Muslim Brotherhood cements its power in Egypt

[dsummoner]

Source:

Egypt's president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year's uprising. Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.

The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected - which is not expected before next spring - are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases. The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers. Morsi not only holds executive power, he also has legislative authority after a previous court ruling just before he took office on June 30 dissolved the powerful lower house of parliament, which was led by the Brotherhood. With two branches of power in his hands, Morsi has had repeated frictions with the third, the judiciary, over recent months.

Predictable? Yes. Predicted? Only by some.

I win.

[pickles]

You win!

But you fail to lay out what the USs options were.

Should we have invaded a country to FIGHT A DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT???

Even for u that's absurd. And that takes a lot.

[dsummoner]

You win!

But you fail to lay out what the USs options were.

Should we have invaded a country to FIGHT A DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT???

Even for u that's absurd. And that takes a lot.

The US has a long history of fighting democratic movements (objective history books can be your friend as well). The US should, but it won't, come to some understanding regarding the schizophrenic and oft conflicted nature of its foreign policy objectives (the Bushblundering of democracy spreading in Gaza was apparently not enough of a lesson for Obama). Given that the US was and is involved, it should have used its soft power influence with the Egyptian military. Instead, it threw a decades long ally under the bus and the fun is now just starting.

BTW, happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

[ivanbalt]

Arabs love a good dictator. It's ironic when they elect one.

[BlandFood]

Arabs love a good dictator. It's ironic when they elect one.

That's all they got, doesn't matter if we select them or they elect them........

[Joy in Mudville]

Given that the US was and is involved, it should have used its soft power influence with the Egyptian military. Instead, it threw a decades long ally under the bus and the fun is now just starting.

In other words, the US should have urged the Egyptian military to engage in a brutal crackdown of an unarmed democratic movement. For someone who constantly bemoans US 'meddling' he seems convinced that the US should have meddled in Egypt on behalf of an unpopular two bit dictator.

Personally, I think it was better to actually read the writing on the wall and get on the right side of history. And we just saw how the US was able to work with Morsi to secure a cease fire in Gaza.

[BlandFood]

In other words, the US should have urged the Egyptian military to engage in a brutal crackdown of an unarmed democratic movement. For someone who constantly bemoans US 'meddling' he seems convinced that the US should have meddled in Egypt on behalf of an unpopular two bit dictator.

Personally, I think it was better to actually read the writing on the wall and get on the right side of history. And we just saw how the US was able to work with Morsi to secure a cease fire in Gaza.

You think that's gonna last? I think BILLIONS were at stake if they didn't try and end the fighting. Egypt is like everyone3 else, they like the free dollar and food.

[dsummoner]

In other words, the US should have urged the Egyptian military to engage in a brutal crackdown of an unarmed democratic movement. For someone who constantly bemoans US 'meddling' he seems convinced that the US should have meddled in Egypt on behalf of an unpopular two bit dictator.

You do understand the difference between my ideal and conditional positions, correct?

The following should have made it clear, which position, was being discussed: "Given that the US was and is involved..." This is a conditional. That the current administration is repeating the mistakes of the past works out quite well for me. That being said, anyone with any understanding of the situation on the ground in Egypt before the Islamist Spring coupled with an understanding of US foreign policy objectives in the region should have been able to suss out why 'democracy' would have been, was and is antithetical to the US. At this point, I merely have to but sit back and watch the delicious chaos unfold, with now, a posteriori affirmation of my predictive prowess.

Personally, I think it was better to actually read the writing on the wall and get on the right side of history. And we just saw how the US was able to work with Morsi to secure a cease fire in Gaza.

The victors write the history books. I would be a bit (more than a bit) circumspect about ' how the US was able to work with Morsi to secure a cease fire in Gaza.' Then again, I don't have a 'must defend' the administration perspective.

Happy Thanksgiving, Joy in Mudville.

[Joy in Mudville]

That the current administration is repeating the mistakes of the past works out quite well for me. That being said, anyone with any understanding of the situation on the ground in Egypt before the Islamist Spring coupled with an understanding of US foreign policy objectives in the region should have been able to suss out why 'democracy' would have been, was and is antithetical to the US. At this point, I merely have to but sit back and watch the delicious chaos unfold, with now, a posteriori affirmation of my predictive prowess.

The thing I have never seen you do is discuss a credible set of alternatives that any US administration could have followed. Vague references to soft power don't really cut it.

I guess we could have supported a crackdown similar to the 68 Prague crackdown and that may have bought the Muburak regime some time, maybe. And, it's not like we're universally loved in the region anyway.

In terms of your arrogance, I mean, 'predictive prowess' anyone with the ability to read a newspaper or even a cursory knowledge of the country knew that the brotherhood was the most organized of the opposition and stood to do well in the first elections.

What you don't seem to grasp is that revolutions play out over the long term. The book on the Arab spring is in it's first chapters.

