Thursday, July 4, 2013

Soft Coup

Soft Egyptian Military Coup Deposes  Unpopular President Mohammed Morsi!
In a world of military coups where national leaders are overthrown by the presence of military power,  demonstrated or implied,  this Egyptian Military Coup is both ‘soft’ and ‘swift’.
The transfer of power from a legitimately elected unpopular representative to a transitional government imposed by a popularly-supported military is exceedingly rare,  if not a clear precedent for the future.
  I have been witnessed to and may even have participated in one or two coups but I have never seen a popular secular movement demand military intervention in order to create a more just and efficient government.
 Leave it to the incredible Egyptians,  the cradle of Middle Eastern Civilization,  to contrive a new game changer in the Pharonic  history of leadership.
Garnering over 33 million votes for the removal of President Morsi,  the Egyptians of all types of religious backgrounds [including even the Salafists] demanded that the Egyptian military support the peoples ‘wishes’ and ‘intimidate’ Morsi into leaving his post as President.
The Egyptian military gave Morsi 48 hours vacate his presidency or face the consequences, which btw,  were never really ever spelled out in detail.
So Morsi left without a fight.
  And that is what I call a ‘soft military coup’,  when no one, on either side of the confrontation is killed, imprisoned or in any way harmed.
  The essence of a ‘soft coup’ is the implied threat of force and suppression without having to really ever use either one.
  But unlike most military institutions in the Middle East,  the Egyptian military has always had a special relationship with it’s people.   From the founding of the modern republic of Egypt in 1952 to the end of the 1967 Israel-Egypt War,  the military has ruled BEHIND THE SCENES.
One EXCEPTION:  For only a single year,  the Supreme Allied Council of the Armed Forces ruled through the now-defunct National Democratic Party.
With the legitimate election of Morsi,  the military thought that it had found in Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood Party,  an effective political party that could run the country effectively.
However,  the Egyptian populace was not happy with the Ex-California-based Professor Morsi’s ability to run the country—either economically or politically.
  The people’s judgment was quick and decisive,  thanks to the social media which had played a crucial role in the deposition of Ex -President Hosni Mubarak.
  I was fortunate to have met both Presidents Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak and had found them both to be quite capable, professional and efficient.   But I am speaking strictly from the perspective of an ex-USG official whose primary interests were American,  primarily concerned with Egyptian political stability and prosperity.
As a realist, I quickly understood that Mubarak and his family had remained in power for too long and had to be replaced, one way or another.
Now,  I have to comprehend the expansiveness of the Egyptian political will and how quickly it can be utilized for constructive purposes,  be it a change of government or a demand for a secular state bereft of any ideology or religion.
But the major problems of the country still remain in bold relief.
  A sky-rocketing unemployment,  economic deflation, political cronyism and limited natural resources,  in particular, water.
Most of Egyptian growth centers around the famous Nile River.   Unfortunately,  Ethiopia has recently found it necessary to tamper with the limited amount of water in the Nile.   So Egypt must deal with Ethiopia very soon. 
On July 4th,   the Chief Justice of the Egyptian Constitutional Court,  Adly Mansour,  will be sworn in as interim president before the General Assembly.  His appointment fulfills one of the mandates for the Tamarod’s protest movement that organized the 33million voters.
  Now we must wait to see what he can do.
  As we have seen around the world,  it’s one thing to ascend the greasy pole of politics and become the ‘chief honcho’.  It’s another issue to rule effectively.
Napoleon Bonaparte understood the need for the dichotomy in one’s personality:
“In order to climb the greasy pole of politics, one must be obsequious;  once there, one has to become imperious.”
With regards to American interests: we have neither friends nor enemies.  We simply have national interests.  We impose and depose,  at will.
For those who may forget,  America is never an ‘innocent bystander’.
Just a ‘quiet participant-observer’.
That’s REAL POLITIKfor good, bad, or worse.


  1. Happy July 4th. Here's "New Light on 'Uncle Sam.'"

    >>With regards to American interests: we have neither friends nor enemies. We simply have national interests.<<

    I didn't write the intro to my entry because I have to double down and find the John Foster Dulles cites, but here goes:

    "The United States of America does not have friends; it has interests."

    What's happening in Egypt is both good and bad. It's good that Morsi is out. It's bad that he was elected in the first place.

    And it's worse that our great president, Barack Obama, stood behind Morsi every step of the way.

    There is also some information that connects Morsi to Benghazi and to Syria, but I'll leave that for others.

  2. Thanks for reading and for your contribution! 'night!

  3. If the Egyptian people can rise and oust an unpopular if duly elected President, then why can't the American people rise and oust an illegitimate Prez, let alone one hell-bent on destroying a hard-won Bill of Rights, Constitution, as well as other individual freedoms?

    Let me answer my own question: not enough Americans are facing starvation. In other words, the Roman Empire ploy of bread and circuses is intact.

    Either way, the American political system is a CANCER. Like a lion afflicted with cancer, who isn't aware of his affliction, he fights valiantly and wins every battle. Left alone, the cancer will eventually kill him.

    As with the crumbling of the Roman Empire, as with the destruction of fiat-money, it is a mathematical certainty.

    The American people could rise and hasten it, China and Russia could strike and also hasten it, but for those reasons mentioned (bread and circuses, incurable cancer), the final crushing blow will inevitably be self-inflicted.

    1. I think you are right Maxwell. The words of Bob Marley song "Them Belly Full (But We Hungry)" come to my mind when you said that.

      Them belly full, but we hungry;
      A hungry mob is a angry mob.

    2. I think like Marley one must smoke cannabis everyday for twenty years to reach such a stupid conclusion, and expressed so crudely.

  4. I really find it amazing that 33 million people could be inspired to turn out on the streets. I also find it amazing that they could count them all! (estimate)

    And they say that Facebook or social media had a lot to do with getting everyone out there. I guess even if Facebook is used to spy on everyone - the good thing about it that it can do things like that.

    OK DR.P - another good post. Wish more people would read your blog and listen to you. Trying to turn my friends on to you - but they are resistant - maybe just to lazy to read anything more than a Facebook Meme. Would like to hear more from you on Syria -

    Thanks - Dave Bennett - Makati Philippines

  5. Thanks for reading, thanks for commenting and I'll be posting more later.

  6. "America has interests" which determine what it does...who it imposes or deposes?

    I'm not sure.

    I don't think U.S. policy is driven by objective interests of the American people. When Vietnam went communist in 1975 not only did it not harm one American anywhere but US interests weren't damaged either.

    What the American government did in Vietnam was the product of ideology, doctrine, career interests, personal motivations, and beaurcratic/institutional interests.

    What's actually in the interest of the American people or even it's businesses is not really at play here.

    When I worked with CIA I'd hear CIA people say all the time that they thought they were ruthless but always worked for the interest of the American people....they were wrong.

    1. Or more to the point....

      If the Soviets had ruled unopposed in Afghanistan after 1979 there would have been no negative consequences to the American people, our allies, or our business interests anywhere!

      But instead the CIA created a war there which is still going on and which has cost the world trillions and untold human suffering.....

      So much for the "national interest."