“My grandfather knew the exact time of the exact day of the exact year that he would die.”
“Wow, what an evolved soul! How did it come to him?”
“The judge told him.”
–From “Plato and a Platypus Walk Into A Bar…“, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein
Time is short, and this story is moving fast, so here’s the short and sweet version of the background that you “need to know”: since the Republic of Egypt was founded (in 1956), only the NDP has held power. Hosni Mubarak, the fourth and current President, has ruled since 1981, when he took over after the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
He’s thinking about succession plans more and more these days (for the NDP, Government corruption is a business, and everyone with a hand in the till wants the business to keep running smoothly), and if he had his wish his son, Gamal, would step into the job-and it looks like Gamal is trying to do just that: he makes public appearances where he looks Presidential, and it is reported by our State Department that he is involved in the formulation of legislation and Government policy.
Because the Egyptian Constitution’s famous Article 76 is designed to ensure that the NDP retains its stranglehold on power, there is no single opposition figure outside the NDP who commands enough public support and party infrastructure to really mount an electoral challenge.
(Ensure, you say? The Constitution’s intent is to “protect national unity”; to that end it requires all political parties to be licensed by the Government…which, of course, is run by the NDP
Political parties are barred from forming coalitions amongst themselves, and all candidates for Parliament or President must be approved by the Government before they can appear on the ballot-and should the authorities choose, that permission can be withdrawn during an election campaign.
A party can be ordered to disband. The Government can also, at any time, order parties not to accept any funds from any sources.)
The last candidate allowed to run against Mubarak in any serious way was Ayman Nour, of the El Ghad Party, in 2005; for his trouble he first received about 8% of the vote in a heavily rigged Egyptian election and then, soon after, a nice long sentence in a heavily guarded Egyptian prison. (He’s since been released.)
The ISI, acting in their capacity as one of the guardians of State Security, are recognized worldwide for their willingness to go “above and beyond” to make sure Egyptians stay unified in their support of the NDP; their motivational tactics have included everything from attempting to take over an opposition party to organizing a well-timed riot to raping bloggers the Government doesn’t like all the way up to “disappearing” and killing those who get too far out of line.
(The USA has “leveraged” Egypt’s expertise in torture throughout the “War on Terror”, and the place has been a popular destination for those being “renditioned”.)
Here’s an example: The Guardian (the UK newspaper) has an amazing audio recording on their website that was made by one of their reporters who was grabbed by riot police in Cairo during a street demonstration in the past day or so (along with about 50 others) and driven around in a police truck for several hours. The idea was to slam them into each other and the metal walls of the truck so as to “tenderize” them a bit, they were then driven out into the desert, presumably with the intent of making them think they were about to be killed.
Among those thrown in the truck was Ayman Nour’s son…which adds another dimension to how the intimidation can work, doesn’t it?
Egypt is officially a secular nation, but many Egyptians would like to see an Islamic Republic; their interests were represented by the Muslim Brotherhood until the Party was officially banned.
Today there is an underground alliance of politicians, some of whom serve in Parliament, that represent the same interests-which scares the NDP to no end.
(Other noteworthy religious sects within the population include Sufis, Copts, and Orthodox Christians, and there have been tensions between the various groups that have recently led to numerous incidents of violence.)
Poverty, unemployment, concerns over the potential withdrawal of certain government subsidies, and issues related to food security have also rocked the country over the past few years.
The Army has always served (as is the case in Turkey) as a guardian of secular interests and as a guarantor of “stability”. All of the Republic’s Presidents have served in the Army, and Gamal Mubarak, if he were to advance to the Presidency, would be the first to break that rule.
The other thing you need to know is that Tunisia, which is right next door, is going through the exact same thing: they have also had one-party rule forever, and popular discontent with government corruption, combined with an unemployment rate that makes Detroit look like a city “on the…grow!“, has led to so much rioting and changing of Governments that the country actually had three heads of state in 24 hours.
Of course, when you’ve always had one party rule and any political opposition is aggressively stamped out, that means any change in Government is likely to be a “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” kind of a deal-and that’s precisely what’s happening in Tunisia.
(If you want to explore the Egyptian parts of this story in a lot more detail, have a look here, here, here, and here.)
History lesson done, it’s time to consider the present: just like in Tunisia, the rioting has begun.
There are reports of demonstrations involving thousands of protesters in Cairo, Alexandria, and in the Suez; among those reports are details that include the burning and blockading of police stations, mass detainments, and the firing of live bullets and rocket propelled grenades on the crowds. There are also reports of numerous deaths among the demonstrators.
There are reports that “Muslims and Christians together” are out demonstrating against the Government in Cairo, and it’s Bedouins who are protesting out in the Sinai. All of this is much different than the typical protests that have occurred in the past, which seem to have been of a more secular nature.
