by Patrick Lang (bio below)
“CAIRO (Reuters) – Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood more than doubled its strength in parliament in the early stages of legislative elections, showing its weight with two thirds of places still to be contested, the group said on Wednesday.
The voting for parliament’s 444 elected seats is not expected to end the ruling National Democratic Party’s (NDP) control of the chamber, but the Brotherhood wins underlined the status of political Islam as the strongest opposition force.” (Yahoo News)
Two thirds of the vote has not been cast or counted and the Society of the Muslim Brothers (MB) has doubled its representation.
The US opposes the MB, correctly recognizing it as the “ancestor” of much of the terrorist activity in the Sunni World, including Egypt, which is overwhelmingly Sunni. Nevertheless, it is true that US pressure on the Egyptian government is progressively tearing down the internal barriers there to ever increasing political participation of such groups.
The Bush Administration believes in the transformative power of elections. It believes that there must be open and fair elections for democracy to work its magic of creating modern and “just” societies. In Egypt the masses have a different idea of what would be a “just” society. We’re beginning to see it in these election results.
He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room (interview), PBS’s Newshour, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” (interview), and more .
Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism” for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.”
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio || CV
Recommended Books || More BooTrib <a href="Posts
Novel: The Butcher’s Cleaver (download free by chapter, PDF format)
“Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy Council Journal, Vol. XI, Summer 2004, No. 2
While we’re all sensitive to the rights of people to practice their own religions as they see fit, it is tragic that the Bush Administration is aiding and abetting the most extreme segments of the Muslim religion. Besides Egypt, this is also the probably outcome in Iraq, which at least under Saddam had a secular government.
maybe overseas they do. Personally I think they know full well that such elections will create Islamist states – and they intend that – because then the war can go on forever…
in the client states. Like the tradtitional iron-fisted dictator, there are fewer people to deal with, and the theocracy has the added advantage of offering additional “venting” on the mosque steps, thus keeping it away from the oil office.
US does the same thing to a degree domestically, allowing its citizens some degree of “freedom of speech” on the internet, for example, and on some occasions, allows them to assemble and protest in designated zones.
That said, I am not sure that the Muslim Brotherhood will be what US wants in Egypt, though I would guard against anyone seeing this as a great victory for the Egyptian Resistance. Most likely, MB will be Sistani’d.
What the imperialists really really don’t want is Baathism. Not Hussein-Rumsfeld Baathism, but Baathism classic, with its secularism, “socialist” safety nets, etc. US business interests do not stand to enjoy increased profits from social services and safety nets.
Not in the US, nor on top of its oil.
are Sunni and we are pissing them off more with each passing day. George W. will get his “transformed” Middle East – anti-US theocracies may start sprouting like dandelions.
… and it is a tricky situation.
In general, being a liberal, I believe in democracy and the right of self determination.
I also believe that the way to solve some of our problems in the Middle East is to encourage the totalitarian regimes we support there to open up, creating broader freedoms and access to economic and educational opportunities for their peoples.
I believe this is the way.
The problem of course is that the existing problems have been allowed to fester so long that there is a huge amount of anger, despair, and distrust. Release the chains and massive destructive backlash is the likely first result.
The other problem is inequality. It is a problem here in the USA as well. Our theoretical ideas are great assuming that everyone starts on a level playing field.
The problem with fundamentalist anything, Islam being no exception, is it’s totalitarian nature. Intolerant totalitarian nature. It is classic backlash to an intolerant totalitarion environment. Respond with your own version.
I was also thinking about interventionism. When is it ok? Is it ever ok? How does one balance it with the concept of self-determination? Fuzzy lines but I think I know where I am on this.
Self-determination is the goal. All people ought to be allowed to make such decisions for themselves, individually and collectively as a society. Outside influences and nations ought not interfere.
What about genocide and the regimes abusive of human rights… in this context most often seen as abuse of women?