[dsummoner]

The thing I have never seen you do is discuss a credible set of alternatives that any US administration could have followed. Vague references to soft power don't really cut it.

The soft power in question is the soft power that the US had purchased with the Egyptian military over the course of decades. During the early stages of the Islamist Spring, instead of working behind the scenes with the Egyptian military to shore up support for the Mubarak government, Obama took the most inastute position of speaking out against Mubarak (remember the issue here is US FP priorities and not the 'people' of Egypt). Mubarak was ousted because he lost support of the Egyptian military.

I guess we could have supported a crackdown similar to the 68 Prague crackdown and that may have bought the Muburak regime some time, maybe. And, it's not like we're universally loved in the region anyway.

The US is unloved because it meddles in the affairs of others (either on its own or through the 'internationalization' of Western mores and norms) - and it supports the Jews, whom the actual Muslims have issues with. That being said, given that the US has chosen to meddle in the region, the ouster of an ally who has long aided in the advancement of US regional policy objectives is rather significant (lynchpin actually in regards to Israel and second, regionally, only to Saudi Arabia).

In terms of your arrogance, I mean, 'predictive prowess' anyone with the ability to read a newspaper or even a cursory knowledge of the country knew that the brotherhood was the most organized of the opposition and stood to do well in the first elections.

Your government should look into hiring some people that can read newspapers and have at least cursory knowledge of the country. Clearly, however, such would break the streak of foreign policy incompetence exhibited by the current administration, following on the foreign policy incompetence of previous administrations. My 'arrogance' is well justified by my having been correct.

What you don't seem to grasp is that revolutions play out over the long term. The book on the Arab spring is in it's first chapters.

Chapter 1. Obama throws Mubarak under the wheels of the bus.
Chapter 2. 'Democracy' results in open empowerment of the MB.
Chapter 2a. Dreams of a liberal secularist government being voted (they have the democracy') crushed.
Chapter 3. US foreign policy plans to meet its objectives in the region start to unravel.
Chapter 4. Morsi grants himself extraordinary power - cementing MB rule in Egypt.

You are not going to like the rest of the book but I most certainly do and am going to enjoy the steady unraveling of the 'accomplishments' of the US in the region.

[flyboy56]

And we just saw how the US was able to work with Morsi to secure a cease fire in Gaza.[/QUOTE]

And at what cost to the US taxpayer money wise? So now we are bribing terrorist organizations such as Hamas?

[flyboy56]

Either you take the bull by the horns or the bull will surely take you. Everyone has designs on conquering the world. So who would you prefer do the conquering?

[dsummoner]

Morsi has played the US in a manner akin to a maestro playing a Stradivarius. The timing of this declaration in regards to the timing of the (temporary) cease-fire is not by chance.

[flyboy56]

Everybody assumes we all want democracy,peace and love. For those folks, you truly are in for a very rude awakening. You may not like what the US is offering, but we could be in for a lot worse when the US can no longer defend freedom around the world.

[flyboy56]

Morsi has played the US in a manner akin to a maestro playing a Stradivarius. The timing of this declaration in regards to the timing of the (temporary) cease-fire is not by chance.

And I am hearing rumblings of a temporary cease fire already starting to collapse.

[dsummoner]

Everybody assumes we all want democracy,peace and love. For those folks, you truly are in for a very rude awakening. You may not like what the US is offering, but we could be in for a lot worse when the US can no longer defend freedom around the world.

The US has a mixed bag of oft conflicted foreign policy objectives. 'Defend(ing) freedom' makes it in there every once in a while and often to the detriment of many other US foreign policy objectives.

[dsummoner]

And I am hearing rumblings of a temporary cease fire already starting to collapse.

They always do. Such is the nature of the conflict, which has a religious root cause.

[CajunRaven]

That's all they got, doesn't matter if we select them or they elect them........

Well, maybe it does matter. As DS pointed out, we could have worked with the military to support Mubarek. Instead, we have traded one brutal dictator for another (as this action clearly indicates) and the latter is not friendly to us or the Israelis, which will end up further drawing us into the mess.

As for the cease fire, any bets here on how long that lasts. Now, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran will be joined by Morsi. How long can we continue to buy them all off? The situation is now worse.

[soulflower]

Well, maybe it does matter. As DS pointed out, we could have worked with the military to support Mubarek.

The military in Egypt had turned against Mubarak. Once his own military officers were abandoning him there was little that we could do to continue to help prop up the regime.

Egypt is not Syria. We weren't going to stand by and let civilians get slaughtered...

[CajunRaven]

The military in Egypt had turned against Mubarak. Once his own military officers were abandoning him there was little that we could do to continue to help prop up the regime.

Maybe SF, but we should have tried. Money is a powerful motivator. There was no upside in supporting what was coming. Believing they would get a secular democratic government long term was a pipe dream, IMO.

And the civilians who chose this will continue to get slaughtered.

And, if it is truly about civilians being slaughtered, why is there a difference? Why is it we care about this group of innocents, but those others over there, not so much.