Prisoners at the Fayoum Prison (many of whom are there without trial or charges filed; many of whom have been tortured) are engaging in hunger strikes and security officials are concerned that the strikes could spread across all the country’s prisons, according to the El Badeel newspaper.
Former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed El Baradei is attempting to mobilize a “National Assembly for Change”…and today the group issued a statement in Arabic that appears to describe the opposition’s efforts to achieve power as an “intifada” and seems to demand the “renunciation of President Mubarak’s rule”.
El Baradei
himself is in the country; The Times of India quotes him as saying: “Mubarak has served the country for 30 years and it is about time for him to retire…”, which is an enormously brave thing to say inside Egypt, considering that he could either end up as the next leader of a unity Government or “tenderized” by the security services.
Today, January 28th, is intended to be what’s described as another “Day of Wrath”; Islamic weekends also begin on Fridays, so the demonstrations could become enormously large, and it’s unknown what could happen.
If the Mubaraks had to go, there are a few others beside El Baradei that might be in line to take the job:
–First, let’s assume a scenario like Tunisia’s, where Mubarak leaves but the NDP stays, and the “same as the old boss” deal plays out; the candidate to watch in that situation might be General Omar Suleiman (notice I said “General”…unlike Gamal Mubarak). He’s the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service (EGIS), and I think it’s fair to say that the US Government views him as, shall we say, cooperative.
Another man to watch would be Minister of Trade and Industry Rachid Mohamed Rachid-but he got himself caught up in some serious political trouble last year when the Nation’s wheat imports were threatened (50% of Egypt’s wheat is imported), and that may come back to haunt him now.
–If the NDP were to lose control of the situation, you could have someone like Ayman Nour or Saad Eddin Ibrahim step in, so the question becomes whether the National Assembly for Change coalition can either hold together for the long term or form a “caretaker” Government that might include several opposition leaders with elections to follow shortly thereafter.
Nour’s El Ghad Party and many others appear to be cooperating with the National Assembly for Change, at least for now-but the history of coalitions often involves the rapid dissolution of the group after victory is achieved, and there’s no way to know if that might happen down the road.
–Could the Muslim Brotherhood establish a theocracy, or something like one-and would they want to?
That is the big question…and I honestly do not know the answer. However, they are currently involved in the National Assembly for Change, and a representative of the Brotherhood (who, of course, doesn’t “officially” exist) was quoted as saying that joining the movement:
“..does not mean that we support for Dr. ElBaradei, as a candidate for president.”
One thing I do know: the Army has stepped in to maintain political order, more than once, and the Muslim Brotherhood would have to consider how far they could go before they caused a clash that would be bad for everyone.
They also would have to deal with the “jobs and economy” and systemic corruption issues, as any secular government would, otherwise any potential victory might be a short-lived one.
–Speaking of the Army stepping in…that could indeed happen, and a military Government would not be that surprising an outcome if things were to really start getting crazy and basic order were to collapse in a big big way.
The close relationship between the Mubarak government and the US security apparatus is something that is not well received at home, and we should expect that any new President not named Gamal would display a less warm public image toward the United States-even if they act differently in private.
So that’s what I know so far, and I’ll try to find out more as I can-but the big story today is that today might look something like Iran last June, with lots of sound and fury and repression to follow-or it might look like Tunisia, where “government du jour” is the order of the day.
Various Internet services are being blocked in Egypt, but here’s a Twitter page to check during the day…and if there’s more to tell, we’ll come back and tell it.
OK, there’s more already: The Times of India is reporting that Gamal Mubarak took his family and left for London Wednesday morning-and now it’s looking like the troubles might be spreading to Lebanon, where a coalition Government with Hezbollah as one of the partners…despite their losing a 2009 election…has the country’s Sunnis out in the streets.
It is possible for you to create a “network tunnel” from your own computer that can be used by Egyptians who cannot access parts of the Internet due to Government firewalling: if you’d like to help, information can be found here.
…in about 90 minutes, and after that…
Curfew in cities as army deployed (BBC News)
…and there have also been some interesting developments in how communication is taking place:
<
p>the method of shutdown is described here, and here’s a description of how dial-up and dsl are being used to get around the broadband shutdowns.
As I said on the situation in Tunisia, it was odd that the internal security and army did not stand with the government. That is a long distance from standing with the people.
<
p>In Egypt, the government, military, and internal security are all more cohesive and professional. It’ll be interesting to see if this keeps momentum, but it’s noteworthy that El Baradei hasn’t been arrested, but is being kept around to help blow off steam.