I think the right of self-governance and self-determination stand as long as the resulting government indeed reflects the will of ALL the people. A government that practices or turns a blind eye towards genocide of some subset of it’s people has broken this basic piece of the social contract and the contract between nations. It is safe to assume that the subset population has not expressed the desire for it’s own destruction and therefore the government can no longer be considered legitimate.
And what about women?
Same thing. A government that tolerates, encourages, practices, or turns a blind eye towards the abuse and subjugation of women has similarly reneged on it’s duty towards the protection of ALL it’s people. It’s claim to self-governance and legitimacy is null and void. The society of nations is obligated to step in where such governments have failed their fundamental duties towards the citzenry.
And now the tough part… and what about religion?
What about the claims that it is a religious belief that women should be subjugated in these ways?
Tough titties.
People’s religious beliefs are to be respected just as is their/our rights to self-determination and self-governance.
Right up until the point where they become abusive and restrictive of other human beings. At that point such rights are overridden by the rights of the oppressed.
Tricky, tricky landscape. Difficult to traverse terrain. But that’s the way it is. Life ain’t easy and it ain’t always black and white.
So I am all for democracy in Egypt and elsewhere. Including Iraq and Iran. And if the people vote in the Muslim Brotherhood… Allah help them. The Muslim Brotherhood might (fat chance) govern wisely. The will of the people deserve the right to determine such things for themselves. And the nature of backlashes is that they are going to occur in someway at sometime in someplace regardless of what we do. Once all that negative energy is wound up in coil it is not going to dissipate on it’s own. It is going to be released.
The middle east is not going to change easily or bloodlessly. It is a mess and it is going to be a messy process… unfortunately a deadly process… in that much I agree with the neocon nitwits… But American interventionism is not the solution. All that is going to do is make matters worse… for them… for us… for everyone.
Diplomacy, encouragement, economic, educational, and democratic assistance are things we can do to ease the pain and speed to process.
Wolfowitz and the neocons correctly identified part of the problem but are completely brain dead when it comes to crafting a solution.
Peace,
Andrew
.
Excellent background on Al-Zawahri Family of medical doctors and the roots of Muslim Brotherhood.
BBC News – Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahri Profile »»
Another Partner in Peace – 25 Years Ago ::
Same as what happened with Egypt’s President Sadat, perpetrated by Al Zawahri’s Islam Brotherhood.
● Algerian Option and Islam Fundametalism –
Election result annulled and 25,000 Deaths
RAND study 1996
● Analysis: The threat from Islamic militancy
BBC News – Aug. 25, 1999
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Jesus!!!
This guy writes:
“The Bush Administration believes in the transformative power of elections. It believes that there must be open and fair elections for democracy to work its magic of creating modern and ‘just’ societies.”
The “BUSH ADMINISTRATION” ITSELF would not be in power if it were not for crooked elections. And it has not had its grubby, murderous little neo-con fingers in an election anywhere on the globe in the last 6 years that it did not try MIGHTILY to fix.
PLEASE!!!
BooMan…how can you POSSIBLY keep front paging this crap?
I mean…if this guy is stupid enough to actually BELIEVE this then he should not be a featured player here.
And of he does NOT really “believe” this…if he is some kind of disinfo merchant…then ditto.
Ditto SQUARED.
This is the same “ex_intel fella who shook his mighty cop fist at all them degenerate ragheads disturbing his well earned (and well financed…bet on it) sojourns in the beautiful French countryside.
Come ON, man!!!
Let’s sojourn some TRUTH here.
AG
why don’t you think about the conundrum represented by the administration’s efforts to get elections in Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, while the likely outcomes of those elections will be governments we will have a harder time allying ourselves with?
I think Pat’s point is that we might not like the results of some of these elections.
And for what it is worth, there does seem to be some kool-aid consumption by these neo-cons that elections can break the impasse in the Middle East. We may discover that the results don’t please us and then try to rig them, or influence them. We’ve done that for 60 years, starting in Italy after the war.
