Al-Sissi-The Egyptian Saviour

[Toramana]

Great visionary leader. Imagine had the Salafist and Akhwanis succeeded in monopolizing power in Egypt what would have been the consequences. Egypt would have entered a long period of isolation.

More to hear about it members esp Kaish and Al-Abdali.

[tripledouble]

Al Sissy is a pansy, he's an ugly dictator mass killing his own people, the lapdog of israel

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Toramana, I agree that Egyptians should have kept the polarizing effects of Salafists and The Ikhwan at bay; but do you think that Al-Sissi isn't monopolizing power? Do you think Al-Sissi is nothing more than a Western stooge re-implanted to keep Western hands all over Egypt to kept it under its handle? The things that Al-Sissi did were despicable and should not be given credibility. He mass murdered THOUSANDS of people for JUST protesting. This is inexcusable for even Secular standards of Human Rights.

[asad71]

Great sorrows visit a people invariably if a leader chosen by them freely is removed by force.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Great visionary leader. Imagine had the Salafist and Akhwanis succeeded in monopolizing power in Egypt what would have been the consequences. Egypt would have entered a long period of isolation.

More to hear about it members esp Kaish and Al-Abdali.

Frankly, I am not an idealist chasing Quixotic windmills. I saw Sisi coming from miles away at the very beginning of the "revolution" and I am sure a person with your level of reading and experience did as well. I am certain the statistics show referendums favor the MB which was very well organized, including in the rural areas where they had outreach and well fair efforts. Robert Fisk's article showed this vividly:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/robert-fisk-on-egypt-as-impoverished-crowds-gather-in-support-of-mohamed-morsi-the-wellheeled-march-behind-their-images-of-the-general-8734453.html

One point that stood out – and it may be unfashionable to say so – is that the Brotherhood supporters were generally poor and looked poor in their grubby abayas and plastic sandals. Some of the Tahrir demonstrators, who were truly revolutionaries against Mubarak in 2011, trooped over the Nile bridges waving posters of General al-Sisi. And one has to say, painful as it is to do so, that the sight of well-heeled people holding aloft the photograph of a general in sunglasses – albeit a wonderful and very democratic general – was profoundly depressing. What really happened to the 25 January 2011 revolution?

I originally thought Tantawi would declare martial law of some sort and halt the procession toward a vote, but in the background Sisi was more of a master manipulator, ensuring that Morsi would remove Tantawi from the equation.

In the modern sense, whether it be Latin America, Africa, Pakistan, or the middle East, the concept of "revolutions" are pseudo revolts against satrap proxy forces controlled by the higher level powers that can never succeed unless the military is disbanded or removed from the equation because if the higher power's interests are opposed, the military will step in. The Algerian historical example is one of note.

In general, this is an internal Egyptian matter that Egyptians must resolve amongst themselves as must the denizens of other nations that make decisions to side with incomplete revolution. If they assume that their military is working for their interests, while really owning 85% of the economy and a generous portion of the national resources and land as shown in here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/2012215195912519142.html

Then the problem is with the people because they hold schizophrenic and opposing views that are irreconcilable and this makes revolution impossible.

I am however surprised you support Sisi since he is now the most heavily backed dictator by Saudi largesse:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/17667-al-sisi-gets-more-billions-to-squander

But to summarize, Sisi is a reflection of a revolution that was going to be ineffective from the start and anyone studied in history could see this coming.

[khushal]

Sisi's move actually strengthens the Salafi's argument to the people that you must take the AK to bring change and weakens the argument of MB of peaceful change. Sisi decision to take power by force gives opportunity to the Salafi to tell the people "I told you so." The path of the ballot is going to take a back seat and the path of the gun is going to be at the forefront.

In essence, Sisi is the Salafi argument's best friend and will propel that argument forward not only in Egypt but in most of the Middle East.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Sisi's move actually strengthens the Salafi's argument to the people that you must take the AK to bring change and weakens the argument of MB of peaceful change. Sisi decision to take power by force gives opportunity to the Salafi to tell the people "I told you so."

In essence, Sisi is the Salafi argument's best friend and will propel that argument.