<
p>Grooming Gamal — idiot that he is — for succession was a dumb move on Hosni’s part. If he demotes Gamal significantly, that would pacify the street and let the Mubarak Cartel live to fight another day.
i suspect that mubarak is concerned that if he “demotes” gamal, then he loses face, and suleiman or rachid might end up being better off from such a change than hosni mubarak would.
<
p>there are some who suggest (richard engle being one) that the riot police are the least professional of the egyptian security services, and that many of those folks are recruited from among the same communities as the rioters. there have been reports of riot police “flipping” to the side of the protesters in small numbers.
<
p>nobody is sure what the muslim brotherhood will do, and after today i suspect that answer is no more apparent than it was yesterday–but you have to keep in mind that at least 25% of the population ardently support the brotherhood, maybe more, and if they are shut out of politics there will be future trouble.
<
p>mubarak is speaking now, and it appears that he’s trying a “good cop, bad cop” approach: he suggests there’s room to improve the economy and to expand political freedoms even as he’s suggesting that the fires are a plot against state security, and he won’t allow it to continue. (the ndp’s cairo offices were burned tonight.)
<
p>tomorrow is islamic “sunday”, sunday is a workday…so i would expect tomorrow to be another big, big, day.
<
p>because of prayers, it’s going to be virtually impossible to declare a 24 hour curfew–and all those people, going to mosques, are already out in the street…so if they gather at one spot, from a ton of different locations, it’s going to be very tough for state security to stop.
add, but I second Sabutai’s praise. Thanks for the good work.
…and mubarak just announced that they’re going “tunisian”: he’s going to “change the government”, but that means shuffling ndp folks around, and not changing anything in a real way.
<
p>mubarak is threatening to get violent tomorrow to suppress all this…but it didn’t look to me like the army wants to go there, and if he gets this wrong he could be facing new pressures from his own troops.
I’m probably as cynical as you are that, even if there is regime change, there may not be regime change the people are looking for… but I’m hopeful as well. The more these people push, the better the chance they have — and the more countries that join in, the better the chance that at least a few of their populations will get what they want, and offer a little bit of hope for the rest of the countries in that region.
<
p>There’s absolutely no reason on earth why, with the right government, countries like Egypt and Tunisia can’t be as economically developed as the countries on the other side of the Mediterranean — at least after a few solid years of economic development that isn’t going to happen with a corrupt government. There’s certainly plenty of young and educated people who want a decent job, now all they have to do is stamp out that corruption and get a government that will work for the people.
<
p>Over twenty years and 350 billion DM later, East Germany still lags behind the former FRG on nearly every economic indicator. It’s the work of several decades — look at Japan — to bring a Third-World country up to the level of an Italy or Greece.
<
p>As I said earlier, my enthusiasm for the Egyptian developments is tempered for considerations about what may follow. Egypt isn’t a democracy, and neither is Iran; I still find Egypt’s government preferable.
but just look at South Korea. Development can happen fast with a democratic government. I didn’t say it would happen tomorrow, but it will never happen if these countries are ruled by suppression and corruption. If they get these reforms and corruption is kept at bay, things will get a lot better for them fast.
<
p>
<
p>It’s clear, to me, that the people of these countries don’t find either of their governments “preferable.” At the end of the day, we need to see these countries go democratic and let their people decide what kind of country they want to be. I’m confident that, while they may not be exactly like we want them to be, they’re going to be willing to participate in the world-wide economy and embrace peace and stability in the wider world… because that’s what it takes to avoid having an economy in which half the population earns less than $2 a day.
It will be very interesting to see what happens if and when the two Koreas reunite. The difference, both in terms of economic development and political system, is so much more extreme than the gap between East and West Germany was.
<
p>I don’t think it’s possible for a poor country to industrialize and become wealthy anymore, or at least it’s much harder than it was in the postwar period, when the US was readily handing out favorable trade agreements and other assistance to anyone who was “resisting communism”. Capital has also gotten much much more global and the ability of national players to control their economic destiny is less.
The income differential between the Koreas is much vaster than that between the Germanies. Reunification will be an incredibly complex and expensive process when and if it happens; the GDR has a much stronger civic culture than I think the PRK does. I’m not convinced that the entire South Korean bureaucracy is in a hurry to see reunification…democratization sure, but not reunification.
<
p>To Ryan, I’d point out that South Korea’s GDP was experiencing a constant rate of growth from about 1980 until 2006, predating its democraticization by about 7 years. China embraces peace, stability, and the worldwide economy and is not a democracy in any appreciable sense. The idea that free people result necessarily from free markets is frankly pro-capitalist propaganda that shows a small degree of rigor.
<
p>The Iranian Revolution in 1979 did not start as an effort to install theocracy, but that’s where it ended up. I remain hopeful that El Baradei will emerge as a strong voice leading the opposition, because he’s one of the few leaders in Egypt that I trust to lead his country toward a more democratic posture.