But there is an interesting debate to be had if you can stand to be in the presence of former intelligence officers without throwing a fit.
no matter WHO said this.
Intel or no.
And as far as I am concerned, i do not trust this administration to do ANYTHING honestly.
With no ulterior motive or backdoor plan.
If, as you say there is a “conundrum represented by the administration’s efforts to get elections in Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, while the likely outcomes of those elections will be governments we will have a harder time allying ourselves with”, perhaps the “conundrums” lie in any or all of the below.
1-The truth about just how “free” those elections really will be. As
“free” as the on in Florida in 2000?
In Pakistan?
Afghanistan?
The ones in Florida and Ohio in 2004?
What happened top Allendé AFTER a truly “:free” election? One the tried to fix and could not. (“They” thye US PermaGov, not this littl;e version thereof.)
Free? Not free enough for me, for SURE.
Why would ANYONE think that the same people who supported vote fraud at home would support “free” elections elsewhere?
2-“A harder time allying ourselves with” the winners of those elections? Maybe they want MORE enemies. The endless war of Orwell’s 1984.
Not only “Keep your enemies close”, but “CREATE enemies who you know can be defeated.”
3-Or…maybe those so-called ‘enemies” are ALREADY part of the same scam.
ALREADY bought and paid for.
Already co-opted.
Many a possible slip ‘twixt the concept and the lip, here. BooMan.
So I will just take this guy’s statement…and again, I don’t care if he is Howard Dean, an ex-US intel officer or Osama bin Laden’s 1st cousin…at face value.
Ridiculous.
On the face of it.
On the evidence of its DOMESTIC vote fiddling and other crooked campaign practices.
Ridiculous.
On the evidence.
AG
Yeah, except they even talk that way in private. Witness Scowcroft’s account of his infuriating sit-down with Condi, where Brent made Pat’s argument and Condi told him he was living in the past.
I do not understand what you are saying here, BooMan.
A link might help.
Or…just clarify a little.
You write:”Yeah, except they even talk that way in private. Witness Scowcroft’s account of his infuriating sit-down with Condi, where Brent made Pat’s argument and Condi told him he was living in the past. “
Who “they” in the first sentence?
And why would you believe what ANYONE says about ANYTHING when the entire administration is capable of perjuring itself to a Special Prosecutor, a 9/11 Committee, or any OTHER group of perceived opponents?
Do you mean that Brent Scowcroft told Condoleeza Rice that (to quote Patrick Lang) “The Bush Administration believes in the transformative power of elections?”
And Rice…who IS THE VOICE of the administration…told him he was living in the past?
Precisely my point.
AG
Yet the two do not see each other much anymore. According to friends of Scowcroft, Rice has asked him to call her to set up a dinner, but he has not, apparently, pursued the invitation. The last time the two had dinner, nearly two years ago, it ended unhappily, Scowcroft acknowledged.
“We were having dinner just when Sharon said he was going to pull out of Gaza,” at the end of 2003. “She said, ‘At least there’s some good news,’ and I said, ‘That’s terrible news.’ She said, ‘What do you mean?’ And I said that for Sharon this is not the first move, this is the last move. He’s getting out of Gaza because he can’t sustain eight thousand settlers with half his Army protecting them. Then, when he’s out, he will have an Israel that he can control and a Palestinian state atomized enough that it can’t be a problem.” Scowcroft added, “We had a terrible fight on that.”
They also argued about Iraq. “She says we’re going to democratize Iraq, and I said, ‘Condi, you’re not going to democratize Iraq,’ and she said, ‘You know, you’re just stuck in the old days,’ and she comes back to this thing that we’ve tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth,” he said. Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, “But we’ve had fifty years of peace.”
link
more elections = more regimes we dont like. However, let’s not forget the solution to the Allende result.
I am very interested in this
尖锐湿疣 性病 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 疣迪 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 疣迪 艾达乐 咪喹莫特 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