly beyond – all dictators in the ME (and some of our pseudo democrats elsewhere) have reason to shit their pants now -  how this will end? – inpredictable – an Islamic Muslim Brother regime is just as possible as some rudimentary social democracy – whatever the result may be, Israel and the U.S. have lost an "ally" (mercenary) today and will have to do some recalculations – yesterday they were concerned about Hizbullah M8 party issues in Lebanon – Egypt is a different, a much bigger caliber – what are they going to do when Jordan and the Saudi princes fall? (Not that I expect that yet(!), but one wonders)]

AJ studio has talk with some Arab professor – "I'd be astonished if Mubarak last another weak"

20:30 GMT (22:30 Cairo)

Cont. reading: AlJazeera Coverage Of Protests In Egypt

Demonstrations are planned in Egypt after today's Friday prayers. The Mubarak dictatorship has forbidden all protest so street battles are to be expected. Over night security forces arrested many of the protest and Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Former IAEA boss El Baradei has returned to Egypt and wants to take charge. Read his op-ed in Newsweek. I do not believe that he has yet the power he feels he has. He should watch out for a single bullet coming towards him.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, will have the decisive role in the demonstrations today and their likely brutal takedown. If the Brotherhood mobilizes its followers, as it has announced to do, the masses can overwhelm the security forces. Otherwise, … who knows?

Egypt is now mostly disconnected from the Internets just 15 minutes after AP published this video of a man getting shot by police forces. Send by someone in Cairo:

"The government can take away my freedom, but if they take away my internet porn, they're going down."

The U.S. has taken the side of Mubarak with Vice President Biden making unmistakeably clear that for Washington the interests of the Zionist is the most important issue:

“Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel,” the vice president said. “And I think that it would be – I would not refer to him as a dictator."

The Egyptian military has so far stayed neutral. If it would take sides against Mubarak he would be done with. The Egyptian chief of staff is currently in Washington on pre-planned annual meeting. In December some Wikileaks cable were made public that show some general U.S. misgivings about the Egyptian military. That might have set a not too bright background for any influence Washington now tries to take on it.

For background about the protests and how they evolved from the death of Khaled Said watch this Time video.

by Cynthia
lifted from a comment

President Obama mentioned in his State of the Union Address that we can educate our way back into prosperity. This is probably true if you assume that the more educated you are, the more money you make. But this assumption is wrong.

Making money in America has little to do with how well educated you are. It mostly has to do with how well connected you are, including how good you are at ripping people off and getting away with it. Do a quick background check on all the people that have struck it rich in our rent-seeking society and you’ll have little doubt that I am wrong on this.

I suppose that if we return to a time when our society placed more value on making productive things like cars and other industrial products than on making non-productive things like credit default swaps and other financial products, we’ll see more people striking it rich by being well educated and highly skilled at doing productive work rather than by being well connected and highly skilled at doing unproductive work, particularly unproductive work that’s geared towards ripping people off.

But I don’t see any of this happening until we face up to the fact that economic power is shifting to China not because our workers are less skilled and less educated than their Chinese counterparts, but because our well-connected, rip-off artists from the FIRE economy (i.e., Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) are better than their Chinese counterparts at turning their own country into a safe haven for rent-seeking parasites.

The U.S. military in Afghanistan wants the Afghan government to take over indefinite detentions of "suspected insurgents" it has captured in Afghanistan. To this purpose it is pressing the Afghan government to change the country's laws outside of the normal process.

The U.S. government had been reluctant to transfer more authority over detained insurgents to the Afghan government because of concern that many would be released if they were tried in criminal courts.

Now there is a real danger. Afghan courts could actually release people from jail when the legal process  finds that they have done nothing criminal. That can't let be.

Cont. reading: U.S. Wants Afghanistan To Copy Guantanamo

The Washington Post claims: As Arabs protest, Obama administration offers assertive support. I do not see much of real support there but for the usual empty words the Obama administration is now somewhat famous for.