I’m for a strong social structure that benefits the people. If your assumption was that a democracy leads to a full-fledged, cut-throat free-market system, I point you to the many European countries (amongst others) where that’s just not the case. I think a vibrant democracy is more likely to trend in that direction, though I’m not going to suggest other countries can’t do it. As for China, yeah, they’ve had growth, but stability? Tell that to the people of Tibet. Tell that to the political prisoners. I’m not altogether convinced China is going to be able to hold their country together without major democratic reforms.
<
p>
<
p>It’s a fear, but thus far, the Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear that it’s not going to be the ‘leader’ in this little movement, and until I see them try to tamper with the elections, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they’ll participate in the democratic process if given a chance. They probably think they’d have a good chance in winning it, or being a part of a coalition government. If they were to do that, we’d have to abide by it, but I tend to think the young secularists that have led the protests thus far would be the one to win it. By all accounts, they’re probably the majority of the population (the median age in Egypt is something like 30).
My understanding is that the protesters are currently the dominant side in Suez.
<
p>What happens if they take the Canal and start making threats to cut it off? Does the US change sides? Or kill them?
Right now, this is an internal matter and has little to do with other countries. For them to decide to take the Canal (which is unlikely) would a) mean going up against the Egyptian military, which is something the people in the protests haven’t been willing to do for numerous reasons, and b) it would mean there was some sort of foreign reason for the protests — which isn’t the cause of what’s going on here. These are not anti-American or anti-West protests, they’re anti-Mubarak. The canal is not really of ‘strategic value’ to them, whereas burning down the state party’s offices down are (which is why many of them have been burned).
<
p>Besides, by the time this all settles down, the US will pretty much pay whatever it takes to buy use of the canal from whatever government ends up being in charge, and (like it or not) we keep a carrier in the Persian Gulf on a continual basis to ensure our credit is good.
…but my suspicion is that it’s an exceptionally low-probability event.
<
p>you should know that what’s happening in the suez is a reaction to bedouin who feel they’ve been targeted for repression by the egyptian government, on the one hand, and ignored by the government, on the other, when it comes to things like economic development and land issues.
<
p>a lot of the “enthusiasm” that the suez protesters are expressing today is related to that history, and i suspect most of that energy will be directed at the regime–and particularly the local police who’ve been doing the shakedowns and the beatings, and who have held thousands of these folks without charges in local jails from time to time.
Time reports that the Bedouins who control the two closest towns are threatening to take over the Suez Canal:
<
p>http://www.time.com/time/world…
…but what i took from it was the threat element and how it was directed at mubarak personally–and balanced against that is the reality that the army will not allow such an attack, and that they are better able to defend the canal than the police could have, and that, even in the sinai, the army carries a lot more respect among the people than the police.
…though for sake of some stability and a smooth transition I can live with neither he nor his son running for President this year. This is the perfect opportunity for the US to show the world and the “Arab Street” where we stand. We should not choose sides, but we should make it abundantly clear that as a matter of principle, the nation on whose soil was fired the “shot heard round the world” stands firmly on the side of free and fair elections and all the civil, political, and human rights, and will accept whatever the results may be, even if it ends up being the Muslim Brotherhood that prevails. Every once in a while, especially after a terrorist attack, we ask ourselves, “Why do they hate us?” I would submit it is largely because we claim to be the beacon of liberty, yet prop up regimes like Mubarak’s, that others see us as the world’s biggest hypocrites not truly on the side of the people.
<
p>The problem here my friend is that the Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in free and fair elections or civil, political, or human rights. This is currently a country that actively and openly persecutes Christians and other minority groups, jails homosexuals, and favors men in most legal actions. It will evolve, under the Muslim Brotherhood, into a country that will actively and severely persecute Christians and other minorities, will always favor women in most legal actions, likely force them to be veiled, and kill rather than simply jail homosexuals. Not to mention under the Brotherhood, the same faction that killed Sadat for his role in Israeli-Egyptian peace, that treaty will be abrogated and now Israel will have to go up against a US armed military juggernaut.
<
p>I am not a Muburak fan and sincerely hope that the Egyptians can become a truly free and self governing people as we are, but the neoconservative vision has led to a destabilized Middle East. We have seen less peace and freedom, not more in Iraq. Less peace and freedom, not more, in Lebanon, Less peace and freedom, not more in Turkey. Less peace and freedom, not more, in Gaza. I do not want Egypt to follow that same path. Muburak should use is televised address to announce the date of his resignation and truly free elections, and we should do everything in our power to make sure El Baredi wins. I want a democratic Egypt that is also part of the liberal Western order, an Islamist state will be neither democratic nor part of our order.
