Originally Posted by FredFredson

After the party comes the clean-up. Hundreds of young people are at work in Tahrir Square and on the surrounding streets and bridges. All litter has been removed and the ground swept clear. The air smells of detergent. Some volunteers carry signs that read: "Sorry for the disturbance. We build Egypt." Outside the Omar Makram mosque at the side of the square, burnt-out vehicles, a reminder of some of the chaos and violence of the past two weeks, are now being towed away. Paving stones torn up during riots are being relaid and razor wire is being removed. All of this activity marks the beginning of a return to normal life in the busy city centre but it also has symbolic importance. A young teacher, Alia, tells me: "It's time to prove to the whole world this revolution is not about just removing the regime. It's about making a new country from the pavement upwards." Men and women with brooms and spades have been clearing away debris from the streets, including the rocks and other makeshift missiles used in last week's fighting between pro- and anti-government supporters. "We want to show we are proud of our country," a student, Nora, told the BBC. "Nobody is being lazy, we are working and cleaning up this mess."

The Egyptian people proved themselves as incredibly civilized!

13 February 2011 Last updated at 10:43 ET

Egyptian military dissolves parliament


BBC News - Egyptian military dissolves parliament

The dissolution of parliament was made on state television

Egypt's new military authorities say they are dissolving parliament and suspending the constitution.

In a statement on state TV, the higher military council said it would stay in power six months, or until elections.

Egypt's current parliament is dominated by supporters of President Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted on Friday after 18 days of mass protests.

Earlier there were scuffles in Cairo's Tahrir Square as protesters thwarted army efforts to remove them.

The military police chief has called for tents to be cleared from the area, the focal point of the uprising that led to Mr Mubarak's departure.

The BBC's Wyre Davis in Cairo says the situation on the square has become a good-natured standoff, but protesters have vowed to stay night after night.

A statement was read out on state TV on Sunday from the higher military council, saying it would suspend the constitution and set up a committee to draft a new one, before submitting it to a popular referendum.

'Victory for revolution'

The current constitution has prevented many parties and groups from standing in elections, leaving Egypt with a parliament packed with supporters of the National Democratic Party, loyal to Mr Mubarak.

Our correspondent says the new announcement means elections could be held in July or August, instead of in September as planned.

Antiquities looted

"Our internal economic position is solid and cohesive," he said.
Soldier with opposition supporter in Tahrir Square - photo 13 February Troops have been trying to clear Tahrir Square

He also pledged to "return rights to the people and fight corruption".

Tempers frayed on Sunday morning as protesters realised hundreds of policeman - who had become hugely unpopular for their violent attempts to suppress the uprising - had entered the square.

For a few minutes there was a tense stand-off as the two sides confronted each other, before the police march peeled away and left the square.

Although there were reports of scuffles between soldiers and die-hard protesters in the square on Sunday morning, our correspondent said the operation to clear the area had previously been conducted gently.

A hardcore of several hundred protesters had remained marooned on a traffic island in the heart of the square, saying they would not move until a full timetable of reform was drawn up.

Throughout the weekend, an army of volunteers and municipal workers has cleared away debris from the streets.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that 18 antiquities - including statues of King Tutankhamun - have been stolen from the Egyptian Museum during the unrest.

Assets freeze

Earlier, Mr Obama welcomed the new military leadership's statement aired on state TV on Saturday, which implicitly confirms that the country's 1979 peace treaty with Israel will remain intact.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu also welcomed the announcement, saying the treaty was a cornerstone of Middle East stability.


Military statement

* Constitution suspended
* Council to hold power for six months or until elections
* Both houses of parliament dissolved
* Council to issue laws during interim period
* Committee set up to reform constitution and set rules for referendum
* Caretaker PM Ahmed Shafiq's cabinet to continue work until new cabinet formed
* Council to hold presidential and parliamentary elections
* All international treaties to be honoured

The demonstrations were triggered by widespread unrest over unemployment, poverty and corruption.

Meanwhile, the authorities imposed travel bans on three senior officials close to Mr Mubarak.

They said former Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, former Interior Minister Habib al-Adli and current Information Minister Anas al-Fekky were under investigation.

Mr Mubarak resigned on Friday after 18 days of protests, and was flown to his luxury residence in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Mr Shafiq said on Sunday that the former president was still in the resort, despite rumours that he had fled the country.

UK Business Secretary Vince Cable has urged international co-operation to track down any illegal assets held by Mr Mubarak.

Switzerland has announced a freeze on any assets held by the former president, and the UK government is under pressure to do the same.

Analysis

This sweeping announcement was made on state television less than 48 hours after the departure of President Mubarak.

The constitution is being suspended, a committee is being set up to redraft it, and parliament has been dissolved.

In some ways this was expected. The military are already disregarding the constitution - there is no president at the moment, for example. The opposition will almost certainly welcome the dissolution of parliament - it was elected in a vote last autumn that was widely condemned as rigged.

But the opposition will want to know who will be on the commission to amend the constitution. And they will be uneasy about the announcement that the military will be in charge for the next six months.

By making another important statement and providing more details of how the future state will look, he adds, the military should satisfy protesters still sceptical about the pace of change.

The opposition's Ayman Nour, who challenged Mr Mubarak for the presidency in 2005, described the military leadership's steps as a "victory for the revolution", Reuters news agency reported.

Meanwhile, caretaker Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq said his main priority was to restore the country's security.

Speaking earlier at a news conference, he said: "Our main concern now as a cabinet is security - we need to bring back a sense of security to the Egyptian citizen.

"Parallel to that we also want to ensure that the daily life of all Egyptians goes back to normal and that basic needs like bread and healthcare are available."

He said that the country had enough reserves to weather the economic crisis, but that if instability continued there could be "obstacles".

__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

For once, I feel Stratfor's explanation is right on the button...


"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"
By George Friedman

On Feb. 11, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned. A military council was named to govern in his place. On Feb. 11-12, the crowds that had gathered in Tahrir Square celebrated Mubarak’s fall and the triumph of democracy in Egypt. On Feb. 13, the military council abolished the constitution and dissolved parliament, promising a new constitution to be ratified by a referendum and stating that the military would rule for six months, or until the military decides it’s ready to hold parliamentary and presidential elections.

What we see is that while Mubarak is gone, the military regime in which he served has dramatically increased its power. This isn’t incompatible with democratic reform. Organizing elections, political parties and candidates is not something that can be done quickly. If the military is sincere in its intentions, it will have to do these things. The problem is that if the military is insincere it will do exactly the same things. Six months is a long time, passions can subside and promises can be forgotten.

At this point, we simply don’t know what will happen. We do know what has happened. Mubarak is out of office, the military regime remains intact and it is stronger than ever. This is not surprising, given what STRATFOR has said about recent events in Egypt, but the reality of what has happened in the last 72 hours and the interpretation that much of the world has placed on it are startlingly different. Power rests with the regime, not with the crowds. In our view, the crowds never had nearly as much power as many have claimed.

Certainly, there was a large crowd concentrated in a square in Cairo, and there were demonstrations in other cities. But the crowd was limited. It never got to be more than 300,000 people or so in Tahrir Square, and while that’s a lot of people, it is nothing like the crowds that turned out during the 1989 risings in Eastern Europe or the 1979 revolution in Iran. Those were massive social convulsions in which millions came out onto the streets. The crowd in Cairo never swelled to the point that it involved a substantial portion of the city.

In a genuine revolution, the police and military cannot contain the crowds. In Egypt, the military chose not to confront the demonstrators, not because the military itself was split, but because it agreed with the demonstrators’ core demand: getting rid of Mubarak. And since the military was the essence of the Egyptian regime, it is odd to consider this a revolution.


Mubarak and the Regime

The crowd in Cairo, as telegenic as it was, was the backdrop to the drama, not the main feature. The main drama began months ago when it became apparent that Mubarak intended to make his reform-minded 47-year-old son, Gamal, lacking in military service, president of Egypt. This represented a direct challenge to the regime. In a way, Mubarak was the one trying to overthrow the regime.

The Egyptian regime was founded in a coup led by Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser and modeled after that of Kemal Ataturk of Turkey, basing it on the military. It was intended to be a secular regime with democratic elements, but it would be guaranteed and ultimately controlled by the military. Nasser believed that the military was the most modern and progressive element of Egyptian society and that it had to be given the responsibility and power to modernize Egypt.

While Nasser took off his uniform, the military remained the bulwark of the regime. Each successive president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, while formally elected in elections of varying dubiousness, was an officer in the Egyptian military who had removed his uniform when he entered political life.

Mubarak’s decision to name his son represented a direct challenge to the Egyptian regime. Gamal Mubarak was not a career military officer, nor was he linked to the military’s high command, which had been the real power in the regime. Mubarak’s desire to have his son succeed him appalled and enraged the Egyptian military, the defender of the regime. If he were to be appointed, then the military regime would be replaced by, in essence, a hereditary monarchy — what had ruled Egypt before the military. Large segments of the military had been maneuvering to block Mubarak’s ambitions and, with increasing intensity, wanted to see Mubarak step down in order to pave the way for an orderly succession using the elections scheduled for September, elections designed to affirm the regime by selecting a figure acceptable to the senior military men. Mubarak’s insistence on Gamal and his unwillingness to step down created a crisis for the regime. The military feared the regime could not survive Mubarak’s ambitions.

