I have no idea who Justin Raimondo is (the reverse is also true) but any informed person that had visited the Middle-East or Northern Africa in the last year could see and feel the extreme tension on the streets.
This explosion was indeed pending and predictable. I predicted it in my last report when I returned from the area. That anyone read or gave credence to what I reported is another story. The Arab revolts have only just begun. (note I did NOT say Islamic Revolts). On Feb 7, 12:28 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Caught in the HeadlightsThe Egyptian upsurge: why we never saw it > comingbyJustin Raimondo, February 07, 2011 > The Obama administration has veered all over the map when it comes to the > Egyptian uprising, beginning with Vice President Joe Bidendeclaringhis > fulsome support for his dear friend Hosni Mubarak, and refusing to > characterize him as a dictator. That Obama’s crew were asleep at the wheel – > delegating their response to a figure whom no one in Washington takes very > seriously – was painfully apparent as the Cairo revolt showedevery signof > becoming a full-scale nationwide revolution. > They are being chastised, however gently, for this, but the reality is that > their blinkered vision comes with the territory. The Obama-ites, after all, > are the inheritors of aglobal empire, the structure of which was > determinedlong beforeany of them were born. The idea that they could separate > themselves from this context, and see the world objectively, is a hopeful > delusion many liberal critics of interventionism continue to entertain. The > administration’s awkward stumbling in the face of the Egyptian protests > should permanently disabuse them of this notion. > Mubarak supporter Chris Matthewscomplainedabout our “experts” working in the > State Department who are supposed to have been able to see all this coming, > and demanded to know “What are theydoingover there?” But these platoons of > analystscouldn’thave seen the revolution coming down the road, because > itpassed themin the night, shrouded in the fog of Washington’s astigmatism. > They couldn’t have seen or heard it, because they were too busy rationalizing > and profiting off their own role as theenablersandpatronsof Mubarak’s > dictatorship. > From disdain to delaying tactics: that has been the course of the US > government’s response to the challenge of the Egyptian masses. We are a long > way from Biden’s endorsement of Mubarak, but if we peel away therhetorical > flourishesabout “democracy” and “the will of the Egyptian people,” the > underlying reality is that we have merelytransferredour loyalty to former > Egyptian intelligence chiefOmar Suleiman– thekey linkin the chain of > repression that has kept Egypt a police state for 30 years. > Although we may never know whether the order to crack down was actually given > to the army, or whether Mubarak knew better than to issue it, thefailureof > the separate security forces to drive the protesters out of Tahrir Square – > and other sites of unrest all around the country – forced Mubarak loyalists > to resort to subtler means of maintaining control. The “negotiations” now > being held with some elements of the opposition are the latest tactic in the > regime’s battle to hang on to power, but these are no more likely to arrive > at a settlement than theIsraeli-Palestinian negotiationswhich are supposed to > end in the creation of a secular and democratic Palestinian state. The goal > is for nothing to happen at all. > When you look at the opposition’s response to this strategy, it’s interesting > to note how the divisions are playing themselves out. The Muslim Brotherhood > and some secular parties areagreeing to participate, whileMohamed ElBaradei, > the former head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, is standing with the > youth and secular nationalists who want Mubarak out as a precondition for > talks. So much for the alleged radicalism of the Brotherhood: the bogeyman > held up bythe Israelis,the neocons, andGlenn Beck’s fan clubas the central > hub of the “axis of evil” turns out to be one of the more moderate factions > in the movement. > The fear-mongering around the Brotherhood depends on ignorance of the history > of the group’s on-again, off-again collaboration with the regime, > extendingover many years. During the cold war the regime found the > Brotherhood to be aconvenient counterweightto secular democratic, socialist, > and Nasserite opponents. In more recent years there has been a crackdown, > punctuated by periods of relatively peaceful coexistence: as in Lebanon, > under the auspices ofHezbollah, the Brotherhood has built anextensive > networkof social, economic, and charitable institutions that carry out many > of the functions of a state-within-a-state. This could not have happened > unless the regime allowed it. While they werepreventedfrom fully > participating in the last parliamentary elections, widely described > asbrazenly fraudulent, the elections prior to that gave Brotherhood > candidates (running as “independents”)88 seatsin an Assembly with 454 members. > The point is that the Brotherhood has a stake in maintaining some semblance > of the status quo. The secular opposition, including ElBaradei and the youth, > are much less invested in the established order. While the Brotherhood raises > the superficially scary prospect of Egypt as an Islamic state organized along > the lines of Iran, this is an ideological construct rather than one rooted > inreality, i.e., it is belied by theactionsof the Brotherhood’s leadership in > the present crisis. Let Glenn Beckhyperventilateall he wants about the coming > of the Islamic “Caliphate,” which the Brotherhood upholds in theory: in > practice, however – like virtually all political movements – they are willing > to indefinitely postpone the achievement of their ostensible goals in order > to get in on the political action. Indeed, their pragmatism and moderation > has aroused the ire of the real radicals, such asAyman al-Zawahiri, al > Qaeda’s chief theoretician, who has written a book-length polemic against the > Brotherhood’s sellout of the movement. Their entry into an alliance with a > Suleiman-led “transitional” government would just be another chapter in that > book. > Indeed, it is not hard to see the Brotherhood going along with an Egypt still > largely dominated, politically, by a government staunchly placing itself in > the American camp, in much the same way as the Palestinian Authority – the > heirs of Yasser Arafat’s PLO/Fatah – has becomea satrap of the United States. > It was little noticed, amid all the drama, that the “official” Palestinian > leadershipimmediately backed Mubarakagainst the protesters. > While we’re getting contradictory stories about the outcome of the > government’s negotiations with some of the opposition – they agreed, they > disagreed, they split over some issues – the statement issued by the > authorities underscores the paucity of the alleged “concessions” made. > For example, the negotiatorspurportedlyagreed that articles 76 and 77 of the > Egyptian constitution will be “reformed,” but these two provisions – lifting > term limits on the presidency and setting the conditions by which parties are > qualified for the election ballot – were going to be reformed anyway, > according to the government. Indeed, they have been promising to do so for > years. There is another alleged point of agreement over allowing freedom of > the media, but insofar as the newspapers are concerned, there > isalreadyfreedom of the press: for years, it has been possible to read > scathing critiques of Mubarak and his cronies in the Egyptian mass media, as > long as one didn’t discuss what one read in the cafes where one could be > overheard by theall-pervasive secret police. Then, one risked imprisonment or > worse. > The supporters of the regime – and, standing behind them, the US government – > arewaiting out the protesters, hoping they’ll get bored, frustrated, and be > forced to return to “normalcy” – which, in Egypt, means a return to > repression. The regimists hope to create the illusion of change without > implementing any fundamental reform, keeping the apparatus of the state – the > political police, the state-controlled economy, and the office of the > President – intact and under the control of the usual suspects. In short, > they hope to pull off in Cairo what the Obama-ites pulled off in Washington, > D.C. – phony “change” in the service of Power. > It won’t work. The factors that led to the Egyptian explosion are not going > to go away any time soon. These are, first of all, largely economic: > theworldwide inflationsparked by the US Federal Reserve has affectedfood > pricesand sent the cost of living shooting skyward. If you’re an ordinary > Egyptian, or a Tunisian, subsisting on little more than $2 a day, this is not > a negotiable issue. The beneficiaries of what growth the Egyptian economy has > managed to achieve have been thepolitically-connected elite, with the great > majority of people left out of the party: in Egypt, a rising tide has not > lifted all boats, but only those tethered to the regime. > This was the symbolic meaning of the event that sparked what has become a > regional upsurge: the martyrdom ofMohamed Bouazizi, the vegetable-and-fruit > vendor who immolated himself in protest when the Tunisian authorities > prevented him from getting a license to sell his wares in the marketplace. > His death created a protest movement that soon swept the country – and spread > to neighboring Egypt, where similar conditions prevail. > The Egyptian revolution could never have taken off without the active > participation of therising middle classes– or those aspiring to middle class > status – who are losing ground economically and have been cut out of the > system politically for the whole of Mubarak’s reign. The children of that > middle class are the young tech-savvy activists who started the movement to > begin with, and they are the most radical – and the most secularized – wing > of the anti-regime coalition. > This is the element to which the future belongs, and it is these people who > are being turned into determined opponents of the United States by the > actions of our government. The unbending stupidity of that policy was > underscored by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when – amidst a veritable > tsunami of rhetoric ostensibly upholding the democratic aspirations of the > Egyptian people – shereiteratedthe longstanding US position:“Do we do > business with, do we have relations with, do we support governments over the > past 50 years that we do not always see eye-to-eye with? Of course. That’s > the world in which we live.”“The world in which we live” is the world as we > made it, and are making it. It is, in short, the world in which Hillary > Clinton and her fellows in the West wouldliketo live, and much prefer over > one in which the bothersome antics of the Egyptian people get in the way of > our “national security” goals, and those of our allies. This is why the > Egyptian people, and peoples all over the world, have come to hate us, and > blame us for their daily humiliation. And it is a hatred well earned. > We care so much about Egypt because the Mubarak regime has been a key link in > the infrastructure of our Middle Eastern sphere of influence: the linchpin of > the arrangements thatkeep the Israeli Sparta secure, and a major player in > the Sunni-US alliance against the rise of Shi’ite power in Iran. As the > WikiLeaks cables show, Mubarak has beenone of the loudestadvocates, among our > Arab vassals, of a US strike against the mullahs. The loss of Egypt will mean > an indefinite delay in the campaign to effect “regime change” in Tehran. This > is a major setback for the War Party, and the cause of the Americans’ > stubborn resistance to the protesters key demands. > The protesters and the regimeseemto have reached an impasse, where neither > side is willing to give and the latter are waiting for the former to lose > steam and give up the fight. Whatever happens in the short term, this merely > postpones the ultimate decision as to which road Egypt will take. Even if the > pro-democracy movement is temporarily stalled, it wouldn’t take much to stir > things up again:the whole regionis a tinderbox just waiting to go off, due as > much to economic as well as political conditions prevalent across the Middle > East and much of Central Asia. Southern Europe, by the way, isn’t much better > off economically: this is just the beginning of the insurrections that are > bound to germinate as the international economy continues to shrink and the > consequences of worldwide inflation takes hold. > What will come out of that global turmoil is anybody’s guess, but one factor > the Obama administration ignores at its peril: the soft underbelly of the > empire they seek to defend is the very thing that made and makes the rule of > their Egyptian counterparts so uncertain – the worldwide economic > contraction that is squeezing people’s hopes to the breaking point. Europe > has already seen massive protests, as in what happened in Greece, and it’s > not impossible that the wave of discontent could leap the Atlantic and set a > prairie fire burning on our very own shores. > The Obama administration pretends to sympathize with the Egyptian people and > the protesters in the streets, but in reality they are appalled – and > frightened. The sight of masses of people upending a government friendly to > the US has them shaking in their boots. What scares them the most is that > they never saw it coming – just as they won’t see it approaching if and when > it happens closer to home. They think the repressive apparatus of the State > is invincible, and imagine their fortress of power to be impregnable – but so > did > Mubarak.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/06/caught-in-the-headlights/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