Aside from that I need some help with this scaremongering paragraph:

Such an approach comes with a degree of risk in the region, where democratic reforms have often empowered well-organized Islamist movements at odds with U.S. objectives.

Which country in the Middle East, besides Iran, had "democratic reforms" which "empowered well-organized Islamist movements"?

I am not aware of even one. Any ideas which countries the writers where thinking of?

A bit later the authors claim:

Polls show U.S. popularity rising in many Arab countries since Obama took office and falling in a smaller number of others.

The latest Middle East poll by Brookings/Zogby, done in July 2010, found:

Early in the Obama administration, in April and May 2009, 51% of the respondents in the six countries expressed optimism about American policy in the Middle East. In the 2010 poll, only 16% were hopeful, while a majority – 63% – was discouraged.

The poll details (pdf) show "unfavorable" ratings for the U.S., mostly unchanged from 2008, at 85%. How is that a sign of "rising popularity"?

Further on:

So far, at least, the demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia have not featured anti-American rhetoric or been shaped by political Islam.

Hmm …

Tunis, January 26 2011

The whole piece reads like White House spin dictated by some "administration official" written down by some stenographers without any factchecking or sense for reality.

Doesn't democracy, and its promotion, necessitate a free press?

A Guardian reporter was picked up by the Egyptian police yesterday, but they didn't take away his dictaphone. The recordings make for a remarkable report: Egypt protests: 'We ran a gauntlet of officers beating us with sticks'

Palestine papers reveal MI6 drew up plan for crackdown on Hamas

A Palestinian journalist about the Palestine Papers and criticism of Palestinians from the outside: Who says there's no coordination? – Maan

Why is the Telegraph the only one to carry this story? Kyrgyzstan president accuses US fuel supplier of trying to corrupt her son

Hizbullah has only 12 seats in the Lebanese parliament, out of some 128. It's Christian allies have more. To somehow say that the recent change in the Lebanese government was Hizbullah's deed is a bit comical. The decicive votes for the democratic government change came from Jumblatt's "progressive" party.

A billionaire Sunni "March 14" prime minister, who is friends with the Syrians and Saudis and was backed by Hizbullah parliament and cabinet members, has been replaced by a billionaire Sunni "March 14" prime minister, who is friends with the Syrians and Saudis and is backed by Hizbullah parliament and cabinet members,.

mini-Hariri was incompetent, I don't know if Mikati is any better. Elias at Qifa Nabqi says he is.

mini-Hariri boosted that he made Mikati prime minister in 2005. Five years later Nasrallah can claim the same.

Some Sunni Salafists are rioting in the streets.

Did anything really change in Lebanon?

Not in my view.

That of course that doesn't keep pathetic militarist propaganda folks like Exum from claiming that this somehow gives Israel a right to now attack all of Lebanon.

No change there either.

I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law — international law in particular. Law in general.
If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Nov 13, 2007

Unlike Obama, she at least admits it. 

Jordan D'Amato is a research associate for the New America Foundation. He has a piece up at The Washington Note about President Hu visit to Washington:

[China] is the second biggest economy in the world, it has the fastest growing military, and it holds a huge share of the US national debt.

The fastest growing military?

Well, well, according to Janes Defense Weekly (found here and here, see also here) the growth of China's military is negative:

JDW 09-Oct-2009 *PLA cuts manpower to modernise capabilities: “China is preparing to accelerate the downsizing of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) by slashing its total force strength by up to 700,000 as the country strives to modernise its military capabilities. China’s armed forces consist of 2.185 million personnel, with the army accounting for 1.6 million of these. In September the PLA’s own news service reported that the army faced reductions to help fund increases in the air force, navy and the Second Artillery Force, which operates China’s … – 2009/10/09 00:00:00″

After his false assertion on China's military Mr. D'Amato continues:

However, when the United States is making policy, it needs to be based on facts, not feelings.

Indeed. And that is exactly why no one should ever ask Mr. D'Amato for any policy advice.