Very true, hence the rising insurrection and violence. Interesting article that brings up important differences between Nour party salafists and other "salafists" regarding how they approached the election and revolution and its outcome.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/02/al_qaedas_expansion.php

but makes the same point

[Toramana]

Toramana, I agree that Egyptians should have kept the polarizing effects of Salafists and The Ikhwan at bay; but do you think that Al-Sissi isn't monopolizing power? Do you think Al-Sissi is nothing more than a Western stooge re-implanted to keep Western hands all over Egypt to kept it under its handle? The things that Al-Sissi did were despicable and should not be given credibility. He mass murdered THOUSANDS of people for JUST protesting. This is inexcusable for even Secular standards of Human Rights.

Full Blown Ravage aka Revulsion Through Ranting (RTR) as you are not an Islamist fanatic like our Al-Abdali and are redeemable I think I can engage with you in this discussion.

In my opinion the powers that had started re-shaping the world with the collapse of Soveit Union (1990s) had unleashed the Salafist Akhwani alliance to destabilize Egypt to ultimately being able to put in place an order in the North-Africa and the Middle East that can be a part of the final bulwark against the East (China+India+Russia+Iran+other states).

No matter how oppressive the military junta in Egypt may be, it is the sole guarantee of Egypt's stability and continuity as a state. One should look at Syria and Libya and now Yimin as how "spreading the democracy" project has gone awry and how is it causing the disintegration of states.

The pattern and strategy is very clear. Help movements like Salafists and Islamists unleash themselves on the society, watch the chaos resulting from the conflict between the Islamists and anti-Islamists and when that causes state failure, come in and put in place an order fully or maximally dependent on you dismantling the old order completely.

In my opinion the Egyptian Army was watching all this nervously and when it realized it intervened to stabilize Egypt preventing it from falling into the type of chaos that we see in Syria, Libya, and Yimin.

In my opinion, Islamista, Salafists, and other fanatics are an asset to whoever would like to intervene in Muslim countries.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Full Blown Ravage aka Revulsion Through Ranting (RTR) as you are not an Islamist fanatic like our Al-Abdali and are redeemable I think I can engage with you in this discussion.

In my opinion the powers that had started re-shaping the world with the collapse of Soveit Union (1990s) had unleashed the Salafist Akhwani alliance to destabilize Egypt to ultimately being able to put in place an order in the North-Africa and the Middle East that can be a part of the final bulwark against the East (China+India+Russia+Iran+other states).

No matter how oppressive the military junta in Egypt may be, it is the sole guarantee of Egypt's stability and continuity as a state. One should look at Syria and Libya and now Yimin as how "spreading the democracy" project has gone awry and how is it causing the disintegration of states.

The pattern and strategy is very clear. Help movements like Salafists and Islamists unleash themselves on the society, watch when the chaos resulting from the conflict between the Islamists and anti-Islamists and when that causes state failure, come in and put in place an order fully or maximally dependent on you dismantling the old order completely.

In my opinion the Egyptian Army was watching all this nervously and when it realized it intervened to stabilize Egypt preventing it from falling into the type of chaos that we see in Syria, Libya, and Yimin.

In my opinion, Islamista, Salafists, and other fanatics are an asset to whoever would like to intervene in Muslim countries.

In my humble opinion you are generally right.

1. Whether they would have just made Egypt another Libya (relative chaos) or put it as part of a series of "Muslim" Brotherhood run states in the middle east following Turkey as their leader, I can't say for certain.

However the Americans were definitely planning to revive their use of the "green card" and "green belt" as per 1980s.

The "green belt" was to promote radical "Islam" in the then USSR's southern flank to destabilize it. It worked fantastically and the Afghans defeated the Soviets and later (due to other reasons and also the Afghan victory) the USSR collapse and the whole communist bloc.

The "green belt" strategy saw the promotion of radical Islam, militant Deobandism via the agency of the Pakistani state.

By this I don't want to de-legitimize the struggle of the Afghan people as I'm sure Barakzai would say it was a struggle for freedom. I am merely saying that America didn't "help" out in Afghanistan/Pakistan from the goodness of its heart but purely for its own selfish agenda.




