From Oathkeepers:
The Egyptian Military: "Are they on the side of the nation or are they on the side of the regime?"
"Are they on the side of the nation or are they on the side of the regime? That distinction had been blurred. We are now seeing a modern test of whether there is a separation between the two," The New York Times quoted a former senior Western diplomat with long service in Cairo, as saying.
Who's side is the military on? That is a vital question, and the answer will determine whether there will be a relatively peaceful "transition" from a dictatorship to a truly representative parliamentary system in Egypt. And that was the central question in Tunisia during the recent uprisings there. In Tunisia, the answer was that the military, in the end, was on the side of the people, and it was the refusal of the military to use force to preserve an illegitimate regime that prevented a bloodbath and allowed a relatively peaceful revolution by the people to finally rid themselves of a corrupt oppressor.
What will the military do? Will they side with the people, or with the regime? That is ALWAYS a fundamentally important question when a people have finally had enough of being lorded over by corrupt and oppressive regimes. In every revolution in history, that has been a central question. What just happened in Tunisia, and what is happening now in Egypt, are stellar examples of just how important and monumental that central question really is when it comes to a showdown between the people of a nation and a repressive government. And it should be a reminder, and a confirmation, of just how important the mission of Oath Keepers is.
From the NYTimes on Mubarak
Whether his infamously efficient security apparatus and well-financed but politicized military could enforce that order - and whether it would stay loyal to him even if it came to shedding blood - was the main question for many Egyptians.
The events in Tunisia and now in Egypt provide a very interesting learning experience and example of the core point of Oath Keepers - that the loyalty of the military and police must be to the people, and what side they are on can determine the fate of freedom when the chips are down.
In a Reuters article regarding the Tunisia Protests The General would not fire on protesters saying:
"The Tunisian army struck the mortal blow against Zine al Abedine Ben Ali's rule when it ignored orders to shoot protesters, making it unlikely he could crush a popular uprising by force"
In our nation, being loyal to the people means being loyal to the Constitution, which is the people's chosen mechanism of securing their rights. That is why Article 6 of the Constitution mandates an Oath to defend the Constitution not to just follow orders. So long as the people of this nation continue to support the Constitution, those in military and police service are duty bound to defend it, regardless of orders to the contrary. If, God forbid, what happened in Tunisia or what is happening now in Egypt ever becomes necessary here in America, our military and police will side with the people and with our Constitution by standing down just as the Tunisian military did.
Stewart Rhodes
SIFYNEWS
Egyptian Political analysts are finding it difficult to predict what role the armed forces would play in either suppressing the disturbances or easing President Hosni Mubarak from power.
"Are they on the side of the nation or are they on the side of the regime? That distinction had been blurred. We are now seeing a modern test of whether there is a separation between the two," The New York Times quoted a former senior Western diplomat with long service in Cairo, as saying. he Egyptian military is the world's 10th largest force, and is considered very powerful, popular and opaque.
In 1952, the military brought down the monarchy and had taken control ever since. In fact, all four Presidents in the later years have been military generals. However, Hosni Mubarak, who led the Air Force before rising to prominence when President Anwar el-Sadat appointed him vice president in 1975, worked hard to keep the army out of politics and under his control.
He had even taken a step of dismissing Field Marshal Abdel-Halim Abu Ghazala, a popular, charismatic war hero, from his post as defence minister in 1989. The General was accused of a smuggling scandal, but most analysts believed that he was fired because his public profile was too high.
Anlaysts now believe the current defence minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi who is considered an unpopular man in his late 70s, is unlikely to challenge Mubarak.
During the Tunisia protests this month, the decision of the military chief not to fire on protesters was seen as a decisive factor in driving President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali out of the country. Although no analyst doubts Mubarak’s loyalist General Tantawi, some of them pointed that his top subordinates might consider it, the paper said.
Some analysts even say that the military deployment around the government institutions, the first time in decades, is a sign of desperation, and raises the question of when the military might begin to doubt Mubarak’s viability. The question that arises is whether the military would fire on demonstrators, if ordered.
“If the military fires on civilians after demonstrations that are clearly popular, that will imperil the standing of the military, its integrity. This time the institution’s future is at risk,” Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University, said. (ANI)
The Egyptian Military: "Are they on the side of the nation or are they on the side of the regime?"
