from The American Thinker:
January 28, 2011
Mubarak tells cabinet to resign (updated)
Thomas Lifson
According to a report on Fox News, Hosni Mubarak has asked his government to step down. Contrary to the first report, he has not resigned himself. Here we go.
I am no expert on Egypt, but it is hard to be optimistic about what lies ahead. It is possible a new government (i.e., new faces within the existing political structure) will take office, but revolutionary fervor is not so easily quelled.
Outside the military, the most powerful organization in the country is the Muslim Brotherhood, whose tentacles reach far and wide. While the Egyptian military has the capability of seizing power, its ascension would hardly answer the complaints of the demonstrators.
Richard Baehr adds:
Mubarak's Egypt may be gone by Monday. What will follow (if you read Caroline Glick today) , whether Muslim Brotherhood, or the alternative, may be worse as far as the Egyptian-Israeli treaty is concerned. If you want a definition of deer in the headlights, it is Robert Gibbs's press conference on the subject. The bounce for Obama from Tucson and SOTU may also be gone by Monday, as he looks helpless to influence things.
Lauri Regan adds:
We are watching history in the making - both because of events in the Mideast and because of US incompetance to address them
Iowahawk tweets:
Didn't you all get the memo? Foreign policy is a job for the Berkeley City Council. The President is in charge of school lunch menus.
Bookworm blames Al Gore, because the global warming scam has diverted food crops to energy production, raising food prices. She notes:
Although food riots haven't been in the headlines lately, what do you bet that, with ethanol production still causing producers to divert food crops into the energy market, marginal economic societies such as Egypt continue to feel the effects of food shortages?
Voila - riot conditions. For history aficionados, remember that, in the 1790s, the French had suffered aristocratic depredations for centuries; it was the food shortages that triggered revolt. The same pattern showed up in Russia, with rising discontent reaching a fever pitch with WWI shortages.
Thomas Lifson adds: I have indeed seen news reports that both Tunisia and Egypt have experienced steep food price rises, and thought myself that we can thank the warmists. Lauri Regan notes that in Jordan, too, food prices are at the root of anti-government riots.
I've spent time in Egypt, and can testify that the margin above starvation for maybe 80% of the population is slim indeed. When food prices go up 50%, people go hungry, and some of them die. No wonder they are rioting.
Andrew G. Bostom writes:
A reminder from an essay of mine published in April, 2007:
In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed --more than 2/3, hardly a "fringe minority"-desired this outcome (i.e., "To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate"). The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition "To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country."
Rick Moran adds:
Sometimes, when history is rolling forward, the only thing you can do is get out of the way. If Carter had taken our people out of Tehran, he would have probably gotten a second term. I don't see what Obama could have done or should be doing to affect events. Our influence was already gone in the region while the entire Arab world blames us for propping up Mubarak and the whole bunch of thugs that run governments there.
Democracy may be calling but that isn't what the mob will throw up after Mubarak is gone. Suppose Obama would give a couple of speeches urging people into the streets and the Muslim Brotherhood or someone worse eventually gets in power? There is no good outcome for US - either Mubarak slaughters his own people or he's overthrown and someone worse gets in. ElBarardei would be the Banisadr of Egypt.
Ed Lasky writes:
There is usually a small and well-organized vanguard that jumps in front of the parade and takes charge during revolutions. Those usually are extremists. Look what happened when the czars fell; look at the French Revolution. In this case, that would be , as Rick writes, the MB.
Mark Roth writes:
With an Islamist takeover in Egypt nearly certain, Hezb'allah in power in Lebanon, and food riots in Jordan the Islamist/Iranian encirclement of Israel is almost complete. In response to Rick Moran, what Obama could have done (I know, could have, should have) was ignore global warming and ethanol (Bush could have done this as well) and affirmed strong support for Israel.
Events will proceed at a rapid pace from here. Israel should be stepping up defenses as allies head for the exits. If you thought 1939 was bad, this replay will most likely be worse. Batten down the hatches. (As an aside -- this might ensure a Republican victory for the presidency in 2012.)