2. The middle east is in absolute chaos now. Syria is totally destroyed. Libya is in civil war.

The Egyptian military perhaps did sense the American threat to destabilize Egypt as a nation, I can't say.

However the only other thing I can add, it might even be secondary to an extent or it might be of the utmost importance, is that there are claims that Mubarak alienated the military and also his apparently somewhat obnoxious son did. The military fearful of an Assad (Papa Assad, baby Assad i.e. Bashar) style transition or "succession" of power i.e. Mubarak's son would succeed him as Bashar succeeded his father, decided to take action.

The Nasserite army decided to kick Mubarak out, let protests take place in Tahrir square and after his removal rather than making it look obvious that one general simply replace another, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate would be allowed to rule.

However, from what I'm told by those who claimed all this, the game plan was to sabotage Morsi and his ability to run the country as the Nasserite establishment ran key organizations e.g. they made certain basic services e.g. provision of certain utilities very difficult so that Egyptians would be unhappy.

Anyway we all know what happened after that....or as the saying goes, "the rest is history."



3. Radical "Islamists" (e.g. ISIS, Al-Qaeda) are amongst the biggest threats to Muslims and tools of the western powers, definitely right, and yes the long term plan was to strengthen radical "Islam" in the middle east and then target Russia and China in the long run e.g. Chechnya, north Caucasus, Xianjiang. Ukraine - and the American instigation of war - is part of that and has already been put in motion.

[Toramana]

In my humble opinion you are generally right.

1. Whether they would have just made Egypt another Libya (relative chaos) or put it as part of a series of "Muslim" Brotherhood run states in the middle east following Turkey as their leader, I can't say for certain.

However the Americans were definitely planning to revive their use of the "green card" and "green belt" as per 1980s.

The "green belt" was to promote radical "Islam" in the then USSR's southern flank to destabilize it. It worked fantastically and the Afghans defeated the Soviets and later (due to other reasons and also the Afghan victory) the USSR collapse and the whole communist bloc.

The "green belt" strategy saw the promotion of radical Islam, militant Deobandism via the agency of the Pakistani state.

By this I don't want to de-legitimize the struggle of the Afghan people as I'm sure Barakzai would say it was a struggle for freedom. I am merely saying that America didn't "help" out in Afghanistan/Pakistan from the goodness of its heart but purely for its own selfish agenda.




2. The middle east is in absolute chaos now. Syria is totally destroyed. Libya is in civil war.

The Egyptian military perhaps did sense the American threat to destabilize Egypt as a nation, I can't say.

However the only other thing I can add, it might even be secondary to an extent or it might be of the utmost importance, is that there are claims that Mubarak alienated the military and also his apparently somewhat obnoxious son did. The military fearful of an Assad (Papa Assad, baby Assad i.e. Bashar) style transition or "succession" of power i.e. Mubarak's son would succeed him as Bashar succeeded his father, decided to take action.

The Nasserite army decided to kick Mubarak out, let protests take place in Tahrir square and after his removal rather than making it look obvious that one general simply replace another, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate would be allowed to rule.

However, from what I'm told by those who claimed all this, the game plan was to sabotage Morsi and his ability to run the country as the Nasserite establishment ran key organizations e.g. they made certain basic services e.g. provision of certain utilities very difficult so that Egyptians would be unhappy.

Anyway we all know what happened after that....or as the saying goes, "the rest is history."



3. Radical "Islamists" (e.g. ISIS, Al-Qaeda) are amongst the biggest threats to Muslims and tools of the western powers, definitely right, and yes the long term plan was to strengthen radical "Islam" in the middle east and then target Russia and China in the long run e.g. Chechnya, north Caucasus, Xianjiang. Ukraine - and the American instigation of war - is part of that and has already been put in motion.

Bengal_Tiger, the Arab Spring being an internal Egyptian politics is a recent theory but there are some problems accepting it fully. In my opinion, it was an externally instigated "regime change" attempt much like color revolution but the one that causes more mayhem.

Look how powerful Arab states have fallen one after the other starting with Iraq followed by Libya. Saudi Arabia is just a deck of card. It is not really a state; it is family oligarchy.

