"As the drums of war sounded in America, Egyptians believed that we could not accept a foreign invasion of another Arab country. We were furious that our government, which was allied with the United States, allowed American and British warships to sail through the Suez Canal toward Iraq. I had an intuition that if the United States attacked Iraq, Egyptians would take to the streets."
There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title it is hard to know where to begin.
And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended.
Overall, I'm against the Iraq war. But... I feel like an egalitarian Arab should have supported the Iraq invasion. Saddam was cruel to his people, his sons would crash weddings and rape just about anyone. The new Iraq government still has problems, but at least it's some semblance of a democracy.
Sam Harris says it best:
> As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world.
> I feel like an egalitarian Arab should have supported the Iraq invasion.
But they didn't. There is a lot of stuff wrong - from my perspective - in the Arab world, and nobody with actual power from the Arab world seems to actually want to do much about it. So we end with these half-hearted revolutions which are more regime changes than actual fundamental changes and if they are fundamental changes they tend to be for the worse rather than for the better. It's a real pity.
As for the Iraq war, Saddam and his sons - and all those supporting the regime - were complete assholes. And I would have supported regime change per-se for that reason alone, but that wasn't what was sold. Because if we did support regime change for those reasons then there would be a long waiting list of other regimes that would deserve to be 'fixed' long before we'd get to Saddam (in spite of all the crimes they were engaged in the world is full of such trash, they were not the exception, in spite of the media spotlight being very much on Iraq).
Saddam was replaced by ISIS after an American inspired civil war that Cheney saw coming in 1994, so from a geopolitical realpolitik perspective, Saddam as lying smugly in his grave with a smirk thinking he did nothing wrong. American rhetoric such as "he's killing his own people" holds little weight, when we have seen America prop up regimes that routinely kill their own people for example in Latin America. In the end I think they got rid of Saddam in 91 because they were actually scared that he could put them in check if he wanted to, and that was enough to warrant containing him. Sure dictators are bad, by imperialists are worse, especially when they don't give two shits about the people and use baseless rhetoric to justify their invasion.
What's need in the Middle East is a home grown secular, scientific revolution and rejection of Islam. Without that, nothing is possible there and all revolutions and evolutions will fail. The Imperialists will continue their half ass crusade to civilize the natives... while only causing havoc and destruction.
> What's need in the Middle East is a home grown secular, scientific revolution and rejection of Islam.
I see change coming only through the gradual replacement of generations. As old people die, new people get born and they experience the world in a new way so they form new mentalities. I think the internet and mobile phones have a lot to do with it.
> the internet and mobile phones have a lot to do with it.
Don't think the technology automatically brings the messages you like, ISIS uses the very internet and mobile phones for their purposes. They even established the new "internet centers" in the areas they took over.
Quite well except for a certain continent. In NL churches are being sold for peanuts because they're empty on Sundays. As the last generation that went to church regularly dies the church makes one last effort at value extraction: real estate price increases are being liquidated.
In the USA and Canada it is still very much a popular thing, no idea how long it will take to get to the point where people realize they're being had.
Religion can have positive effects in people's lives, but at the same time organized religion is used for vote marshalling and politics, it's just another power structure and a business to boot. This goes for most religions, not just for Christianity.
Personally I'd be fine with an englightened version of Islam, one that formally recognized the rights of women and that did away with the most antiquated and damaging aspects of the religion. Of course a push to effect that would result in even harsher pushback from the fanatics, for fear that such a strategy might succeed.
Speaking as an ardent secularist, I hope at least some of the older churches are being preserved for their historical value.
>Religion can have positive effects in people's lives, but at the same time organized religion is used for vote marshalling and politics, it's just another power structure and a business to boot. This goes for most religions, not just for Christianity.
The relationship between the House of Saud and the Wahabbist establishment in Saudi Arabia demonstrates this. It's absolutely chilling stuff that is woefully unexamined for its importance to the making of the modern world.
There is zero incentive for an enlightened version of Islam. They're winning the population game and losers (the rapidly secularizing West) don't get to dictate terms.
Catholic Africa is growing and will possibly step in to replace the West after it goes majority Islamic.