Free and fair elections is not a one-shot deal. Maybe I should have clarified that in addition to being free and fair, they need to be regular, and open to universal adult suffrage, which most critically in this context means including women. Democracy also requires a commitment between elections to certain rights that you point out may not be what the Muslim Brotherhood has in mind, and we would be well within our rights to continue to monitor that and consider it in determining the kind and extent of our dealings with that government. I’m not suggesting we become the new government’s biggest fan if it’s not a government we particularly like, but we should not rig the game and put up a strong man like we have all too often over the past several decades. If we truly believe that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government and erect a new government more conducive to their happiness then we must be willing as a matter of principle to accept whatever the outcome may be, regardless of our preferences. In the short term question of a new government we should support an observed election (paging Jimmy Carter) and if the the Muslim Brotherhood legitimately comes out with the most votes, we have no right to tell Egypt they can’t have that government. I also think they’ll be less likely to host terrorist groups like the Taliban did if they see that we respect their legitimacy.
<
p>I’m confused as to why you say the Muslim Brotherhood would favor women in legal actions. I would assume such a government would operate under the premise that a woman is so far inferior that she has no rights which a man is bound to respect.
I’d like to remind all of us of our history in Iran. We supported the Shah long after it was clear that he had lost popular support. Then-President Carter encouraged him to moderate his response to increasing popular unrest. Many of us hoped that a more democratic government in Iran would lead to improvement (and some Iranians argue that it did).
<
p>I don’t know about either of you, but I have no idea about what “free and fair elections” in Egypt will bring for Egypt, for the region, for the world, and of course for the US. I do know that, for better or worse, the Suez Canal is an enormously vital international resource. I also know that Egypt has, prior to Anwar Sadat, been a significant threat to Israel.
<
p>We are addicted to petroleum. That means we currently have an enormous stake in the outcome of events in the ME. Our addiction is very real, and the effects of sudden withdrawal are extreme and immediate. We are already at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some suggest that we should include Pakistan as a third war. We have precious little ability to open a fourth war in Egypt. While I support “free and fair elections” in the abstract, I think we should be very cautious about choosing sides in a conflict we know little or nothing about.
<
p>In my view, it is very likely that “free and fair elections” will result in a government that supports the immediate destruction of Israel, that supports the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, and is a stalwart opponent of the US.
<
p>If (and I grant you this is a huge “if”) “free and fair elections” in Egypt result in radically anti-western government dedicated to the destruction of Israel and armed with American weapons, is that still an outcome we support?
<
p>I don’t know enough to take a position on Egypt. I fear that the ME will continue to get far far worse for western interests before it gets better. For me, the only immediate takeaway from this crisis is that America must break our petroleum addiction, so that we have some ability to allow events in the ME to unfold without presenting such an immediate threat to day-to-day life in the US.
<
p>In my view, this is not the time to arrogantly project essentially naive American ideas about government and democracy on a culture that is so fundamentally different from our own.
Egypt has a large middle class and well-educated population. I think such unjustified fears have been used for too long by people like Mubarak to keep a very tight rein on their people. These fears have also resulted in a very misguided US support of undemocratic regimes throughout the ME, and the world for that matter.
<
p>So did Iran in 1979. So did immediate post-war Italy, who came out of fascism by regularly awarding a plurality of votes to the Communists, who openly opposed the idea of regular elections. The current regime in Thailand, hardly enthusiastic about democracy, is built on the backbone of the educated middle class. How to approach a polity that would democratically abolish democracy is a difficult question, but a very relevant one when contemplating Egypt.
Seems the msm can’t decide how they will cover the story, so we get a few photos without much background. It was so easy for them when they could blame the communists for the world’s situation.
<
p>Will Egypt be the testbed for nations dealing with large educated populations in protest to their government? The Eygption shutdown of the internet, social communications systems, cell phones in practice as our leaders push legislation to allow these tactics in this country. Is the US government to follow the methods used by Egypt if civil unrest breaks out? How quickly will the US military augment police in a civil disruption? How much force (terror) will be used?
<
p>While the US president tries to play all sides, I’m sure Western government and business intelligence services are busy with their own remedies.
It can’t happen here; it’s too spread out. MSNBC has been covering all night.
It can’t happen here? Obama may get power to shut down Internet without court oversight
Do you also believe that the telecom companies, which were so cooperative with the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping operations, would hesitate to comply should a President declare some kind of emergency and order phone networks shut down?
“It can’t happen here”is a loaded phrase… But, there’s plenty of people that think it happened here years ago. Coupled with widespread corruption, abuse of authority, public humiliation and intimidation of citizenry by public officials, when is the backlash? Isn’t this the stuff credited as the cause of the Tunisian and Egyptian unrest? Are we a different people?