The rest of the Gulf states are only semi-states as Sissi once said.

In the absence of any external interventionist power a strong Arab state will try to expand to unify all or most Arab lands into one state either voluntarily or by force (as Saddam tried to do). So if any external power wants to retain influence over Arab lands, it must prevent any powerful Arab state from emerging.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Bengal_Tiger, the Arab Spring being an internal Egyptian politics is a recent theory but there are some problems accepting it fully. In my opinion, it was an externally instigated "regime change" attempt much like color revolution but the one that causes more mayhem.

Look how powerful Arab states have fallen one after the other starting with Iraq followed by Libya. Saudi Arabia is just a deck of card. It is not really a state; it is family oligarchy.

The rest of the Gulf states are only semi-states as Sissi once said.

In the absence of any external interventionist power a strong Arab state will try to expand to unify all or most Arab lands into one state either voluntarily or by force (as Saddam tried to do). So if any external power wants to retain influence over Arab lands, it must prevent any powerful Arab state from emerging.

Well who knows.

One thing I do know is that during the months preceding Mubarak's overthrow, the actual majority of Egyptians may have happened to be pro-Mubarak.

Why?

Well most Egyptians are simple rural people and they only had basic TVs from which they saw Egyptian state TV which preached love for Mubarak, so they liked him.

In the cities people had satellite channels and other things and saw a more negative image of Mubarak. Anyway in most countries the power is in the cities that's where everything is decided.

You mentioned colour revolution, yes that brought back to mind the role of facebook and social media in all this.

Most people unquestioningly swallow the western narrative they hear from CNN, BBC, Fox etc.

Will Arabs unite? That's a separate question and a big one. I've lived in the region and I can tell you that it's a complex issue.

[Insight]

The irony is that now Sisi is forced to do Saudi Arabia's bidding. The new leadership of Salman in Saudi Arabia has changed the foreign policy overnight. There is current talk that Saudi military intervention in Yemen is also to test for possible Saudi-Turkish no fly zone in Syria against Assad. Sisi would have to involve Egyptian army in that, and that is something he would reluctantly do. At this stage, Saudis could effectively promote and demote whatever Egyptian general they choose. They own Sisi!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Bengal_Tiger, the Arab Spring being an internal Egyptian politics is a recent theory but there are some problems accepting it fully. In my opinion, it was an externally instigated "regime change" attempt much like color revolution but the one that causes more mayhem.

Look how powerful Arab states have fallen one after the other starting with Iraq followed by Libya. Saudi Arabia is just a deck of card. It is not really a state; it is family oligarchy.

The rest of the Gulf states are only semi-states as Sissi once said.

In the absence of any external interventionist power a strong Arab state will try to expand to unify all or most Arab lands into one state either voluntarily or by force (as Saddam tried to do). So if any external power wants to retain influence over Arab lands, it must prevent any powerful Arab state from emerging.

Well, lets have a good conversation for once then. I want to analyze this issue further. We can do a back and forth in terms of questions and answers.

1) Regarding the color revolutions and their recent progeny (e.g. Victoria Nuland [wife of Kagan] being caught on the phone red handed describing her views on promoting instability in Ukraine:

The Color Revolutions were openly endorsed by the West/Americans as was the recent Ukrainian-Kiev based movement.

From the get go, each of these various candidates, including the Klitscho brothers were darlings and paraded as heroes in the West.

The gains for America were openly obvious and with respect to blocking off Russia's naval capabilities and encircling her.

Yet the Christian Science Monitor did some excellent reporting in the nascent period of the revolution and noted that the US was hyper hesitant to withdrawal support from Mubarak:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backc...dn-t-step-down

Biden responded: “Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the

Middle East

peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with

Israel

. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backc...dn-t-step-down

So then as you know my next question is going to be, what is the gain of deposing Mubarak who was seen as a guiding light by Tony Blair and constantly hosted the latter at his various residences:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...for-good-egypt

Or as NY Times notes:

Accused of sticking for too long by President Hosni Mubarak, the longtime ruler in Egypt who was ousted by a popular uprising in 2011, and then criticized when he later abandoned him,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/wo...ders.html?_r=0

^This quote was regarding Obama

2. Regarding the secondary gain for Western powers: The theory you are positing is that the West is actively trying to prevent the creation of an Arab super state or one strong power in the region. The example of Saddam Hussein was given. Yet you forget that Saddam did all their bidding and pretty much asked their permission to go into Kuwait (the famous Glaspie affair). They certainly led Saddam by the nose to his own demise, but he was their creation and they most definitely armed him to the teeth to kill Iranians and Kurds.