> So we end with these half-hearted revolutions which are more regime changes than actual fundamental changes
I lived through such a revolution in 1989, in Eastern Europe. It's not just a problem for Arabs. I think revolutions are usually hijacked wherever they happen.
I'm sure an egalitarian Arab would support democratic revolution by the people. Having foreign nations invade your country claiming to be bringing democracy on the backs of tanks and in the fires of bombs is not the kind of revolution that works, as Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to show us.
It takes the blood of patriots to fuel the fire of democracy, not America's endless military industrial complex coffers.
Right. And really, this is why I'm mostly against the Iraq war, or the Iraq war as-it-was-executed.
But like--- does the Arab world even have a culture of democracy? I think if we waited for that revolution to happen, we would still be waiting. Has the arab spring produced democratic results? The answer is mostly no--- they've just traded old regimes for civil wars among new regimes. Tunisia is a happy exception. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/daily-c...
If the people themselves do not want democracy, we should not force it upon them. We should just open our doors to those that do, so they do not suffer under tyranny as a minority. But it is not our jobs to change the will of the majority.
> If the people themselves do not want democracy...
I think a lot of people in the Arab world certainly do want democracy, probably a majority of them in many countries, but the problem is that once a majority bloc attains power they exercise it autocratically. Look at how Mohamed Morsi behaved in power in Egypt, or how Erdogan uses the police and courts to silence and persecute the opposition in Turkey. Look at Al-Maliki's lurch towards sectarianism [1] in Iraq that created the conditions for the rise of ISIS. As a firm believer in democracy, it's pretty disheartening.
It's not about rulers being cruel. A ruler being cruel to his people doesn't give another foreign power the right to come in and depose that leader by force. An egalitarian anyone would support that concept.
In any case, the Iraq invasion wasn't because Saddam was cruel - although that's definitely the ret-conned justification given that all the other reasons for the invasion turned out to be invalid.
And if being cruel to your people is the yardstick by which you choose to invade other countries, how come the US isn't invading North Korea? Oh that's right, because they don't have oil, there's no family vendetta between the leaders of those countries, there's no visceral national tragedy recently that would allow the government to ride on the back of it and go to war on flimsy pretenses, and lastly because a war with North Korea would most likely draw in China, and that's a sleeping dragon the US would rather let lie.
The semblance of democracy in Iraq has come at the cost of over a hundred thousand lives. I'm not sure how many Iraqis feel they are better off.
Call me naive, but I always put human lives as a first key to judging the success of any such "operation". Death, torture and general misery do not constitute a part of any solution. Specially when the solution is not a solution begin with.
The concept has been abused and will no doubt be continued to be abused. It's very important to fight against such abuse. Nevertheless I think that the fundamental idea behind it is a good one.
I can understand where the author is coming from, and it's sad that more people here don't seem to get it. There are few things that evoke people's primal instincts, the way foreign invasions do. Especially one involving a foreign occupier belonging to a completely different ethnicity, language and culture. We're literally talking about a Millenia long history where warring empires in both the Christian west and Islamic east would set aside their differences and launch crusades against one another. I'm sure many in the Arab world have no problems with engaging with America diplomatically, or economically. I'm sure activists like Ahmed welcome American efforts to facilitate and amplify the efforts of local activists. But they would react to a western invasion of Iraq the same way we would react to a Chinese invasion of America. With tribal defensiveness.
The point you're missing tho is that pandoras box is not a box of chocalates. You don't know what you're gonna get when you unleash a war--or a revolution. It says something about the ability perhaps to look at the actions of other objectively, but be blinded by either hubris or wishful thinking when evaluating our own actions. You're arguing that people don't see or agree with what is correct in the one view, but it the contrast not the correctness that is being highlighted.
> There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title
The irony is more apparent when you read further in the article that the author received support from the very same U.S. for his activity of making a democratic revolution. However he was just an "activist" and Muslim Brotherhood the "political force." Which developed exactly how it sounds, as he also describes.
My other comment here contains some more interesting quotes.
