Just a few thoughts on the change of power in Egypt as a follow up to my earlier post on the differences in the recent revolts in the middle east. The role of the military was huge. The Egyptian military sided with the revolting populace over the government. What they do in the future is still uncertain. The Tunisian military stayed on the side lines for their revolt until the dictator slipped out of the country. Iran's military supported not the president and the failed elections but the ruling oligarchy. They ended the revolt at the order of the Mullahs not the president.
Why the Egyptian army supported the people over the government will be a large discussion topic in the near future. I think that historically the difference between the actions of the military in each country will be very important. Dictatorships have fallen before. The main reason usually are external forces beyond the control of the military. Here we have internal forces causing a popular uprising that was fairly peaceful. The government could not put down the uprising or appease it without the military. There were attempts by pro-government forces to end the uprising and they failed. The military came into keep the peace between the sides very similar to Iran. What are the major differences in the two?
My first thought is the the relationship between the Egyptian military and the U.S. military. The 30 years of interaction and support from the U.S. must have influenced the actions there. Did our military aid buy us enough leverage to keep the Egyptian military neutral and then even pro reform at the thought of losing that aid? Or was it the enter action between our military and theirs that influenced them to believe the populace needs to give its consent to be governed? I am usually very skeptical about good intentions. I am the leaning toward the money and military aid over the good ideas.
The second thought springs out of the use of military aid. The U.S. has given a both military and humanitarian aid to many countries for many years. Dictatorships, juntas, democracies it did not matter as long as it was in the best interest of the U.S. What has made the relationship with Egypt different from others? Panama, El Salvador, Columbia, and even Iran before its revolution all got aid and support. Why has Egypt turned out differently? Or has it? Will the military willing give up power with free and open elections? We will see in the future which way it goes.
The third idea deals with what role the internet had in the success of this revolution and future political changes. The old school media is giving a large deal of credit to social media like twitter and Facebook for the uprising. The Iranian uprising was also driven with the Green support on twitter. I see the organizing and communication aspects very useful. What about the ideas that are shared over the internet? Information has always led to questioning and change. The internet is going to bring about more of this in the future. It makes me wonder how much control needs to be used on it.
Well trying to wrap this one up. Please pray for all the people over there.
Why the Egyptian army supported the people over the government will be a large discussion topic in the near future. I think that historically the difference between the actions of the military in each country will be very important. Dictatorships have fallen before. The main reason usually are external forces beyond the control of the military. Here we have internal forces causing a popular uprising that was fairly peaceful. The government could not put down the uprising or appease it without the military. There were attempts by pro-government forces to end the uprising and they failed. The military came into keep the peace between the sides very similar to Iran. What are the major differences in the two?
My first thought is the the relationship between the Egyptian military and the U.S. military. The 30 years of interaction and support from the U.S. must have influenced the actions there. Did our military aid buy us enough leverage to keep the Egyptian military neutral and then even pro reform at the thought of losing that aid? Or was it the enter action between our military and theirs that influenced them to believe the populace needs to give its consent to be governed? I am usually very skeptical about good intentions. I am the leaning toward the money and military aid over the good ideas.
The second thought springs out of the use of military aid. The U.S. has given a both military and humanitarian aid to many countries for many years. Dictatorships, juntas, democracies it did not matter as long as it was in the best interest of the U.S. What has made the relationship with Egypt different from others? Panama, El Salvador, Columbia, and even Iran before its revolution all got aid and support. Why has Egypt turned out differently? Or has it? Will the military willing give up power with free and open elections? We will see in the future which way it goes.
The third idea deals with what role the internet had in the success of this revolution and future political changes. The old school media is giving a large deal of credit to social media like twitter and Facebook for the uprising. The Iranian uprising was also driven with the Green support on twitter. I see the organizing and communication aspects very useful. What about the ideas that are shared over the internet? Information has always led to questioning and change. The internet is going to bring about more of this in the future. It makes me wonder how much control needs to be used on it.
Well trying to wrap this one up. Please pray for all the people over there.