"Are they on the side of the nation or are they on the side of the regime? That distinction had been blurred. We are now seeing a modern test of whether there is a separation between the two," The New York Times quoted a former senior Western diplomat with long service in Cairo, as saying.
Who's side is the military on? That is a vital question, and the answer will determine whether there will be a relatively peaceful "transition" from a dictatorship to a truly representative parliamentary system in Egypt. And that was the central question in Tunisia during the recent uprisings there. In Tunisia, the answer was that the military, in the end, was on the side of the people, and it was the refusal of the military to use force to preserve an illegitimate regime that prevented a bloodbath and allowed a relatively peaceful revolution by the people to finally rid themselves of a corrupt oppressor.
What will the military do? Will they side with the people, or with the regime? That is ALWAYS a fundamentally important question when a people have finally had enough of being lorded over by corrupt and oppressive regimes. In every revolution in history, that has been a central question. What just happened in Tunisia, and what is happening now in Egypt, are stellar examples of just how important and monumental that central question really is when it comes to a showdown between the people of a nation and a repressive government. And it should be a reminder, and a confirmation, of just how important the mission of Oath Keepers is.
From the NYTimes on Mubarak
Whether his infamously efficient security apparatus and well-financed but politicized military could enforce that order - and whether it would stay loyal to him even if it came to shedding blood - was the main question for many Egyptians.
The events in Tunisia and now in Egypt provide a very interesting learning experience and example of the core point of Oath Keepers - that the loyalty of the military and police must be to the people, and what side they are on can determine the fate of freedom when the chips are down.
In a Reuters article regarding the Tunisia Protests The General would not fire on protesters saying:
"The Tunisian army struck the mortal blow against Zine al Abedine Ben Ali's rule when it ignored orders to shoot protesters, making it unlikely he could crush a popular uprising by force"
In our nation, being loyal to the people means being loyal to the Constitution, which is the people's chosen mechanism of securing their rights. That is why Article 6 of the Constitution mandates an Oath to defend the Constitution not to just follow orders. So long as the people of this nation continue to support the Constitution, those in military and police service are duty bound to defend it, regardless of orders to the contrary. If, God forbid, what happened in Tunisia or what is happening now in Egypt ever becomes necessary here in America, our military and police will side with the people and with our Constitution by standing down just as the Tunisian military did.
Stewart Rhodes
SIFYNEWS
Egyptian Political analysts are finding it difficult to predict what role the armed forces would play in either suppressing the disturbances or easing President Hosni Mubarak from power.
"Are they on the side of the nation or are they on the side of the regime? That distinction had been blurred. We are now seeing a modern test of whether there is a separation between the two," The New York Times quoted a former senior Western diplomat with long service in Cairo, as saying. he Egyptian military is the world's 10th largest force, and is considered very powerful, popular and opaque.
In 1952, the military brought down the monarchy and had taken control ever since. In fact, all four Presidents in the later years have been military generals. However, Hosni Mubarak, who led the Air Force before rising to prominence when President Anwar el-Sadat appointed him vice president in 1975, worked hard to keep the army out of politics and under his control.
He had even taken a step of dismissing Field Marshal Abdel-Halim Abu Ghazala, a popular, charismatic war hero, from his post as defence minister in 1989. The General was accused of a smuggling scandal, but most analysts believed that he was fired because his public profile was too high.
Anlaysts now believe the current defence minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi who is considered an unpopular man in his late 70s, is unlikely to challenge Mubarak.
During the Tunisia protests this month, the decision of the military chief not to fire on protesters was seen as a decisive factor in driving President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali out of the country. Although no analyst doubts Mubarak’s loyalist General Tantawi, some of them pointed that his top subordinates might consider it, the paper said.
Some analysts even say that the military deployment around the government institutions, the first time in decades, is a sign of desperation, and raises the question of when the military might begin to doubt Mubarak’s viability. The question that arises is whether the military would fire on demonstrators, if ordered.
“If the military fires on civilians after demonstrations that are clearly popular, that will imperil the standing of the military, its integrity. This time the institution’s future is at risk,” Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University, said. (ANI)
No comments:
Post a Comment