It's unfortunate hyperbolic use of 'revolution' has kind of muddied and made the term less relevant. A revolution should mean a fundamental change of political system, not change of political power. Going from monarchy to socialism is a revolution. Going from feudalism to democracy is a revolution. Egypt experienced a coup, not a democratic revolution.
Obviously I commented because I think otherwise, based on my interest in history and semantics of the subject, I explained why. Just telling me I'm wrong hasn't changed my opinion, but thanks.
The French Revolution brought the country from a monarchy to an empire - what are just two names for the same thing. I doubt anybody would claim the word "revolution" isn't suitable for it.
The French Revolution fundamentally changed the government institution, from monarchy to republic. Being an empire, as in, containing heterogeneous cultures or states is besides the point. The point is that the states might gain some legal rights.
> And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended.
An activist's job is to point out things that are wrong. It is true that often, removing an individual or a group from power does not necessarily result in a better leader, but it is something that leaders fear happening to them.
Note that if you read carefully, the guy was actively supported by the U.S. at the time he prepared the "revolution." He claims he's disappointed by Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, but it was he who even helped them, he being then just "an activist" and they being a real "political group":
"I negotiated agreements between activists and political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood."
Note also that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively "the choice" of the U.S. at the time of the revolution. Now I'll quote the author once again as he describes the power struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood:
"The election represented Egyptian politics since the revolution: a power struggle between military dictators and religious fanatics. And the Muslim Brotherhood—whose religiosity, I believe, is a trojan horse for pure political ambition—treated activists just as harshly as the military."
I personally don't believe the religion of Muslim Brotherhood is "a trojan horse," it's where they get the the goals of their political activity:
"The Brotherhood's English language website describes the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Sharia as "the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society" and secondly, work to unify "Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism""
In reality, it was the Mubarak and Sisi regimes that have killed and tortured civilians in the thousands. There's a bit in the article about how Morsi issued a presidential decree making his actions unaccountable to the judiciary. This is a judiciary stacked during the Mubarak era that has sentenced dead people and infants to death in these political cases. Sisi's justice minister said that only the elite should keep controling the Egyptian judiciary and in his words, "a cleaner's son" has no right to be a judge. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-...
Activists and journalists should investigate and bring to light the misdeeds of everyone including Morsi and the MB, but it is incredulous at this point to believe that the real problem with Egypt is not the corrupt elite of the military, crony businesses and the state apparatus. It wasn't the Muslim brotherhood, the left, or the liberals who were firing on crowds from helicopters, killing thousands in the streets. It was the military.
The Muslim Brotherhood, being the religious extremists whose declared purpose was establishing Sharia-ruled state (my previous post), would lead people of Egypt to even worse situation that they are now (compared to the MB wishes, Egypt was more secular even before the "revolution"). Therefore I don't agree with your view. The U.S. supported "democratic spring" only brought Muslim Brotherhood to the power (and the article author knew he was helping that, in his words, he was an "activist" and they a "political" power). Note that after the article author fought to bring the "democracy" once the Muslim Brotherhood came to the power he became disillusioned in them (his words "religious fanatics"). Against the possibility to have an Iran equivalent (or worse) in Egypt (his words: "made us fear our country would soon look like an Iranian theocracy"), the activity of the military seems to have been necessary. Note also:
"as of 2015" Muslim Brotherhood "is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain,[7][8] Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.[9][10][11][12]"
But in 2011 the U.S. politicians and operatives called them "our guys" who "won" in Egypt.
"32) On May 27, 2015, a group of 159 Muslim Brotherhood-associated scholars from 35 nations announced the publication of a document endorsing violence in Egypt in response to a “war against Islam's principles.”."
"It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); and
(2) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, should exercise the Secretary of State’s statutory authority by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization."
Regardless of your view of religion, political position, Sharia etc., are you saying that the actions of the Egyptian military on 14th August 2013, in which they fired on civilians killing somewhere around 1000 people were justified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2013_Rabaa_massacre)?
The negative of course does not mean justifying any actions of the MB or other groups.