<
p>I remember the backlash of the 1960s when the cities of America burned and the 82nd Airborne set up machine guns on the stairs of the Capitol Building. I fear the hubris of the corporate/government leadership leads to another round.
<
p>What will the American backlash be? How will it be squashed?
<
p>Thanks for the tip for MSNBC. The Guardian is good, too.
Just witnessed a video that, over here, could be dedicated to every powerless person beaten or murdered by cops, handicapped persons or lactating mothers intimidated and harassed by TSA guards, pacifists intimidated by FBI, victims of bank foreclosure fraud, the unemployed due to corporate and bankster market manipulation.
<
p>Which side are we on?
Did you miss the FBI raids against Pro-Wikileaks Hackers yesterday?
<
p>Do you seriously suggest that the forced shutdown of WikiLeaks was not the work of the US government?
<
p>It seems to me that the message is clear enough: the US government has both the means and the desire to silence internet outlets that it disapproves of, and will aggressively pursue non-government players who attempt to do the same.
<
p>Of all the learnings of the WikiLeaks episode, to me the most glaring takeaway is the US government does, in fact, have the immediate and secret ability to do far more to shutdown “undesirable” internet content than any of us acknowledge.
Not only do I trust the government wouldn’t try to shut down service, but it physically is IMPOSSIBLE to do. Comcast, AOL, Verizon, TMobile, MetroPCS, AT&T, whatever other providers you can think of for phone and internet service are all private companies that would have to agree to go along. If I were in charge of such a company I know where I’d tell the feds to go if I were asked. If we had a state-run communication system, then it might work, but these are not government computers that host these networks. The FBI incident sounds like it might have been a warrantless search, but that can eventually be challenged in court. I don’t know what’s gotten into you. You’re generally pretty level-headed, but have taken on a paranoid government-is-out-to-get-you attitude on this particular matter. I don’t know how or why Wikileaks was taken down, but since anyone who knows what they’re doing can set up a website, that’s hardly going to make a cause go away as the President himself said last night in his statement about Egypt.
Name one telecom company that refused to go along with Bush’s demands to trample the Constitution. Qwest held out briefly then folded. Everyone else folded from day one.
<
p>Considering those companies you name more or less fund our current election process to the point where they are at least co-owners with the electorate, I’ll put my faith in gold futures before I do in telecommunications corporations.
…but it seems counterintuitive. Don’t these guys lobby the government/contribute to campaigns largely to fight against regulation? It seems odd that a company would fight tooth and nail to keep the government from taxing it or telling it how to run its business, only to shut down and risk the wrath of consumers because the government said so. I’m clearly missing the motive for them to do this.
Businesses bribe politicians to secure preferential treatment. They don’t not want regulation, they want it to benefit their company. Corporations, like politicians, are without morals or conscience. That’s just the way it is. Together they represent corporatism. What’s good for the US is good for business. Corporations have a long history of partnering with government to do bad things to citizens.
<
p>“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” –Benito Mussolini
While it’s true that “anyone who knows what they’re doing can set up a website”, that does not at all mean that said website is somehow immune from government attack.
<
p>The FBI had warrants. That’s the point. Have you really forgotten President Bush’s sweeping and illegal surveillance of millions of Americans? Have you forgotten that in 2005, the Bush administration claimed the right to obtain telecom records of every American?
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>I wonder just how deeply you are willing to bury your head in the sand to avoid the plain truth: the US government has and is using heretofore secret and very effective technology to target undesirable sites. This isn’t being “paranoid” — have you forgotten how WikiLeaks was driven from its US providers? Where do you think those DoS attacks against it came from?
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>Impossible? Really, Christopher, impossible? None of the carriers has to “agree to go along” — surely we have learned that the government has an impressive array of ways to “encourage” the cooperation of such entities, some secret and some public, some legal and some not. Are you aware of the vulnerabilities of the DNS system?
<
p>Who do you think protects these critical internet resources? Can I point out that the DoD is under the command of the President? Should the President order that they be disabled (or their protection removed), do you really think they will refuse to obey that order?
<
p>Did the same military refuse Presidential orders to torture?
<
p>Can I please ask you to learn a bit more about things like Distributed denial of service attacks on root nameservers before you accuse me of paranoia?
<
p>I really don’t think you’ve ever been on the receiving end of a police night-stick or its metaphorical equivalent. The US government does do bad things from time to time — WikiLeaks showed us that the threshold of government pain is much lower than many of us assumed.
<
p>”Impossible”???? Oh my. Oh me oh my.
…never shut down the internet. When BMG disappers, I’ll start to panic:) Until then you sound a bit like the Christian Right screaming persecution in a country that identifies as more than 75% Christian. If the FBI did have the warrants, then what is the complaint? I’m also pretty sure the internet is no longer the exclusive domain of the Pentagon.