… to appoint Lebanon's next prime minister, effectively ending nearly six years of rule by Western-backed leaders and prompting the United States to warn it could cut off aid to this key Arab nation.
Hezbollah-backed candidate in line to become Lebanon's new prime minister

Migration, in short, works as a safety-valve that helps to forestall any prospect of major change in this key Arab nation.
Dreaming of Spain: migration and Morocco

Sunday's meeting between Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and President Bush at his Texas ranch serves as a reminder of America's deep involvement in this other key Arab nation.
How Has Egypt Spent $50 Billion in U.S. Aid?

It has been usual to explain the chaos and looting in Baghdad, the destruction of infrastructure, ministries, museums and the national library and archives, as caused by a failure of Rumsfeld's planning. But the evidence is this was at least in part a mask for the destruction of the collective memory and modern state of a key Arab nation
Shock, awe and Hobbes have backfired on America's neocons

The potential gains from the alliance are obvious. First and foremost, it would further isolate Iran and bring a key Arab nation under U.S. influence.
Playing the Syria Card

Last night America bowed to the Saudi reservations and announced it would do without Saudi air bases to launch any air attacks on Iraqi targets. The failure to win the support of such a key Arab nation came despite diplomatic missions by Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to bring it into line.
Saudi boycott shakes plan to strike Saddam

Until today I was convinced that the U.S. under Obama would not attack Iran. The move would be irrational as the consequences would be too severe. But today the Leverett's at their blog Race For Iran point to a conference in Washington D.C., organized by the mercenary company Executive Action LLC in support of the anti-Iranian marxist terror cult MEK.

Several speakers there argue for attacking Iran. One of them is Gen. James Jones, until recently National Security Adviser in the Obama administration. The way he explains the Obama administration policy towards Iran makes it clear that the intend and logic conclusion from this policy is indeed an all out military attack on Iran.

You can see Jones' seventeen minute long talk in this video starting at 1:15h.

In it Jones says all the same scary stuff that was said about Saddam Hussein before the war on Iraq. That war was, as again confirmed in the Palestine papers today, for the benefit of Israel:

Secretary Rice inserted, "At this time there is no threat from the east [to Israel] because our forces are in Iraq and will stay there for a long time." Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat added, "For a very, very long time."

Jones' in his talk is arguing that Iran could give a nuclear bomb to some terrorist organization. Exactly the same nonsense was said about Saddam's Iraq.

But just like Iraq, Iran does not have any nuclear weapons nor does it want any. Predictions that Iran will have a nuclear weapon "in three years" have been made about every year since at least 1984. All have been false and untrue just like today's predictions about Iran's "nuclear weapons program" are.

What Jones confirms is that the Obama administration's policy on Iran, like most other Obama policies, is simply a continuation of the Bush policy. There is no change at all and with regards to Iran the policy was and is directed to a military solution.

What might hold back the Obama administration is a recent series of events in the Middle East which all point to a harsh decline in U.S. standing there.

The people in Tunesia threw out their U.S. supported and Israel friendly dictator setting an important example. In Lebanon the opposition is interrupting the U.S. plans for the Special Tribunal to viably accuse Iran and Syria. The Palestine Papers expose the hollowness of the "peace process" and the Abbas regime. Muqtada Al-Sadr's support for the new Maliki government in Iraq means the U.S. military will have to leave. The unwillingness to support Karzai's peace talk attempts with the resistance in Afghanistan will pull the U.S. deeper into the maelstrom there.

Thinking rational it seems unlikely that with all these troubles, add in additional Wikileaks and the unsolved economic problems, Obama would think of starting another war. But tossing over the Middle East chess board plus inducing another patriotic wave for war may also be seen as the easiest short term way out of these problems.

After all, Obama does not stand for anything. He will do whatever gets him reelected. If he thinks what he needs is a war on Iran, and from Jones' talk it is obvious that war is indeed the plan, he will launch it.

The Palestine Papers – Aljazeerah
Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process – Guardian

Abbas and his goons gave away more than they can give away. That still wasn't enough for the Israeli Jews and their U.S. government advocates. They want it all – and even more. Including the dome which they want to tear down to build their third temple.