3. Rather, the mouthpiece for the American government, FOX news ranted in the following way:

http://politicolonel.com/2013/03/07/...#axzz3X45O9Va4

MCFARLAND: The predecessor, Mubarak, was a dictator. He was a pro-American dictator, he kept the peace, he helped us with things like al-Qaeda, but maybe he had to go.

http://politicolonel.com/2013/03/07/...#axzz3X45O9Va4

4. How in any way would the rise of Morsi help the US's interests in Israel? In fact, they didn't... whereas we showed above Mubarak was the lynch pin in maintain a stable Egyptian-Israeli treaty, Under Morsi the following started to happen:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.536623

The reason, the officials said, was because of profound policy differences with Morsi. Al-Sisi saw him as dangerously mismanaging a wave of protests early in the year that saw dozens killed by security forces. More significantly, however, the military also worried that Morsi was giving a free hand to Islamic militants in the Sinai Peninsula, ordering al-Sisi to stop crackdowns on jihadis who had killed Egyptian soldiers and were escalating a campaign of violence.

The reason certainly can't be that Hamas was the issue with "true Palestinian advancement" since recent leaked cables demonstrated clearly that it has been continues to be Fatah in cahoots with Israel to suppress for instance, the Goldstone report findings:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ma...leaks-79978325

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well who knows.

One thing I do know is that during the months preceding Mubarak's overthrow, the actual majority of Egyptians may have happened to be pro-Mubarak.

Why?

Well most Egyptians are simple rural people and they only had basic TVs from which they saw Egyptian state TV which preached love for Mubarak, so they liked him.

In the cities people had satellite channels and other things and saw a more negative image of Mubarak. Anyway in most countries the power is in the cities that's where everything is decided.

You mentioned colour revolution, yes that brought back to mind the role of facebook and social media in all this.

Most people unquestioningly swallow the western narrative they hear from CNN, BBC, Fox etc.

Will Arabs unite? That's a separate question and a big one. I've lived in the region and I can tell you that it's a complex issue.

Bengal Tiger, what are your thoughts on Glenn Greenwald? I know that you see the complexities in the Ukranian/Crimean War and I don't think the label "white man journalist" can be applied to Greenwald since he generally has written against American involvement in Ukraine.

He was also Key to the Snowden leaks and wrote the following article on the faux democracy support of the US in Egypt. I would think you would have to consider these points before making any firm conclusions:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...hly-six-weeks/

AFTER FEIGNING LOVE FOR EGYPTIAN DEMOCRACY, U.S. BACK TO OPENLY SUPPORTING TYRANNY


It is, of course, very difficult to choose the single most extreme episode of misleading American media propaganda, but if forced to do so, coverage of the February, 2011 Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt would be an excellent candidate. For weeks, U.S. media outlets openly positioned themselves on the side of the demonstrators, depicting the upheaval as a Manichean battle between the evil despot Hosni Mubarak’s “three decades of iron rule” and the hordes of ordinary, oppressed Egyptians inspirationally yearning for American-style freedom and democracy.
Almost completely missing from this feel-good morality play was the terribly unpleasant fact that Mubarak was one of the U.S. Government’s longest and closest allies and that his “three decades of iron rule” — featuring murder, torture and indefinite detention for dissidents — were enabled in multiple ways by American support.

Throughout Mubarak’s rule, the U.S. fed his regime an average of $2 billion each year, most of which was military aid. The tear gas cannisters shot at protesters by Mubarak’s police bore “Made in U.S.A.” labels. A 2009 diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks noted that “Egyptian democracy and human rights efforts … are being stymied” but described the benefits received by U.S. from support for the regime: “Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace.” Another 2009 cable put it more bluntly: “the Egyptians appear more willing to confront the Iranian surrogates and to work closely with Israel.”