I call your attention to this passage (emphasis mine):
<
p>Please reread my comment. I did not say that “the internet is no longer the exclusive domain of the Pentagon” — that’s your invention. What I did say was
<
p>Which part of “the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the President, to launch […] an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack” is confusing or unclear?
<
p>Meanwhile, that Wikipedia page begins with the following paragraph (emphasis mine):
<
p>A handful (thirteen, but with hardware redundancy, more) of critical servers will, if taken down, take down the internet with them. I assure you that the US military has its own redundant infrastructure, separated from these.
<
p>Your claim that it is “impossible” for the US government take down the internet is false. Your reliance on it leads you to false sense of security and a false sense that the government can’t really do anything. I assure you, it can.
<
p>You ask: “If the FBI did have the warrants, then what is the complaint?”
<
p>I do not share your sanguine view of the government’s posture towards WikiLeaks. I am disturbed by how easily these warrants were obtained. I am disturbed by how far-reaching they were. I am disturbed by the data-gathering capabilities of the FBI revealed by the FBI’s choice of targets. In my view, the government’s response to WikiLeaks is greatly — no, hugely and hysterically — disproportionate to the harm. Don’t forget, Julian Assange is NOT an American. This was a mass sweep of Americans who, at the worst, attempted non-violent disruptions of commercial providers.
<
p>Their violation was the cyber equivalent of a sit-in on a public sidewalk in front of a targeted business, and this sweep was analogous to a phalanx of police sweeping through with billy-clubs and dogs, kicking butt and breaking heads.
<
p>Really, Christopher, you seem to be so busy attacking my “paranoia” that you don’t seem to be paying attention to the facts of what is going down in the US today.
The first blockquote dated 2/8/07 sounds like the Pentagon is prepared to DEFEND America from cyber attack, possibly via active retaliation to the source.
<
p>I did not intend to suggest government has never overreached. I too am disturbed by some of the activities that appear constitutionally questionable to say the least. I just still think that you are suggesting something so far above and beyond what has so far happened as to be unfathomable. I’ll be first in line to cry foul if and when it happens.
My point about the Pentagon is that the US military does see protecting the crucial weaknesses of the web as part of its mission. That means, first of all, that it knows them and knows their vulnerabilities. Secondly, it means that the Pentagon can choose not to protect those assets. Those who have been on the receiving end of a “protection racket” know how that game works — a recent example is the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The most credible accusations against the Pakistani government are that they arranged to not protect her from an assassination attempt they had every reason to believe was coming.
<
p>The distinction between “protect” and “attack” is matter of whatever direction the Pentagon gets from the White House.
<
p>You said the following:
<
p>I’m not sure why you have such trust in the government — it seems to me that the government’s overreaction to WikiLeaks highlights the weakness of such trust.
<
p>The more important assertion that I challenge is the second — that it is “impossible” for the US government to shut down the internet. It is hardly a sign of “paranoia” to observe that this is factually mistaken. It most certainly is possible; that possibility is why the Pentagon needs to defend its crucial vulnerabilities.
<
p>A common thread between Tunesia and Egypt is the role played by the web. One of the very first acts of Egypt (a US ally, if not puppet) was to shut down the internet. The behavior of the US government in response to WikiLeaks suggests, to me, that your faith that the US government will not do the same is, in my view, unsupported by evidence.
<
p>Just how far does the US government’s assault on Julian Assange and his American supporters have to go before you become uncomfortable — never mind cry “foul”?
As I recall I was the one who posted the diary bringing this to BMG’s attention.
Good point.
…in your larger discussion, i would point out that if a dns rootserver were to fail and the backup failed as well, restoration could occur by rebuilding a rack, installing operating system and application softwares, and reloading the routing tables from an offsite backup.
<
p>if it was impossible to obtain a backup, it takes about 24 hours to fully repopulate a routing table, and sites that were not in the table would be inaccessible until they were.
<
p>if the telecommunications links from the server were also taken down, there would be additional work to do there as well.
…and they may be trying hard to make it happen, it is not: here is a link that will get you to the list of cables emanating from the cairo embassy.
-To Christopher
<
p>Your second reply seemed far more nuanced and reasonable. And I think I meant that women would have even less rights under the MB than they do under the NDP, sorry if that distinction was muddled.
<
p>-To Somerville Tom
<
p>Too often we have also gone in the other extreme direction by encouraging free and fair elections without sensing whether the country is ready or if it has the kind of institutions that can produce a truly liberal democracy. Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq are all recent examples of that failure. Similarly our hands off approach to Latin America has led to the rise of Chavez, Ortega, and Morales, all of whom I would also contend, are decidedly undemocratic leaders in their thinking, particularly Chavez. I think Southern Sudan seems like a good model to follow, we rely on international monitoring and gradually implement a democratic government with a constitution that grants rights similar to the ones enshrined in our own Constitution and the UN Charter.