The publishing of these papers marks the end of the two state solution and the end of the Abbas and PLO regime. There will be more wars.

Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S. – Tony Karon

EU foreign policy across Arab world faces upheaval – Deutsche Welle

The Obama/Bush Foreign Policies: Why Can't America Change? – Seymour Hersh Doha speech transcript – part 1

I don't know how to describe Obama, as somebody who's now in office for two years. Just when we needed an angry black man, we didn't get one. He has a nice dog.

Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World – Nir Rosen in a talk about his book – video (1:15h) – recommended

Use as open thread …

Razing villages to save them is a war crime and the Afghans are rightly "extremly angry" about this. General Petraeus excuse, "the Taliban made me do it!", is not valid. It only shows that his campaign is failing. The combatant that can make the other side do something obviously still has the initiative.

In this BBC video we find evidence for additional war crimes being committed by the Marines in Sangin, Helmand. A Marine sniper is shooting at and killing an unarmed person because that same person had earlier be seen "talking on a radio". With no phones in Sangin district, there are good reasons for civilians to use radios. Talking into a radio does not prove any intend to harm anyone. As the BBC describes the scene:

Cont. reading: “What sin did the cow commit?”

The past September parliament elections in Afghanistan were fraudulent. The Independent Election Commission threw out one fourth of the votes and in a not-transparent way declared some 249 candidates as valid winners. In addition to the rampant and obvious fraud many Pashtuns in the south and east could not or would not vote at all.

The result is a very skewed political body with some districts, though mostly Sunni and Pashtun, only represented by Shia Hazara candidates or many not represented at all. The "western" occupation governments wanted to pamper over the problem and accepted and even lauded the results.

But Karzai could not accept them. He wants to make peace with the Taliban and prevent a new all out civil war. That demands a parliament which at least somewhat represents the Pashtun population, the biggest single group in Afghanistan, and supports his peace efforts. Instead he was now confronted with a future parliament with a non-Pashtun majority that would likely not agree to any compromise with the resistance.

In December Karzai, with the help of the Afghan Supreme Court (something U.S. media tend not to mention), created a Special Court to again look into the fraud issues. Two days ago and with the parliament ready to be inaugurated on Sunday, the Special Court requested another month of investigation time, asked to postpone the inauguration and even hinted towards new elections.

While the candidates who had "lost" where happy with this, the candidates that had "won" did not like these prospects. They threaten to inaugurate themselves anyway.

Unfortunately the "western" forces seem to support them:

"Enough is enough. What Karzai is doing is clearly illegal," a senior diplomat said.

Mr. Karzai decided Wednesday to postpone the inauguration by a month to give a special court, which he had created, more time to investigate election-fraud allegations.

The newly elected lawmakers argue that the court is unconstitutional, a view shared by Afghan election authorities and diplomats in the U.S.-led coalition.

(Please notice that the Wall Street Journal and the "senior diplomat" do not mention the Supreme Court which has even named the judges for the Special Court. Do legal opinions of foreign diplomats have a higher standing than those of the Afghan Supreme Court judges?)

Several Western envoys, including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura, have indicated they planned to attend the inauguration, diplomats involved in the meeting in Kabul Thursday said. Doing so would recognize the new parliament and be a blow to Mr. Karzai.

"This is a litmus test for the international community," one ambassador said. "Karzai believes he can freely do what he wants, but Sunday will be a wakeup call."

Actually the "international community" failed the litmus test when it agreed to the fraudulent election results.

But I agree with the "wakeup call" designation.

Seating a parliament that in no way represents major parts of the population will be the wakeup call for many more people to join the resistance against the illegal government. The candidates who "lost", with some quite powerful folks beyond them, will certainly seek revenge for their loss of honor. Having lost his face Karzai may well step down and go into exile. Forget any move towards peace.

That will of course suit Petraeus and others who want to prolong the war as much as possible.