That same year, Hillary Clinton pronounced: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.” Another WikiLeaks cable, anticipating the first meeting between Obama and Mubarak in 2009, emphasized that “the Administration wants to restore the sense of warmth that has traditionally characterized the U.S.-Egyptian partnership” and that “the Egyptians want the visit to demonstrate that Egypt remains America’s ‘indispensible [sic] Arab ally.'” The cable dryly noted that “[intelligence] Chief Omar Soliman and Interior Minister al-Adly keep the domestic beasts at bay, and Mubarak is not one to lose sleep over their tactics.” The Obama administration supported Mubarak right up to the point where his demise was inevitable, and even then, plotted to replace him with Soliman: an equally loyal and even more brutal autocrat, most appreciated in Washington circles for helpfully torturing people on behalf of the Americans.

During the gushing coverage of the Tahrir protests, Americans were told almost none of this (just as most Arab Spring coverage generally omitted long-standing U.S. support for most of the targeted tyrants in the region). Instead, they were led to believe that the U.S. political class was squarely on the side of democracy and freedom in Egypt, heralding Obama’s statement that Egyptians have made clear that “nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.”
That pro-democracy script is long forgotten, as though it never existed. The U.S. political and media class are right back to openly supporting military autocracy in Egypt as enthusiastically as they supported the Mubarak regime. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who last year led the military coupagainst the democratically elected Egyptian government of the Muslim Brotherhood, is now a Washington favorite, despite (or because of) his merciless killing and imprisonment of dissidents, including Al Jazeera journalists. In June, Human Rights Watch noted the post-coup era has included the “worst incident of mass unlawful killings in Egypt’s recent history” and that “judicial authorities have handed down unprecedented large-scale death sentences and security forces have carried out mass arrests and torture that harken back to the darkest days of former President Hosni Mubarak’s rule.” The group documented just last week:

Egyptian authorities have, by their own count, detained 22,000 people since the July 2013 military-backed ouster of the democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsy. The broad arrest sweep has caught up many people who were peacefully expressing political opposition to Morsy’s overthrow and to the al-Sisi government. The actual number of arrests is probably higher. . . . There are credible accounts that a large number of detainees are being held incommunicado in military facilities, and that dozens have died in custody under circumstances of mistreatment or negligence that warrant investigation.

None of that has deterred U.S. support for the coup leaders. Months after the coup, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Cairo and praised the military regime, actions The New York Times said “reflected the Obama administration’s determination to work with a military leadership that ruthlessly put down protesters from the Muslim Brotherhood.” In July of this year, the U.S. released $550 million to the regime. In August, Kerry seemed to praise the coup itself; as The New York Times put it: he “offered an unexpected lift to Egypt’s military leaders . . . saying they had been ‘restoring democracy’ when they deposed the country’s first freely elected president, Mohamed Morsi.”In mid-September, the Pentagon announced“that the U.S. plans to deliver 10 AH-64 Apache helicopters to Egypt.”

That was the background for Sisi’s meeting with Bill and Hillary Clinton in New York last week (pictured above). He also met with U.S. business leaders and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. Sisi then met with Obama himself (photo below), where the U.S. President “touted the longstanding relationship between the United States and Egypt as a cornerstone of American security policy in the Middle East.”

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the U.S. commitment to autocracy in Egypt as vividly as the new, coordinated attack in U.S. media and political circles on former U.S. darling Qatar. As The Intercept reported last week, much of that anti-Qatar campaign is driven by Israeli (along with Saudi, UAE and American neocon) anger over Doha’s alleged support for Hamas. But at least as significant is Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, the party that won the post-Mubarak election; that has put Doha squarely at odds with the Saudis, the Emirates, and the U.S., all of whom strongly support the military coup. A widely cited anti-Qatar article this week in Foreign Policy — entitled “The Case Against Qatar” — made this division clear:

For years, U.S. officials have been willing to shrug off Doha’s proxy network — or even take advantage of it from time to time. Qatar’s neighbors, however, have not. Over the past year, fellow Gulf countries Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have publicly rebuked Qatar for its support of political Islamists across the region. These countries have threatened to close land borders or suspend Qatar’s membership in the regional Gulf Cooperation Council unless the country backs down. After nearly a year of pressure, the first sign of a Qatari concession came on Sept. 13, when seven senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood figures left Doha at the request of the Qatari government. . . .

