Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

February 10, 2011
Crazy Talk by Ahmed Aboul Gheit

The Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit lives in an Orwellian world:

"When you have a president who is stepping down, you have one of two possibilities. The demonstrators and the opposition insisting that they compose a government unconstitutional. And then maybe the armed forces would feel compelled to intervene in a more drastic manner," he said. "Do we want the armed forces to assume the responsibility of stabilising the nation through imposing martial law, and army in the streets? The army is in defence of the borders of the country and the national security of the state. But for the army to rule, to step in, to put its friends on the scene, that would be a very dangerous possibility."

When I checked this about 2 minutes ago:

  • Egypt was under an emergency law that is equal to a martial law
  • The army was in the streets all over Cairo and other cities
  • The whole government leadership was made up of army "friends", they are generals.

But I agree with Ahmed Aboul Gheit that having an emergency law, the army in the streets and generals as government leaders is indeed very dangerous and it should end.

I take today's rainbow over Tahrir Square, caught by Abul Einein, as a sign for that to happen.


huge version

Posted by b on February 10, 2011 at 14:23 UTC | Permalink
Comments

I think he is talking about friends outside the country. When they say Martial Law, they are talking about mowing people down indiscriminately. The next level.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 14:31 utc | 1

Abu’l Gheit is not the one to make such a threat. He’s a career diplomat. Nothing wrong with that but he is in no position to give orders to the army.
Once again, if they could have given orders to shoot, they would have done it before now.

Posted by: Lysander | Feb 10 2011 14:47 utc | 2

Not a surprise, but it is validation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8314459/WikiLeaks-Suleiman-told-Israel-he-would-cleanse-Sinai-of-arms-runners-to-Gaza.html

Omar Suleiman, the new vice-president of Egypt, told the Israelis he wanted to start “cleansing the Sinai” of Palestinian arms smugglers, according to leaked cables.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 15:03 utc | 3

I forgot to add, that if Israel doesn’t get their man, they will move in and occupy the Sinai.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 15:04 utc | 4

Once again, if they could have given orders to shoot, they would have done it before now.
I’m not so sure about that. An Egyptian woman residing in Egypt had this to say on another forum. Her take resonates.

RE: the army. The army’s role here is very ambivalent. On the one hand, it is, as many people have noted, a conscription army and every Egyptian has a relative in the armed forces including, obviously, the millions who are demanding the fall of the Mubarak regime, also including those who have been murdered or tortured or otherwise abused at the hands of the regime. Furthermore, the officer class has suffered an enormous loss of prestige and economic power under this regime, which privileged the Ministry of Interior’s internal “security” forces at the expense of the army. At the same time, the regime has deliberately cultivated corruption among the army’s top levels and advancement within its ranks has been contingent upon loyalty to Mubarak.
So you have a “people’s army” led by corrupt regime toadies, leading to the kind of ambiguity and stand-off that we see on the ground. On the one hand, even though he is officially the commander in chief of the armed forces, Mubarak knows he can’t order the army to attack the people, because this would create a serious risk of mutiny or a coup against the top brass. On the other, the people are aware that while the army’s rank and file may sympathize with their objectives, those who give the orders are firmly with the regime. So we’ve got this weird situation where the army is collaborating with the regime but not openly and there are clear limits beyond which the army will face an ultimatum: to side with the regime or with the people. The regime has played every card it holds except this one, for a very good reason: it may very well be the final straw.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 15:22 utc | 5

Military and other Egyptian officials: “Mubarak will fulfill protesters demand” – could be Mubarak stepping down.
The “West” will play this as “all is good now” and wonder and blame the protesters when they go on. The target of the protester was always the regime, not only Mubarak.
@M Bama – agree on Sinai – the Israelis want it “back”.

Posted by: b | Feb 10 2011 15:24 utc | 6

Juts now:
“Supreme Council of Armored Forces” announcement No.1:
Basically “we convened and discussed safeguarding the interest and assets of the people and decided to further convene on a regular basis”
What does that mean?
Did that “Supreme Council” ever exist before or is it now new? The “Announcement No.1” seems to mean it is new.
Footage of the meeting does not show Mubarak and Suleiman. Another coup within a coup?

Posted by: b | Feb 10 2011 15:32 utc | 7

Would Israel violate the camp David Treat itself? I guess to ask the question is to answer it. For Israel it would be a catastrophic mistake. For Egypt, better to loose the Sinai than the whole country.
And it would clarify things immensely to any Arabs still in the ‘peace’ camp.

Posted by: Lysander | Feb 10 2011 15:34 utc | 8

Sheesh, a coup within a coup within a coup. It’s like the nine circles of hell from Dante’s Inferno.
Or, it’s like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwh0S1K5hx0&feature=related
but instead, how many coups does it take to get to the center of a torturer’s paradise? The world may never know.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 15:38 utc | 9

@Lysander – the critical strategic value is not the Sinai itself, but the channel – it would likely be closed and that would hurt Egypt pretty hard.

Posted by: b | Feb 10 2011 15:38 utc | 10

Lysander, I’m thinking ahead, if the Rebellion/Revolution succeeds and Israel has no one in Egypt to do its bidding. I can certainly see Israel considering any such manifestation as hostile and taking action, accordingly. I do believe Israel would break the Peace Treaty in a heart beat in such an event. Israel is that paranoid and defensive.
Of course, that’s down the road. There will be many iterations of attempted sabotage of this Rebellion/Revolution prior to, including the final straw card mentioned above.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 15:48 utc | 11

b @ 6, spot on, that is exactly how the West and its media whores are going to play this. They are going to attempt to make the “protesters” look irrational, unreasonable and beyond reproach. A set-up, perhaps, as a rationalization for a stepped-up crack down Tiananmen Square style. The West will put on its public frowny face, issue a condemnation for posterity’s sake, all the while green-lighting Suleiman to do what he has to do.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 16:00 utc | 12

I wonder if the Israelis really have stomach for another occupation. They should have learned something in Lebanon, more than once. They may invade, but it will be out of desperation, not due to will of conquest. This won’t be like in the 60s. Even their army isn’t like in the 60s. To control the channel they will need very long supply lines and to hold on the cities. Sure they can overrun the Egyptian army with air supremacy, but that’s just the starter. How sustainable is armed opposition in such sparsely populated area? Is the terrain rugged or plain? Nevermind the international uproar. The UNSC will never accept it, US will veto but Russia, China and Iran could feel they have completely free hand on them controlling such choke point. The only thing that could sustain Israel in the channel is active US army support.

Posted by: ThePaper | Feb 10 2011 16:03 utc | 13

It’s not just that Israel is paranoid and defensive, it’s also a structural problem. Israel is essentially run by a military junta. Virtually every PM in their history was an ex-general. It’s not uncommon for the military to give the PM a last minute notice that they are going to war. The civilian side of the government doesn’t have any say in the matter. And along with this is the corruption that is standard with military juntas. The Israeli military industrial complex is a big cash cow for their politicians.
Essentially, almost everything you read about Mubarak’s government can be applied to Israel.

Posted by: Tom | Feb 10 2011 16:04 utc | 14

All the media is now full of ‘rumors’ about Mubarak stepping down tonight. Sounds more like the regime is staging a fake coup with Suleiman, the democrat, replacing Mubarak than a coup from a new section inside the army or a real pro-democracy coup. And looks promoted from the US. Just dropping Mubarak and nothing else.

Posted by: ThePaper | Feb 10 2011 16:15 utc | 15

Someone is filtering loads and loads of ‘rumors’ to the international media by the second right now. And I doubt it’s from Egypt sources. Looks like staged from the US. Here is CIA’s take:

4.13pm: This is the quote from Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA:
There’s a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening, which would be significant in terms of where the, hopefully, orderly transition in Egypt takes place.

Posted by: ThePaper | Feb 10 2011 16:21 utc | 16

Tom @14, agreed.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Feb 10 2011 16:40 utc | 17

ThePaper,
All the media is now full of ‘rumors’ about Mubarak stepping down tonight. Sounds more like the regime is staging a fake coup with Suleiman, the democrat, replacing Mubarak than a coup from a new section inside the army or a real pro-democracy coup. And looks promoted from the US. Just dropping Mubarak and nothing else.
Spot on.
The new fallback: As Mubarak is the face of the regime they hope that by jettisoning him they can claim they have given the opposition what it wants and then demand the protesters all go home so the country can get ‘back to business’.
Combined with a peremptory smear campaign that paints any lower level generals who might thinking of siding with the protesters as traitorous ‘coup plotters’, you got the makings of a scheme to keep the old regime in place simply with a new man at the helm.
It’s a fairly weak hand at this point, especially considering Suleiman isn’t exactly a fresh face, but it’s the only one they’ve got so they play it.

Posted by: Night Owl | Feb 10 2011 16:59 utc | 18

Back to Main