Posted at 05:36 PM
January 28, 2011
Mubarak tells cabinet to resign (updated)
Thomas Lifson
According to a report on Fox News, Hosni Mubarak has asked his government to step down. Contrary to the first report, he has not resigned himself. Here we go.
I am no expert on Egypt, but it is hard to be optimistic about what lies ahead. It is possible a new government (i.e., new faces within the existing political structure) will take office, but revolutionary fervor is not so easily quelled.
Outside the military, the most powerful organization in the country is the Muslim Brotherhood, whose tentacles reach far and wide. While the Egyptian military has the capability of seizing power, its ascension would hardly answer the complaints of the demonstrators.
Richard Baehr adds:
Mubarak's Egypt may be gone by Monday. What will follow (if you read Caroline Glick today) , whether Muslim Brotherhood, or the alternative, may be worse as far as the Egyptian-Israeli treaty is concerned. If you want a definition of deer in the headlights, it is Robert Gibbs's press conference on the subject. The bounce for Obama from Tucson and SOTU may also be gone by Monday, as he looks helpless to influence things.
Lauri Regan adds:
We are watching history in the making - both because of events in the Mideast and because of US incompetance to address them
Iowahawk tweets:
Didn't you all get the memo? Foreign policy is a job for the Berkeley City Council. The President is in charge of school lunch menus.
Bookworm blames Al Gore, because the global warming scam has diverted food crops to energy production, raising food prices. She notes:
Although food riots haven't been in the headlines lately, what do you bet that, with ethanol production still causing producers to divert food crops into the energy market, marginal economic societies such as Egypt continue to feel the effects of food shortages?
Voila - riot conditions. For history aficionados, remember that, in the 1790s, the French had suffered aristocratic depredations for centuries; it was the food shortages that triggered revolt. The same pattern showed up in Russia, with rising discontent reaching a fever pitch with WWI shortages.
Thomas Lifson adds: I have indeed seen news reports that both Tunisia and Egypt have experienced steep food price rises, and thought myself that we can thank the warmists. Lauri Regan notes that in Jordan, too, food prices are at the root of anti-government riots.
I've spent time in Egypt, and can testify that the margin above starvation for maybe 80% of the population is slim indeed. When food prices go up 50%, people go hungry, and some of them die. No wonder they are rioting.
Andrew G. Bostom writes:
A reminder from an essay of mine published in April, 2007:
In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed --more than 2/3, hardly a "fringe minority"-desired this outcome (i.e., "To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate"). The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition "To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country."
Rick Moran adds:
Sometimes, when history is rolling forward, the only thing you can do is get out of the way. If Carter had taken our people out of Tehran, he would have probably gotten a second term. I don't see what Obama could have done or should be doing to affect events. Our influence was already gone in the region while the entire Arab world blames us for propping up Mubarak and the whole bunch of thugs that run governments there.
Democracy may be calling but that isn't what the mob will throw up after Mubarak is gone. Suppose Obama would give a couple of speeches urging people into the streets and the Muslim Brotherhood or someone worse eventually gets in power? There is no good outcome for US - either Mubarak slaughters his own people or he's overthrown and someone worse gets in. ElBarardei would be the Banisadr of Egypt.
Ed Lasky writes:
There is usually a small and well-organized vanguard that jumps in front of the parade and takes charge during revolutions. Those usually are extremists. Look what happened when the czars fell; look at the French Revolution. In this case, that would be , as Rick writes, the MB.
Mark Roth writes:
With an Islamist takeover in Egypt nearly certain, Hezb'allah in power in Lebanon, and food riots in Jordan the Islamist/Iranian encirclement of Israel is almost complete. In response to Rick Moran, what Obama could have done (I know, could have, should have) was ignore global warming and ethanol (Bush could have done this as well) and affirmed strong support for Israel.
Events will proceed at a rapid pace from here. Israel should be stepping up defenses as allies head for the exits. If you thought 1939 was bad, this replay will most likely be worse. Batten down the hatches. (As an aside -- this might ensure a Republican victory for the presidency in 2012.)
Posted at 05:36 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment