Mubarak to step down tonight
content.usatoday.com
content.usatoday.com
Friend of mine: Mubarak is sharp. That motherfucker has been hated for a long time, but is still in power... he'll weather this, he'll still be running the country next year.
Me: I don't know dude, the city is literally on fire. Has any revolution ever hit this point and had the leader keep control?
Him: They're rioting. It'll get settled out. Besides, Mubarak's got the military.
Me: Does he? Really?
Him: Well, if you think he'll be out of power, put your money where your mouth is. 100 bucks says, Mubarak is still in power at the end of this year.
Me: I don't know dude, I guess I don't know as much about this as you do...
Him: I don't know much. But I think he's got it. What do you say, 100 bucks?
Me: Well, what's "in power"?
Him: He's still got the title President on December 31st.
Me: In Egypt, not in exile?
Him: In Egypt. He's still president, and in Egypt.
Me: And no foreign occupying army stabilizing - no U.N. peacekeepers or transition force.
Him: That wouldn't happen, America has the securi -- okay, fine, yes, no foreign forces. So the wager is - Mubarak has the title of President on December 31st, is in Egypt, and there's no foreign troops occupying.
Me: Okay, I'm going to go with history here. You can break riots earlier, but once they hit this point it's over...
Him: We'll see. I want that hundred bucks in December.
Me: I'm good for it. You're on.
We shook on it. I'll take him out to a nice dinner with some of the money.
If he's got the title of President, there's no foreign troops stabilizing (that's the only way I could see Mubarak keeping power - if the U.N. sent peacekeepers or something), and he's in Egypt, then I suppose so yes.
The whole dialogue can be summarized as "someone bet me he will still be in power a year from now".
The differing analysis was actually more interesting to me than the wager - his was that Mubarak is resilient, ruthless, has weathered things in the past, and has the military.
My thinking was that things had already progressed beyond the point where he could possibly stay in power... and the military is not so clearly on his side against the people, especially considering he likely won't live much longer.
I thought comparing the two points of view was more interesting than the bet itself.
Mubarak was destined to leave if for one reason: the opposition refused to bite the various baits thrown at them. They refused to get violent, they refused to split into factions, and they refused to disclose any unified position that he could negotiate with, other than "get out".
Huh, that's a fascinating analysis, especially the point about refusing to give a position to negotiate with.
Also, I laughed about the betting point.
Sidenote: I live on the road, and my next travel plans after Asia were going to be Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, and Greece... I'm thinking those don't look as appealing as when I set them in late 2009...
Turkey, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Morocco.
They're all fine as long as you use common sense.
Start on the south coast in the east, make your way across Antalya, go up to Urfa, where everything is between 2000 and 17,000 years old. Go to Lake Van and Mount Nimrut, watch out for the heads. Do Capadocia (fairy chimneys) and look out for the old christian hideout caves where it was first preached and used to hide from the romans. Head across to Ankara to see the Ataturk mauseleum then down to Konya. Onwards to Bodrum, up through Ephesus, Troy and get the boat from Bursa to Istanbul. Spend a few days in Istanbul and take the train or bus to Thessaloniki.
From Thessaloniki go to Volos then on to Athens. From Port Piraeus you can go on to Crete after which you can head back to Athens then on to Patra to try some wine. From Patra get a ferry to Ancona in Italy.
From Ancona go on to Rome, then up to Florence. Don't forget the galleries. From there on to Milan and Turin. Here you can go on to Cannes, Monaco (if you fancy but it is expensive) and Nice. From Nice head west to Cerbere to connect on to Barcelona.
After some time in Barcelona, head to Madrid and if you fancy it on to the Douro valley in Portugal, then Lisbon and over towards Cadiz. If you don't fancy Portugal and want to save it for when you're back from Morocco then you can go from Madrid down to Cadiz via Seville. If you time this right you should get there for the Fiesta de Savilla. Go on to Cordoba and do some Flamenco then on to Tarifa to get the ferry to Tangiers.
From Tangiers take the train to Rabat - if you go overnight get a Couchette, then on to Casablanca (although there's not a great deal there). You can go on to Marrakech from there. Try to stay in the Medina if you can, the Riyads aren't that expensive and are worth it. From there you can head to Fez or the Atlas mountains - there's some waterfalls near Marrakech that are also worth a visit. Then you can head up to Tangiers or down towards West Africa. I'd suggest back up to Tangiers, then do Lisbon, Douro and northern Spain. When you get back to France you should be able to go from there up the west coast through the north and either get a Eurostar or Ferry to the UK (at which point drop me an email and I'll buy you a beer) or you can keep going north and east to Belgium, Holland and beyond.
Hope this helps.
Turkey and Greece should be no problem, they're both quite stable this month... : P
Might I suggest southern Spain, near Grenada and Sevilla? It's a short boat ride from Morocco's northern coastal cities, and truly a wonderful area to visit, with some beautiful arab-influenced architecture surviving from when the Moors ran the place. They serve good tapas in Grenada, often free with your drink order!
Turkey and Greece should be no biggie, both are pretty darn stable.
Damn programmers always trying to optimize away the interesting bits ;)
Long before this happened a US government cable analyzed Egypt and said that the military would do little to protect Mubarak as long as their economic interests were not threatened. Right now the military is facing major disruption to its economic interests as long as the protests continue. But if they transition to a new government, they can reduce the disruption.
Now I can just see you saying, Economic interests? What economic interests. They are a military! Which is entirely reasonable, but wrong. The Egyptian military is somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of Egypt's economy.
Why? Well when the Camp David accords brought about peace, Egypt no longer needed such a big military. But they didn't want to make all of those men go into the private sector at once, that could destabilize the country. So they found jobs for them. For example lots of wonderful beaches no longer needed to be filled with military bases to repel a possible Israeli attack, so the military removed the bases, and built tourist resorts instead. Which they ran.
So Mubarak is out. He can't protect the military's commercial interests. Whoever and whatever replaces him is fine as long as the military interests are maintained. The changes can be extensive, so long as the country goes back to work and the military is free to return to making money.
Reminds me of China.
Any sources for this? The Sinai peninsula did not have many military bases (certainly not Egyptian ones) on the coastline. Are you referring to another area?
I don't know where the resorts are in question. But the military is certainly running some popular tourist resorts now..
CIA Director Peon Panetta says U.S. intelligence indicates that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is on his way out.
They have very good liveblogs that collate a wide variety of sources.
Seriously, this strikes me as propaganda of the worst kind. All of us here are in the business of making things better - the promise of the web is all about democratization and equalizing hierarchies. What can we do to help, both here and elsewhere?
This is far from over.
If you want some scale for the corruption going on in Egypt, look into why Mubarak is wealthier than Bill Gates.
FWIW, US gov is estimating closer to 2 billion http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/10/6024993-muba...
How did he get so rich? Well if you have a major business and you would like to expand into Egypt, the law requires 51% Egyptian ownership. I'm not privy to the investment ownership of companies based in Egypt, but its a pretty good bet that Mubarak enforced a pay to play scheme to major and minor corporations.
For some reason, you're pulling two questionably relevant facts from his biography and present them with a conspiratorial tone.
I was talking about two different people in my comment.
The fact that Mubarak's hand picked replacement is directly responsible for torturing many people on behalf of the US government seems pretty damn relevant to just about everything.
Sources close to the army tell the BBC’s Christian Fraser in Cairo that the military stepped in to stop the president handing power to his second in command Omar Suleiman.
This might make sense if they're planning to hold another election shortly thereafter. That way, at least the figurehead is out of office, and there's the potential for a peaceful transition for a replacement. Given the level of corruption though, is that even a possibility?
(ie. still hungry for more consultancy payments)
That said, the Vice President came up through the military which, as we've been told, is very well-respected. I don't see any reason why the people would distrust what would essentially be an Egyptian Military stewardship.
Perhaps they should be wary of that. And perhaps they will be. But it seems reasonable to expect they'd be willing to give it a shot. The military has done right by them thus far.
And I certainly wouldn't expect the Egyptians to trust a western stabilizing/interim governmental force moreso than their own military. We were partners to Mubarak's tyranny.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT?SITE=AP&...
It seems as thought Mubarak is being pushed aside tonight (indeed, if I play connect the dots it looks like Mubarak is trying to flee and the army is trying to make sure he can't). Looks like there's more than one party who could take power over the next few hours. Whether they can hold on to that is another question entirely.
This is what wikipedia says about the french revolutions - sounds very similar - doesn't it. Except egyptians did it in 2 weeks and not 3 years.
"The French Revolution was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European history. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from liberal political groups and the masses on the streets. Old ideas about hierarchy and tradition succumbed to new Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights."
I guess I'm saying, I hope the Egyptian revolution doesn't end up being as messy.
I admire your optimism, but in my humble option unlike the French revolution, in which they eventually managed to rid themselves of dictators and obtain democracy, so far the Egyptians have only managed to throw out one dictator to be replaced by another (or maybe a military council).
I hope the Egyptians keep up the momentum and one day soon have free and fair elections. Until then I fear it will just be business as usual for the corrupt and powerful.
---
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_revolutio...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_revolutio...
EDIT: Formatting.
How long is your `eventually'?
Regardless, this is something that is unprecedented in Egyptian history, which is 7000+ years long.
Honestly, I always thought the Egyptian revolution will be the poor rising up and slaughtering the rich. So, I am pretty impressed and proud at how peaceful this movement has been and is lead by educated and enlightened young people...
Isn't surprising that you don't hear the usual middle eastern chants "death to america/israel/obama/blah" or "jiha" or other sort of religious calls, etc... It has been all about democracy and human rights.
In the Mexican revolution they were able to overthrow the dictator in a few months. But, the new president was betrayed and that lead to a major bloody civil war that destroyed the country.
So, hopefully Egypto does it well but it is a risky time.
It would be certainly interesting if that were really the case, and Mubarak now faced the realization that despite it not being originally his intent tonight--must step down from position.
Confer the stepping down of the Germany Kaiser after WWI.
From "Wilhelm II, German Emperor" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Kaiser#Abdic...):
"After the outbreak of the German Revolution, Wilhelm could not make up his mind whether or not to abdicate. Up to that point, he was confident that even if he were obliged to vacate the German throne, he would still retain the Prussian kingship. The unreality of this belief was revealed when, for the sake of preserving some form of government in the face of anarchy, Wilhelm's abdication both as German Emperor and King of Prussia was abruptly announced by the Chancellor, Prince Max of Baden, on 9 November 1918. (Prince Max himself was forced to resign later the same day, when it became clear that only Friedrich Ebert, leader of the SPD could effectively exert control.)"
Youtube is broadcasting Aljazeera English live here: http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker . Mubarak was supposed to speak at 10pm Egypt time (40 mins ago), but hasn't yet. I wonder when he will and what he'll say. I encourage everyone to find a live feed of what's going on over there (e.g. the youtube link above) and follow along. History in the making, perhaps?
Egypt's Mubarak 'may stand down'
Pretty amazing stuff.
Saw this on Al Jazeera, but no source/link yet.
This was more aimed at the community in general, "you" was meant to refer to the reader. Obviously I don't know where you (jcsalterego) live. Sorry for not being more clear.
There is a long way from stepping down of one person who is a symbol of corruption to a democratic or just more liberal society (e.g. look at the ex-USSR countries).
A startup may also have to consider how to react when a foreign government starts demanding restrictions on the startup's services within a particular country, if the users are destabilizing that foreign government's position.
Unless I've really missed something, this makes little sense.
"Defiant Mubarak vows to stay in office until Sept. elections"
and the article has:
"Hundreds of thousands of protesters respond to Mubarak's speech with 'get out, get out!'"
So, Egypt is a country with some tens of millions of people, and some "hundreds of thousands" are unhappy. Also, Mubarak has been in office for a long time and, thus, passed whatever process Egypt has for picking a 'legitimate' government. And, the "protesters" apparently are claiming mostly just that they don't like what Mubarak has been doing and not that the government he heads is not legitimate.
So, in a country of some tens of millions of people, "hundreds of thousands" are trying to bring down a legitimate government and replace it with, what? Anything more legitimate or less? And of the "hundreds of thousands of protesters", their process of changing a government is some tiny fraction of the population "shouting" in a public square?
So, in the headline:
"Defiant Mubarak vows to stay in office until Sept. elections"
with "defiant" and "vows", the suggestion is that Mubarak is doing something wrong.