I've personally took part in the protests which involved clashes with the police, and believe me, police doesn't shoot at the crowd "just so" (tear gas, water cannons and beating are preferred). It's obvious that the protesters weren't just "peaceful unarmed civilians" but instead were also the attackers, which then explains why there were a lot of victims, especially among the policemen, from your Wikipedia link:
"Initial reports by the Egyptian Health Ministry said 235 protesters, three journalists and 43 policemen died."
Given that the police were certainly equipped with the vests, helms and shields, the number of victims among the police is telling. Think how it would look like in the U.S. if 43 policemen were killed on duty. In Waco, 76 "civilians" were killed, how many casualties were policemen, I think zero?
"In addition, there have been a number of attacks on police stations around the country. Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim put the number of stations attacked at 21. Angry mobs reportedly also attacked dozens of Christian properties.[20]"
It's a sad story, but much more multifaceted than you present it.
1. Have you taken part in protests under authoritarian regimes where the judiciary is biased or unreliable, or where the police force is trying to control a problematic out-group? Or is your experience from first world countries like the US, Western Europe etc? Would you excuse the police in a similar way, say in Venezuela or Iran? How about in apartheid South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? Who gets to picks and choose?
2. In case of an attack on a police station or church, what should be the correct response:
a) arrest and prosecute those involved by presenting evidence in an open court, or
b) fire on protestors elsewhere against a coup because you think some have the same sympathies as those involved in the said attack?
The reason why feel I dejected by your line of thinking is that it makes it really easy to justify violence. Daesh can use the same line of reasoning to target those it deems part of the Egyptian state, including the opposition liberals and Muslim Brotherhood for being part of the mass that is not violent towards the state. Trump rallies the epicenter of violence and racism, BLM should be justified on opening fire on them? Since BLM opposed to police actions and hence the rule of law, the Fraternal Orders of Police and the like should open fire on them.
1. Yes, precisely, that's exactly why I can claim that. I won't go into details, but I'm living the situations again as I write this, even if I'd rather not have had these experiences, looking back (that's how I can relate to the author of the article).
2. It was obviously not "fire on the protesters elsewhere" but the "fire to protect yourself (or the innocent people) from the attack." Again, at least 43 policemen were killed.
The rest of the post tries to introduce logical fallacies to win the argument. We discussed the specific case.
> police doesn't shoot at the crowd "just so" (tear gas, water cannons and beating are preferred)
There are thousands of times when this hasn't been true, from Tiananmen Square to Kent State to the Plaza de las Tres Culturas to, yes, Rabaa. The government always claims in these situations that the police were acting in self-defense but it is rarely true (because people are rarely suicidal).
You say you want to discuss "the specific case" but present no actual evidence from Rabaa. Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say (not a perfect source of course but a lot better than the military regime's health ministry):
> The systematic and widespread killing of at least 1,150 demonstrators by Egyptian security forces in July and August 2013 probably amounts to crimes against humanity... In the August 14 dispersal of the Rab’a al-Adawiya sit-in alone, security forces, following a plan that envisioned several thousand deaths, killed a minimum of 817 people and more likely at least 1,000.
> The 188-page report, “All According to Plan: The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt,” documents the way the Egyptian police and army methodically opened fire with live ammunition on crowds of demonstrators opposed to the military’s July 3 ouster of Mohamed Morsy, Egypt’s first elected civilian president, at six demonstrations between July 5 and August 17, 2013. While there is also evidence that some protesters used firearms during several of these demonstrations, Human Rights Watch was able to confirm their use in only a few instances, which do not justify the grossly disproportionate and premeditated lethal attacks on overwhelmingly peaceful protesters.
And, look, nobody can stop you from issuing tissue-thin justifications for political massacres and then crying "logical fallacy" when somebody draws out the implications for you, but it doesn't come off very well.
"The author of the Human Rights Watch report has intentionally disregarded one of the fundamental testimonies from the reporter Maged Atef about the murder of one of the Police officers after which the exchange of fires started. However, the report, in an obvious bias stand, has taken into account this testimony in more than twenty parts of it related to other happenings which do not condemn the Muslim Brotherhood."
"In addition, the author of the report did not mention any of the human rights violations committed by the management of the sit-in, including cases of kidnapping and torture, as well as cases of using the persons who were participating in the sit-in as human shields and detaining them in the sit-in."