This is the key point to understand. There is a critical distinction between the regime and Hosni Mubarak. The regime consisted — and consists — of complex institutions centered on the military but also including the civilian bureaucracy controlled by the military. Hosni Mubarak was the leader of the regime, successor to Nasser and Sadat, who over time came to distinguish his interests from those of the regime. He was increasingly seen as a threat to the regime, and the regime turned on him.

The demonstrators never called for the downfall of the regime. They demanded that Mubarak step aside. This was the same demand that was being made by many if not most officers in the military months before the crowds gathered in the streets. The military did not like the spectacle of the crowds, which is not the way the military likes to handle political matters. At the same time, paradoxically, the military welcomed the demonstrations, since they created a crisis that put the question of Mubarak’s future on the table. They gave the military an opportunity to save the regime and preserve its own interests.

The Egyptian military is opaque. It isn’t clear who was reluctant to act and who was eager. We would guess that the people who now make up the ruling military council were reluctant to act. They were of the same generation as Hosni Mubarak, owed their careers to him and were his friends. Younger officers, who had joined the military after 1973 and had trained with the Americans rather than the Soviets, were the likely agitators for blocking Mubarak’s selection of Gamal as his heir, but there were also senior officers publicly expressing reservations. Who was on what side is a guess. What is known is that many in the military opposed Gamal, would not push the issue to a coup, and then staged a coup designed to save the regime after the demonstrations in Cairo were under way.

That is the point. What happened was not a revolution. The demonstrators never brought down Mubarak, let alone the regime. What happened was a military coup that used the cover of protests to force Mubarak out of office in order to preserve the regime. When it became clear Feb. 10 that Mubarak would not voluntarily step down, the military staged what amounted to a coup to force his resignation. Once he was forced out of office, the military took over the existing regime by creating a military council and taking control of critical ministries. The regime was always centered on the military. What happened on Feb. 11 was that the military took direct control.

Again, as a guess, the older officers, friends of Mubarak, found themselves under pressure from other officers and the United States to act. They finally did, taking the major positions for themselves. The demonstrations were the backdrop for this drama and the justification for the military’s actions, but they were not a revolution in the streets. It was a military coup designed to preserve a military-dominated regime. And that was what the crowds were demanding as well.


Coup and Revolution

We now face the question of whether the coup will turn into a revolution. The demonstrators demanded — and the military has agreed to hold — genuinely democratic elections and to stop repression. It is not clear that the new leaders mean what they have said or were simply saying it to get the crowds to go home. But there are deeper problems in the democratization of Egypt. First, Mubarak’s repression had wrecked civil society. The formation of coherent political parties able to find and run candidates will take a while. Second, the military is deeply enmeshed in running the country. Backing them out of that position, with the best will in the world, will require time. The military bought time Feb. 13, but it is not clear that six months is enough time, and it is not clear that, in the end, the military will want to leave the position it has held for more than half a century.

Of course, there is the feeling, as there was in 2009 with the Tehran demonstrations, that something unheard of has taken place, as U.S. President Barack Obama has implied. It is said to have something to do with Twitter and Facebook. We should recall that, in our time, genuine revolutions that destroyed regimes took place in 1989 and 1979, the latter even before there were PCs. Indeed, such revolutions go back to the 18th century. None of them required smartphones, and all of them were more thorough and profound than what has happened in Egypt so far. This revolution will not be “Twitterized.” The largest number of protesters arrived in Tahrir Square after the Internet was completely shut down.

The new government has promised to honor all foreign commitments, which obviously include the most controversial one in Egypt, the treaty with Israel. During the celebrations the evening of Feb. 11 and morning of Feb. 12, the two chants were about democracy and Palestine. While the regime committed itself to maintaining the treaty with Israel, the crowds in the square seemed to have other thoughts, not yet clearly defined. But then, it is not clear that the demonstrators in the square represent the wishes of 80 million Egyptians. For all the chatter about the Egyptian people demanding democracy, the fact is that hardly anyone participated in the demonstrations, relative to the number of Egyptians there are, and no one really knows how the Egyptian people would vote on this issue.

The Egyptian government is hardly in a position to confront Israel, even if it wanted to. The Egyptian army has mostly American equipment and cannot function if the Americans don’t provide spare parts or contractors to maintain that equipment. There is no Soviet Union vying to replace the United States today. Re-equipping and training a military the size of Egypt’s is measured in decades, not weeks. Egypt is not going to war any time soon. But then the new rulers have declared that all prior treaties — such as with Israel — will remain in effect.


What Was Achieved?

Therefore, we face this reality. The Egyptian regime is still there, still controlled by old generals. They are committed to the same foreign policy as the man they forced out of office. They have promised democracy, but it is not clear that they mean it. If they mean it, it is not clear how they would do it, certainly not in a timeframe of a few months. Indeed, this means that the crowds may re-emerge demanding more rapid democratization, depending on who organized the crowds in the first place and what their intentions are now.