<
p>Also we can intervene the same way we did in Greece and Italy in the 50s, where we back political parties and funnel money to them. Supporting free and fair elections does not preclude us from playing favorites and backing the parties that will be more likely to share our interests and intentions, particularly regarding human rights. The employment of soft power, rather than hard power, to ensure that Communists lost in Laos, in Europe, and in several other states, is a far cry from the coups that so often resulted in blowback of one form or another and ultimately hurt our interests.
<
p>-To Marc Davidson
<
p>All of these are stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood which has backed the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, arguably the worst of anti-Israel terror groups, and has otherwise funneled money to kill Jews. They were also founded by Dr. Zawahiri, the current Al Qaeda #2. He was one of the many Muslim Brotherhood members that actively conspired to kill Sadat as punishment for his signing of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty with Begin and Carter. Sadat was a moderate and a committed peacemaker, and his assassination was a tragedy that emboldened extremists and hardliners in Egypt. They also would probably implement aspects of Islamic law, as Hamas has, and many of their members think the current government is too lenient on homosexuals (the current government merely beats and jails them) and too lax on enforcing female modesty. So their victory would be a set back for liberal conceptions of human rights, though I understand plenty in the international Left would applaud it out of their knee jerk anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment. True leftists and liberals should be appalled at this prospect.
<
p>-To Sabutai
<
p>You are absolutely right that a stable middle class does not always lead to democracy, a great example of this is China as well. A key to defeating the communists in Italy was the US openly backing the CDP and ensuring it governed. We can similarly employ soft power to influence elections in our favor, but do so in a way that respects the process.
i would suggest that the muslim brotherhood is less of a threat than disorganized islamists, many of whom seem to have attitudes that are more extreme than what you’re hearing from the brotherhood.
<
p>that said, what do you do about the 1/4 to 1/3 of the country who do associate with the brotherhood’s goals?
<
p>they cannot be shut out of politics, without creating the same problems that the ndp is facing today.
<
p>distraction is not likely to work: my guess is that egypt cannot choose the chinese model of “flatscreens first, political reform later” because of the number of observant religious people in the country who will want their laws to reflect their religions–and this is not good news for “national unity”.
<
p>intervention in a measured way is possibly a ship that’s already sailed, and it may be that the longest timeline mubarak’s government gets is a month or so to allow for an election campaign–and maybe not even that.
<
p>i’ll have more on this in a follow-up story, but i would look for military intervention before the brotherhood gets the chance to take out a government again–especially in a way that would allow them to obtain power…but it’s entirely appropriate to note that sadat’s assassins were drawn from within the army.
<
p>the thing that may be the toughest to accept is that there will likely be a less friendly government when this is all over and that that may be the best outcome possible, although i do have a bit of hopeful news that we’ll bring to the next story.
I am afraid far too much of his discussion has been US based, regarding what we have done, what we can do, and what we should do. Yet, ultimately it will be up to El Baredi and the Egyptian military how this proceeds. The Egyptian military, which thus far seems to be reluctant to engage the protesters at least when compared to the police, and is the most respected institution in Egyptian society, not to mention one of the most moderate and secular, could quietly remove Muburak and then fill in a temporary military leader as a placeholder. He could be like Val in Mauritania or some of the generals in Tunis until El Baredi could run and form a coalition of opposition figures, including the MB who would ideally moderate as part of a broader government.
Pew does polling on the views of folks in various middle eastern countries.
<
p>1. This is from a month ago.
<
p>
<
p>2. Also: Among those who believe their country faces a struggle between modernizers and fundamentalist Islamists,
<
p>In Lebanon, 82% identify with modernizers.
<
p>In Egypt, 59% identify with fundamentalists.
<
p>3. In response to Fake Consultant’s Big Question:
<
p>I don’t think MB has the popularity to establish a theocracy. Instead, I would predict a military-controlled society something akin to now, though more socially repressive.
I’m not at all worried about the Muslim Brotherhood moving in immediately to establish a theocracy. While there are exceptions (Czech Republic, Philippines) one can also see a pattern in France/Iran/Russia, etc whereby well-meaning but experienced people take over after a revolution, but are quickly crowded out by better-organized radicals.
<
p>The Muslim Brotherhood is far better organized than El Baradei and his coterie, and with the economy likely to remain mired in its current state, their best play is to stand apart from this, and then move in this autumn.
You think El Baredi is an Egpytian Kerensky?
Or Jacques Necker, who toppled the French monarchy and was soon toppled himself.
A lot of these punishments appear extremely harsh. Basically, your life would result in death if you committed adultery and leave the Muslim religion.
<
p>Jackson Roberts