Then am I the only one here who concludes that the article is being irresponsible and trying to create violence, maybe Egypt with some tens of millions of people without a clearly legitimate government and, thus, a good chance of a long, bloody, civil war that also disrupts the world including the US economy?
It very much looks like
Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
wants a war, in particular a religious war, with Jihading Muslims, that might kill some millions of people in Egypt, might spread from Casablanca east to Afghanistan and on through South and South East Asia, might kill some tens of millions of people, might so seriously disrupt the world economy, say, about little things like oil, that we could have WWIII and kill nearly everyone?
So, my understanding is that Mubarak's term is up in September. Then to preserve their process of selecting a government, definitely Mubarak should stay in office and try to do what he was selected to do until September, and apparently that is what Mubarak just announced he will do. I'd say he did the 'statesman' like thing.
For
Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
apparently he's just a 'newsie' and a brain-dead, disconnected, clueless, irresponsible, blood thirsty one at that. Maybe he wants a "scoop"; someone please rush down to Petco and get the brain-dead newsie a "scoop", hopefully used.
If 1% of the population ticked the "displeased with Mubarak" checkbox on a poll, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
But since 1% of the population is IN THE STREETS RIOTING, effectively setting aside their normal lives and risking even death, you can bet that a hell of a lot more are significantly displeased and are too scared/old/otherwise incapable of taking the risks there people are taking.
Furthermore you're being very disingenuous by quoting the population of Egypt as a whole, and comparing this to the numer of protesters in ONE CITY.
This is about the importance of 'democracy', that is, settling political differences at the ballot box without blood instead of in the streets with blood.
And it's about a 'process' to change a government and give a 'legitimate' government that can have wide support of a 'social contract' that can avoid civil war and maintain peace.
And this is about international political arson.
The people of Egypt and the newsies should be careful about what they wish for because the might get it.
Your main point seems to be that by evidence direct, indirect, and 'generally accepted common knowledge' a 'lot' of people in Egypt very much don't like their government. So, the "hundreds of thousands" are, to be simple, 'very unhappy'. I can agree with that.
I will go further and agree that the Mubarak government hasn't done enough to help the people of Egypt and has been brutal with dissenters. And I will agree that Egypt should have a better government.
Still, we need to be a little careful here. I mention two reasons for being careful:
One reason is the newsie suggestion of the romantic 'narrative' of uncorrupted, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, native Egyptian youth spontaneously risking their lives in the streets against a decades old, corrupt, self-serving, self-perpetuating, ugly, brutal, violent, exploitative, evil dictatorship selfishly and 'defiantly vowing' to hang on to their unjust power and privilege and continue crushing to poverty, destitution, and often death the ordinary Egyptian people just to enrich a Mubarak led cabal of wealthy exploiters, all heavily driven by outside powers, hint, hint, the US, its need for oil through the Suez Canal and its desire to protect the 51st state, rich, brutal, inwardly directed Israel as it continues to scarf up the centuries old olive groves of the long suffering, native Palestinian people. Do I have the newsie's 'story' about right?
Yup, if a 'story' isn't good, then the newsies "will make it good" and thus grab readers by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, create 'compelling content' via vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment and, thus, grab eyeballs for the ad revenue and please the editors, publishers, and stockholders.
Second, we're playing with both the good of Egypt and WWIII here, so let's be a little careful.
To be a little careful, at
http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/population_of_egypt_2010
the 2010 population of Egypt is supposed to be 77,231,905.
Now the newsies say that "hundreds of thousands" have been in the streets or the square or wherever. So, not even the romantic newsies have said "millions". So, we're talking no more than one protester per 77 people or so.
That seems to be true but, as you point out, maybe not "the whole story". Okay: For each dedicated, sincere, life-risking protester, we should count more unhappy Egyptian people elsewhere in Cairo and the rest of Egypt. Okay, I'll go along with that.
So, as in the US where the citizens have the right "to petition the government for redress of grievances", the protesters should be able to gather, speak, shout, and scream in the streets, and the government should listen and, hopefully, act. Okay.
The Egyptian military could have flown over the streets with some helicopter gunships and then flown back to base with the streets quite silent but didn't do that. Uh, there are stories that for years the Egyptian military has gotten north of $1 billion a year from the US and that the top of the Egyptian military has been thoroughly educated in US military colleges. Hmm.
But, wait, there's more! There's the long, terrible 'transgression' of the evil Mubarak cabal. Now from 'the voice of the people' in the streets, there is 'retribution' for the evil cabal. If, as the newsies and apparently the White House want, the old Mubarak leaves office, then as he rides across the desert to retirement and into the sunset, he will get 'redemption'. So, borrowing from the 'Ring' of Wagner, the 'Ring' of Tolkien, the 'Star Wars' of Lucas, and the 'Jurassic Park' of Spielberg (and close to Goethe's 'Faust'), we have the classic trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption. So we have a second grade version of a 'morality play', popular all the way back to the beginnings of that foundation of the newsies, English literature. Still better would be a protest leader who ascends the barricades, gets the spontaneous acclimation of the hundreds of thousands, walks into the Presidential Palace, crisply saluted by smiling military guards, and gets the girl. Newsies just LOVE English literature! Democracy, reality, not so much.
Also, in the US are many guilt-ridden people who believe that the world would be one shining city on a hill just but for US evil foreign policy manipulation. So, whenever a 'friend' of the US falls, less guilt is felt.
Then there's the oil: The guilt-ridden are convinced that the US has been 'raping the natural world' to burn oil to support an 'unsustainable', dirty, filthy, unclean, wasteful, greedy, lazy, planet destroying lifestyle. So, if the oil were cut off, then less guilt would be felt.
Ah, two more morality plays for the newsies!
With these various morality plays of the newsies, does something bother you here?
Hint: Uh, just where is the 'democracy'? Or if that is asking too much, what about the 'process' of selecting a government?
For one step more, if some hundreds of thousands of people, maybe representing a few million people, in a country of 77 million people can bring down a government just by gathering in a square, then what is left of any reasonable government selection process?
Next, if Mubarak does what the people shouting in the streets want, then how to get a legitimate new government? That is, it's not enough just to bring down the old government; in addition it is crucial to build up another one. And in all of this, 'legitimacy' is from important up to crucial. Uh, without a lot of 'legitimacy', there is little basis for a crucial 'social contract' that will let the streets empty and the country get back to work. The newsies are suggesting that the only legitimacy needed is the shouting of the uncorrupted, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, native Egyptian youth, and this should bother you.
Next we come to what is likely the 'realpolitik' of this situation: Uh, even the most superficial reading of political history can show that the volume of screaming in the streets can be enormously amplified by some well-funded organization. Who and where might such funding and organization be from? How about from people who want to see Mubarak fall and have a chance of getting a government in Egypt they like much better? Net, can't take every 'Egyptian patriot' shouting in the streets at face value.
For the good of Egypt and most of the world, I'd say:
Without a legitimate government, Egypt could descend into civil war, heavily about Islamic theocracy versus 'Western democracy', that could spread from Casablanca east to Afghanistan and further east to the Philippines, block the Suez Canal, disrupt world oil, start a war with Israel, and lead to WWIII.
If a theocracy takes over Egypt, then it would be Sunni like UBL. However, I can believe that even the Shiite Iranians would prefer a Sunni theocracy in Egypt to a Western secular democracy friendly with the US.
To avoid civil war, etc., Egypt needs a government with at least what passes for 'legitimacy'.
For the sake of at least legitimacy, the 'process' Egypt has for selecting a government should continue. In particular, the legitimacy of the present government should not be destroyed by shouting in the streets and, in particular, then replaced by a government with even less legitimacy and, thus, more risk of civil war.
For the sake of legitimacy, Mubarak should stay in office until September as planned.
Uh, the original idea of democracy was to settle differences at the ballot box instead of in the streets.
If the people in the streets are a genuine, patriotic, indigenous, spontaneous political movement representing a significant fraction of the people of Egypt, then good: They should do well in the elections in September and do good for Egypt afterward.
But what the newsies want, for Mubarak just to leave office, is mostly just so that the newsies can have a 'story' and is irresponsible and risks blood in the streets up to WWIII. I'm still working but am having difficulty constructing even more contempt for the newsies than I have already: Their job is to find a fuel leak, throw lighted matches, and then write their 'stories' awful conflagration.
In getting Mubarak to leave before September, the people in Egypt should be careful about what they wish for because they might get it.