Qatar’s Arab Spring strategy began to fail in the same place it was conceived, amid the masses of protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. On July 3, 2013, demonstrators cheered on the Egyptian military’s ouster of Islamist leader Mohamed Morsi, whose government Qatar had backed to the tune of $5 billion. Within days, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait welcomed the new military-backed government with combined pledges of $13 billion in aid.

In what universe is it morally preferable to support the Egyptian military coup regime (US/Saudi/UAE) rather than the democratically elected faction (Qatar)? That Qatar is now depicted in D.C. foreign policy circles as the Bad Actors in Cairo, while the UAE and the Saudis are the Good and Responsible Parties for Stability, underscores how deeply committed Washington is to Egyptian despotism.

That is not a new development. The Obama administration has long viewed Egypt and the Saudis as the “moderates” in the region. The 2009 cable preparing for Mubarak’s visit put it this way: “The ongoing intra-Arab dispute, which pits Egypt and Saudi Arabia against Syria and Qatar and is primarily driven by Iran’s regional influence, is the current test for Mubarak. For the moment the Egyptian-Saudi moderate camp is holding.”

The U.S. has long been devoted to tyranny in the region precisely to ensure that the widespread views of the public — which overwhelmingly view theU.S. and Israel as the greatest threats to peace — remain suppressed by U.S.-loyal tyrants. That’s what made the U.S. media coverage of the Arab Spring generally and Tarhir specifically such an astounding feat of propaganda: it successfully let Americans feel good about cheering for democracy in the region while ignoring their government’s central role in suppressing it for decades. The way the U.S. political class so seamlessly and shamelessly shifted from pretending to support democracy in Egypt to reverting back to its decades-long pro-tyranny posture is equally impressive.

[khushal]

Full Blown Ravage aka Revulsion Through Ranting (RTR) as you are not an Islamist fanatic like our Al-Abdali and are redeemable I think I can engage with you in this discussion.

In my opinion the powers that had started re-shaping the world with the collapse of Soveit Union (1990s) had unleashed the Salafist Akhwani alliance to destabilize Egypt to ultimately being able to put in place an order in the North-Africa and the Middle East that can be a part of the final bulwark against the East (China+India+Russia+Iran+other states).

No matter how oppressive the military junta in Egypt may be, it is the sole guarantee of Egypt's stability and continuity as a state. One should look at Syria and Libya and now Yimin as how "spreading the democracy" project has gone awry and how is it causing the disintegration of states.

The pattern and strategy is very clear. Help movements like Salafists and Islamists unleash themselves on the society, watch the chaos resulting from the conflict between the Islamists and anti-Islamists and when that causes state failure, come in and put in place an order fully or maximally dependent on you dismantling the old order completely.

In my opinion the Egyptian Army was watching all this nervously and when it realized it intervened to stabilize Egypt preventing it from falling into the type of chaos that we see in Syria, Libya, and Yimin.

In my opinion, Islamista, Salafists, and other fanatics are an asset to whoever would like to intervene in Muslim countries.

Your opinion sucks. If they are trying to contain Iran, then why depose Saddam who was perfect for containing Iran from the West and why depose the Taliban when they were perfect for containing Iran from the East. If anything, US actions have increased the influence of Iran. Arab nationalists are the biggest losers in the scenerio not because they were trying to create an Arab superstate(which they weren't), but because they failed to work with their people. Turkey is learning from Iran, and the Arabs are behind the curve.

If your hero Sisi wanted stability for his people, he should have worked with Morsi because that AK argument that the Salafi is preaching is coming for his Arse and his people are going to suffer from it.

You seem to be well read but your dumber than shyt. Your not learning.