I'm not saying I agree either only with NCHR or HRW. But I'm claiming that the categorization you promote is biased, especially because you don't explain how it is possible to have so many victims among the police unless they were killed by the armed opponents, which, if the later were shooting from the mass, obviously disregarded the lives of the people around them too.
The Telegraph - Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising (9:23PM GMT 28 Jan 2011)
> On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.
> The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr Mubarak’s regime. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East.
> (C) Summary and comment: On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit," and with his subsequent meetings with USG officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional meetings.
> xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten plan for democratic transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim.*
"Facebook, Google, YouTube, MTV, Howcast, Columbia Law School and the U.S. Department of State Convene the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit
Dec. 3-5 Summit in New York to Bring Together Global Youth Groups, Tech Experts to Find Best Ways to Use Digital Media to Promote Freedom and Justice, Counter Violence, Extremism and Oppression"
"Sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, Facebook, Hi5, Google, MySpace, Gen Next, Howcast Media, MTV, PepsiCo, Mobile Behavior, Univisión, Interactive Media, Inc., Causecast.org, WordPress.com, Edelman, and YouTube, the event will convene individuals, government officials, academics, and private and public sector leaders from around the world October 14-16, 2009, to explore ways to advance grassroots movements seeking positive social change through 21st century technology and tools."
Arabs use "Sharia" like Americans use "Liberty". They just use the word because it sounds respectable, but they make it mean whatever suits their power.
Really great read about what it's really like to be an activist. Constant running around hoping that 10 people show up and constant wondering if you're getting anywhere.
Also, a brutal reminder about the devastating personal costs that we so often forget about.
As a climate activist here in the US I had it easy, but still so much of this resonates.
I have a lot of respect for someone who went through so much. At a much smaller scale I think that one can be depressed when pursuing a strong goal comes to an end. It could be a project at work or a degree. I have been depressed in such situations. I think being able to let go the past and move on to a different life can help. In my case meditation helped me realize happiness is not so much about goals but more about being satisfied with simple things.
Interesting enough read, but why oh why does it break the PgUp button? Rather PgDn moving down a screen (like space should …) and PgUp moving up, PgDn moves down a screen and PgUp returns to the top, which is mighty inconvenient.
Egypt is the #1 example of the American empires malfeasance and incompetence.
Completely abandoned revolution, we continue to financially support the military dictatorship.
Go read Obama's Cairo speech and laugh at what a total crock of shit it is, and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown.
Meanwhile the Western press does what it can to demonize the muslin brotherhood while white washing the current junta.
And why? Because Egypt is the most populous ME country, borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important by our elite to allow self rule.
Fuck the American empire, responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001
>and how by extension Obama is a bought and paid for clown.
That's not what's going on.
>And why? Because Egypt...borders Israel, and has the Suez canal, it is deemed strategically too important
This is. US uses Egypt to project military power in the region.
>responsible for the genocidal killings of millions since 2001
The US did not apply the extreme repression required to keep the religious sects in the region from killing each other. That doesn't mean the US is genocidal, it means the Middle East is.
I will certainly laugh at Obama's Cairo speech, you know why? Never in the history of US did a president address people of One faith exclusively. I do not consider Obama a bad guy but you cannot charm your way out with certain groups. May be he hoped his Muslim father connection will give him cover, it made him look worse and gave credence to all sorts of rumors about his faith.
The world is a better place with America Policing, its a thankless job. You are blamed for showing up (Iraq) and you are blamed for not showing up (Syria).
edit: I actually agree with lot of Obama's foreign policy of his second term, where he pivoted to Asia and left the dumpster fire called Middle East to the real stake holders, Turks, Saudis, Iranians and Europeans.
"As the drums of war sounded in America, Egyptians believed that we could not accept a foreign invasion of another Arab country. We were furious that our government, which was allied with the United States, allowed American and British warships to sail through the Suez Canal toward Iraq. I had an intuition that if the United States attacked Iraq, Egyptians would take to the streets."
There is so much irony in that paragraph combined with the title it is hard to know where to begin.
And what became of Egypt is also really not quite what he intended.