It is not that nothing happened in Egypt, and it is not that it isn’t important. It is simply that what happened was not what the media portrayed but a much more complex process, most of it not viewable on TV. Certainly, there was nothing unprecedented in what was achieved or how it was achieved. It is not even clear what was achieved. Nor is it clear that anything that has happened changes Egyptian foreign or domestic policy. It is not even clear that those policies could be changed in practical terms regardless of intent.

The week began with an old soldier running Egypt. It ended with different old soldiers running Egypt with even more formal power than Mubarak had. This has caused worldwide shock and awe. We were killjoys in 2009, when we said the Iranians revolution wasn’t going anywhere. We do not want to be killjoys now, since everyone is so excited and happy. But we should point out that, in spite of the crowds, nothing much has really happened yet in Egypt. It doesn’t mean that it won’t, but it hasn’t yet.

An 82-year-old man has been thrown out of office, and his son will not be president. The constitution and parliament are gone and a military junta is in charge. The rest is speculation.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

In a genuine revolution, the police and military cannot contain the crowds. In Egypt, the military chose not to confront the demonstrators, not because the military itself was split, but because it agreed with the demonstrators’ core demand: getting rid of Mubarak. And since the military was the essence of the Egyptian regime, it is odd to consider this a revolution.

This seems a pretty weak anlaysis to me.

Quote:

That is the point. What happened was not a revolution. The demonstrators never brought down Mubarak, let alone the regime. What happened was a military coup that used the cover of protests to force Mubarak out of office in order to preserve the regime.

And this is just factually untrue. Unless it can be shown that the crowds were militarily stooges, then what happened is deiniftely not a military coup. It may be true that the decisive factor remains the mnilitary faction; it may be true that that populace did not act against the military faction as such; and it may be true, as was said in an early paragrapgh, that this 'isn’t incompatible with democratic reform'.

Whats different is this: the previous arrangement split power between the guns of the military and ther figurehead of Mubarak. And what it is now is split between the guns of the military and a popular consciousness. But if the military and popular movement are essentially in agrrement, that isn't necessarily a big deal, and to present it as if this represents a militarist faction assuming power is likely to be completely mistaken.

Stratfors analytical limitations are clearly revealealed when they say "Indeed, this means that the crowds may re-emerge demanding more rapid democratization, depending on who organized the crowds in the first place and what their intentions are now." This is a conspiracy theory concept of popular movements that denies the populace any agency. They are always the unwitting dupes of handlers of one sort or another.

The USSR was formed by the Committee of Workers and Soldiers Deputies. The military is not an inherently counter-revolutionary entity in any post-monarchic society - unlike the police. Given the role the military has, as in Turkey, as the most Westernised branch of the governing institutions, it is not at all beyond imagining that the military and the popular ideas of what happens next could be aligned.

Yes it could be the case that the military asserts its own ideas without regard for the popular movement. And it could well be that there is yet to be a confrontation between the two. But it is simplistic to assert that the military was the beneficiary of the demonstrations, or that they were in some way responsible for them. The terms on which the military engage with the rest of society have been altered.

Meh... I'd like to know how they pegged the crowd size in Cairo at 300,000 outside of sq/ft guesswork that limits all protesters in Cairo to just the Square alone, which simply wasn't the case on various days. I don't think anyone other than the regime was in a position to get an accurate measure of crowd size, and they had every reason to under report. Also these protests were 24/7 events with people coming and going throughout the day and night.

So even if you can get an accurate snapshot of how many people were there at one particular moment, it'll never tell you how many unique individuals visited the square during the 18 days of protest.

Fun fact. The Egyptian military only has around 470,000 active duty troops, and about that same number in the reserves. So I guess the military regime doesn't represent much of anything in blah blah blah shitty argument is shitty.

Quote:

If the military is sincere in its intentions, it will have to do these things. The problem is that if the military is insincere it will do exactly the same things.

I agree with this, but its also something that goes without saying.

And dismissing social networking just sounds like more old man talk. Of course revolutions took place before any of this stuff came along... just like plenty of wars were fought before the gun was invented too. But both have significantly altered the landscape.

And IMO it is precisely that old, dismissive, out of touch attitude that seems to have been held by the regime that let it succeed. The Chinese would have kicked the chair out from under those Facebook pages that sprung up months before the protest that helped energize and organize the protests for the first few days. After that it was pretty organic, you didn't need twitter to know where you should go, if you were pissed off you just looked out your window or applied a bit of common sense and decided to head over to a long standing public gathering place and see if anyone else was there.

Anywho, unique countries are unique. I don't think anyone should expect what happened in Egypt to play out the same way in other places.

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell