
Mubarak to step down tonight - shortlived
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/02/egypts-supreme-council-of-armed-forces-meeting-on-crisis/1
======
lionhearted
True story, three nights ago at a bar in Saigon:

Friend of mine: Mubarak is sharp. That motherfucker has been hated for a long
time, but is still in power... he'll weather this, he'll still be running the
country next year.

Me: I don't know dude, the city is _literally on fire_. Has any revolution
ever hit this point and had the leader keep control?

Him: They're rioting. It'll get settled out. Besides, Mubarak's got the
military.

Me: Does he? Really?

Him: Well, if you think he'll be out of power, put your money where your mouth
is. 100 bucks says, Mubarak is still in power at the end of this year.

Me: I don't know dude, I guess I don't know as much about this as you do...

Him: I don't know much. But I think he's got it. What do you say, 100 bucks?

Me: Well, what's "in power"?

Him: He's still got the title President on December 31st.

Me: In Egypt, not in exile?

Him: In Egypt. He's still president, and in Egypt.

Me: And no foreign occupying army stabilizing - no U.N. peacekeepers or
transition force.

Him: That wouldn't happen, America has the securi -- okay, fine, yes, no
foreign forces. So the wager is - Mubarak has the title of President on
December 31st, is in Egypt, and there's no foreign troops occupying.

Me: Okay, I'm going to go with history here. You can break riots earlier, but
once they hit this point it's over...

Him: We'll see. I want that hundred bucks in December.

Me: I'm good for it. You're on.

We shook on it. I'll take him out to a nice dinner with some of the money.

~~~
mahmud
Gaaah, Seb!

The whole dialogue can be summarized as "someone bet me he will still be in
power a year from now".

~~~
lionhearted
> The whole dialogue can be summarized as "someone bet me he will still be in
> power a year from now".

The differing analysis was actually more interesting to me than the wager -
his was that Mubarak is resilient, ruthless, has weathered things in the past,
and has the military.

My thinking was that things had already progressed beyond the point where he
could possibly stay in power... and the military is not so clearly on his side
against the people, especially considering he likely won't live much longer.

I thought comparing the two points of view was more interesting than the bet
itself.

~~~
mahmud
Sorry, but your friend lived under a rock and had no clue how the events on
the ground were unfolding. I would make it a habit to bet the guy from now on.

Mubarak was destined to leave if for one reason: the opposition refused to
bite the various baits thrown at them. They refused to get violent, they
refused to split into factions, and they refused to disclose any unified
position that he could negotiate with, other than "get out".

~~~
lionhearted
> Mubarak was destined to leave if for one reason: the opposition refused to
> bite the various baits thrown at them.

Huh, that's a fascinating analysis, especially the point about refusing to
give a position to negotiate with.

Also, I laughed about the betting point.

Sidenote: I live on the road, and my next travel plans after Asia were going
to be Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, and Greece... I'm thinking those don't look as
appealing as when I set them in late 2009...

~~~
iuguy
Here's a better alternate plan for you:

Turkey, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Morocco.

They're all fine as long as you use common sense.

~~~
iuguy
To elaborate:

Start on the south coast in the east, make your way across Antalya, go up to
Urfa, where everything is between 2000 and 17,000 years old. Go to Lake Van
and Mount Nimrut, watch out for the heads. Do Capadocia (fairy chimneys) and
look out for the old christian hideout caves where it was first preached and
used to hide from the romans. Head across to Ankara to see the Ataturk
mauseleum then down to Konya. Onwards to Bodrum, up through Ephesus, Troy and
get the boat from Bursa to Istanbul. Spend a few days in Istanbul and take the
train or bus to Thessaloniki.

From Thessaloniki go to Volos then on to Athens. From Port Piraeus you can go
on to Crete after which you can head back to Athens then on to Patra to try
some wine. From Patra get a ferry to Ancona in Italy.

From Ancona go on to Rome, then up to Florence. Don't forget the galleries.
From there on to Milan and Turin. Here you can go on to Cannes, Monaco (if you
fancy but it is expensive) and Nice. From Nice head west to Cerbere to connect
on to Barcelona.

After some time in Barcelona, head to Madrid and if you fancy it on to the
Douro valley in Portugal, then Lisbon and over towards Cadiz. If you don't
fancy Portugal and want to save it for when you're back from Morocco then you
can go from Madrid down to Cadiz via Seville. If you time this right you
should get there for the Fiesta de Savilla. Go on to Cordoba and do some
Flamenco then on to Tarifa to get the ferry to Tangiers.

From Tangiers take the train to Rabat - if you go overnight get a Couchette,
then on to Casablanca (although there's not a great deal there). You can go on
to Marrakech from there. Try to stay in the Medina if you can, the Riyads
aren't that expensive and are worth it. From there you can head to Fez or the
Atlas mountains - there's some waterfalls near Marrakech that are also worth a
visit. Then you can head up to Tangiers or down towards West Africa. I'd
suggest back up to Tangiers, then do Lisbon, Douro and northern Spain. When
you get back to France you should be able to go from there up the west coast
through the north and either get a Eurostar or Ferry to the UK (at which point
drop me an email and I'll buy you a beer) or you can keep going north and east
to Belgium, Holland and beyond.

Hope this helps.

------
tantalor
USA Today? Really? How about,

AP
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipbX3bCpn8...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipbX3bCpn86FnnmH_l6_aK_g1O1A?docId=7f6e9f0d9abf468ea72c6588f82e2f2b)

WP [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021003134.html?hpid=topnews)

WSJ <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110210-713568.html>

NYT
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11egypt.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11egypt.html)

BBC <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12421000>

~~~
shortlived
Sorry, sorry. I wanted to be first with a story for once in my life. I agree
there are much better sources, this is just the first one I read.

~~~
therealarmen
you did it!

------
benwerd
Hooray! Mubarak to concede power to his vice president, who has said that
Egypt isn't ready for democracy, effectively deflating the protesters' demands
while changing pretty much nothing, and leaving the door open to come down
harshly on dissenters once the eyes of the world have moved elsewhere. That's
great!

Seriously, this strikes me as propaganda of the worst kind. All of us here are
in the business of making things better - the promise of the web is all about
democratization and equalizing hierarchies. What can we do to help, both here
and elsewhere?

~~~
barrkel
Odd feature of Egypt constitution, as far as I'm aware: if the president
resigns, power falls to the speaker of the parliament, not the vice president.

E.g.: <http://www.eipr.org/en/pressrelease/2011/02/05/1091>

~~~
learner4life
Remember though, the country is in a state of emergency (As it has been for
the last 30 years). I am not sure those rules apply in a state of emergency.

------
cma
The vice president that will take over was trained in Fort Bragg, NC. He has
been the head of the Egyptian side of the "extraordinary rendition" joint-US
torture program.

If you want some scale for the corruption going on in Egypt, look into why
Mubarak is wealthier than Bill Gates.

~~~
DanI-S
We shouldn't draw some arbitrary border around Egypt's corruption. Our
governments directly benefited from it; we're all implicit in it. Western
support of regimes like this /has/ to end.

~~~
cma
I am aware and I agree; I wasn't drawing a border.

~~~
DanI-S
I guess I was just responding to "the corruption going on in Egypt". I didn't
mean to indicate you in particular, apologies if it comes across that way.

------
torme
Is this really any different? They're just instating the VP instead, who I
imagine is probably not much better.

This might make sense if they're planning to hold another election shortly
thereafter. That way, at least the figurehead is out of office, and there's
the potential for a peaceful transition for a replacement. Given the level of
corruption though, is that even a possibility?

~~~
roc
The Egyptian people already rejected the transparent figure-head proposal (the
"I won't run for re-election" promise). I don't think anyone expects them to
accept anything that doesn't carry the promise of a free and fair election.

That said, the Vice President came up through the military which, as we've
been told, is very well-respected. I don't see any reason why the people would
distrust what would essentially be an Egyptian Military stewardship.

Perhaps they _should_ be wary of that. And perhaps they will be. But it seems
reasonable to expect they'd be willing to give it a shot. The military has
done right by them thus far.

~~~
wolfrom
Don't forget that Mubarak was just an air force officer who was Sadat's vice
president. It's hard not to think of this as a repeat of past successions. I
haven't read whether Suleiman would stand for re-election in Sept.

~~~
roc
I absolutely agree. But what other reasonable choice do the Egyptian people
truly have? At some point, a purge of Mubarak's government will just leave you
with no-one who knows how to keep the government running sufficiently to even
_hold_ orderly elections.

And I _certainly_ wouldn't expect the Egyptians to trust a western
stabilizing/interim governmental force moreso than their own military. We were
_partners_ to Mubarak's tyranny.

------
goatforce5
The AP is saying there might be a military coup in progress:

[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT?SITE=AP&...](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-02-10-11-23-18)

It seems as thought Mubarak is being pushed aside tonight (indeed, if I play
connect the dots it looks like Mubarak is trying to flee and the army is
trying to make sure he can't). Looks like there's more than one party who
could take power over the next few hours. Whether they can hold on to that is
another question entirely.

------
eibrahim
What a proud moment for Egypt and all Egyptians? I didn't think I will see a
revolution in my lifetime but here we are watching one unfold in front of our
own eyes.

This is what wikipedia says about the french revolutions - sounds very similar
- doesn't it. Except egyptians did it in 2 weeks and not 3 years.

"The French Revolution was a period of radical social and political upheaval
in French and European history. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France
for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic
transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated
under a sustained assault from liberal political groups and the masses on the
streets. Old ideas about hierarchy and tradition succumbed to new
Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights."

~~~
steve19
Wikipedia lists over 40 revolutions in the 20th century[0] and 10 in the
21st[1]. This was not the first nor will be the last that happen in your
lifetime.

I admire your optimism, but in my humble option unlike the French revolution,
in which they eventually managed to rid themselves of dictators and obtain
democracy, so far the Egyptians have only managed to throw out one dictator to
be replaced by another (or maybe a military council).

I hope the Egyptians keep up the momentum and one day soon have free and fair
elections. Until then I fear it will just be business as usual for the corrupt
and powerful.

\---

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-
century_revolutio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-
century_revolutions)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-
century_revolutio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-
century_revolutions)

EDIT: Formatting.

~~~
eibrahim
I am Egyptian American - both countries are extremely self-centered :)...
That's probably why I never heard of the other revolutions in your links.

Regardless, this is something that is unprecedented in Egyptian history, which
is 7000+ years long.

Honestly, I always thought the Egyptian revolution will be the poor rising up
and slaughtering the rich. So, I am pretty impressed and proud at how peaceful
this movement has been and is lead by educated and enlightened young people...

Isn't surprising that you don't hear the usual middle eastern chants "death to
america/israel/obama/blah" or "jiha" or other sort of religious calls, etc...
It has been all about democracy and human rights.

------
giberson
It occurs to me, that this information may be a coup. Imagine that Mubarak's
original intention to address the protesters tonight was to propose some
compromise other than his immediate stepping down. An opposing party could use
the opportunity to force a step down. According to the USA today article, the
military addressed the people "all of your demands will be met tonight". Was
this really the instruction of Mubarak to the military? Or could it be the
instruction coming from the opposition. By spreading a rumor that Mubarak will
step down through official channels and generating real expectation for that
to happen tonight a strategic coup could be set. Because tonight, if Mubarak
doesn't step down, because of the expectation, it would stir the protester's
riot past the boiling point. It would force the riots to the next stage of
civil decent requiring military action against or for the people. At that
point, absolutely the only way to appease the riots would be the forced
removal of Mubarak.

It would be certainly interesting if that were really the case, and Mubarak
now faced the realization that despite it not being originally his intent
tonight--must step down from position.

~~~
eru
> By spreading a rumor that Mubarak will step down through official channels
> and generating real expectation for that to happen [...]

Confer the stepping down of the Germany Kaiser after WWI.

~~~
giberson
I'm having trouble sifting through the wiki info regarding the German
revolution to find similarities I think you might be pointing out. Could you
cliff note what your referring to?

~~~
eru
Basically, the German emperor did not decide to abdicate himself, but somebody
else created the expectation, that he then followed.

From "Wilhelm II, German Emperor"
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Kaiser#Abdic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Kaiser#Abdication_and_flight)):

"After the outbreak of the German Revolution, Wilhelm could not make up his
mind whether or not to abdicate. Up to that point, he was confident that even
if he were obliged to vacate the German throne, he would still retain the
Prussian kingship. The unreality of this belief was revealed when, for the
sake of preserving some form of government in the face of anarchy, Wilhelm's
abdication both as German Emperor and King of Prussia was abruptly announced
by the Chancellor, Prince Max of Baden, on 9 November 1918. (Prince Max
himself was forced to resign later the same day, when it became clear that
only Friedrich Ebert, leader of the SPD could effectively exert control.)"

------
warfangle
There's more detail over on Al Jazeera English:
[http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/10/live-
blog-...](http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2011/02/10/live-blog-
feb-10-egypt-protests)

~~~
losvedir
The live blog is excellent for getting a sense of what's been happening,
seeing the story unfold.

Youtube is broadcasting Aljazeera English live here:
<http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish?feature=ticker> . Mubarak was
supposed to speak at 10pm Egypt time (40 mins ago), but hasn't yet. I wonder
when he will and what he'll say. I encourage everyone to find a live feed of
what's going on over there (e.g. the youtube link above) and follow along.
History in the making, perhaps?

------
JoeAltmaier
"Demands will be met", "Mubarak will meet with the people". Hopeful! But the
headline should be "Mubarak may step down tonight"

~~~
eru
Al-Jazeera has "Hosni Mubarak 'may step down'"
([http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011210...](http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112101653445426.html)).

------
patr1ck
YouTube / Al Jazeera has live video here:
<http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish>

Pretty amazing stuff.

------
jim_h
Reuters just said that president is not stepping down. He is just transferring
power.

Saw this on Al Jazeera, but no source/link yet.

~~~
jim_h
Watching the speech now. He's not stepping down. (Speech not done yet.)

------
callmevlad
Based on the number of mentions of the "concerns of the Muslim Brotherhood",
it seems likely that the Egyptian people are either in for a) military rule or
b) a religious theocracy. I'm hoping for c) a true democracy, but the track
record on that is pretty bad in the Middle East.

------
jcsalterego
I'm seeing this everywhere else on my internets, but I will have to play the
"OT for HN" card.

~~~
JonnieCache
Civil rights issues are hacker issues. Even if they're not in your country.

~~~
jcsalterego
I concede to your first point. Not sure where the second part is coming from.

~~~
JonnieCache
What I meant was, that if this was happening in the US or a european country
where most HNers live, then the relevance of the civil rights issues might be
seen as more immediate.

This was more aimed at the community in general, "you" was meant to refer to
the reader. Obviously I don't know where you (jcsalterego) live. Sorry for not
being more clear.

~~~
jcsalterego
Cheers for the clarification.

------
marze
Are the Egyptian people really stupid enough to be happy the former head of
the notorious secret police is taking over as president?

Unless I've really missed something, this makes little sense.

------
kprobst
He's speaking now on TV over there and the BBC says he'll stay in power until
elections in September, which is basically the same thing the protesters were
offered before.

------
zeteo
Sensationalism and an unverified story, in the rush to grab attention at any
cost. Kind of typical for today's mass media.

------
axod
There's no escape from politics. Even on HN.

------
barredo
Well, he didn't

~~~
barredo
No he did!

------
d3fun
as per the latest new he is not resigning
[http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/22309266;_ylt=AlFEJ8...](http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/22309266;_ylt=AlFEJ8fEDCUYcBvlts1Dtgys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTE4Nmg1OTlsBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl9icmVha2luZ19uZXdzBHNsawN3YXRjaGxpdmU-)

------
NY_USA_Hacker
Let's see, the headline is:

"Defiant Mubarak vows to stay in office until Sept. elections"

and the article has:

"Hundreds of thousands of protesters respond to Mubarak's speech with 'get
out, get out!'"

So, Egypt is a country with some tens of millions of people, and some
"hundreds of thousands" are unhappy. Also, Mubarak has been in office for a
long time and, thus, passed whatever process Egypt has for picking a
'legitimate' government. And, the "protesters" apparently are claiming mostly
just that they don't like what Mubarak has been doing and not that the
government he heads is not legitimate.

So, in a country of some tens of millions of people, "hundreds of thousands"
are trying to bring down a legitimate government and replace it with, what?
Anything more legitimate or less? And of the "hundreds of thousands of
protesters", their process of changing a government is some tiny fraction of
the population "shouting" in a public square?

So, in the headline:

"Defiant Mubarak vows to stay in office until Sept. elections"

with "defiant" and "vows", the suggestion is that Mubarak is doing something
wrong.

Then am I the only one here who concludes that the article is being
irresponsible and trying to create violence, maybe Egypt with some tens of
millions of people without a clearly legitimate government and, thus, a good
chance of a long, bloody, civil war that also disrupts the world including the
US economy?

It very much looks like

Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY

wants a war, in particular a religious war, with Jihading Muslims, that might
kill some millions of people in Egypt, might spread from Casablanca east to
Afghanistan and on through South and South East Asia, might kill some tens of
millions of people, might so seriously disrupt the world economy, say, about
little things like oil, that we could have WWIII and kill nearly everyone?

So, my understanding is that Mubarak's term is up in September. Then to
preserve their process of selecting a government, definitely Mubarak should
stay in office and try to do what he was selected to do until September, and
apparently that is what Mubarak just announced he will do. I'd say he did the
'statesman' like thing.

For

Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY

apparently he's just a 'newsie' and a brain-dead, disconnected, clueless,
irresponsible, blood thirsty one at that. Maybe he wants a "scoop"; someone
please rush down to Petco and get the brain-dead newsie a "scoop", hopefully
used.

~~~
colanderman
At the risk of feeding a troll...

If 1% of the population ticked the "displeased with Mubarak" checkbox on a
poll, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But since 1% of the population is IN THE STREETS RIOTING, effectively setting
aside their normal lives and risking even death, you can bet that a hell of a
lot more are significantly displeased and are too scared/old/otherwise
incapable of taking the risks there people are taking.

Furthermore you're being very disingenuous by quoting the population of Egypt
as a whole, and comparing this to the numer of protesters in ONE CITY.

~~~
NY_USA_Hacker
I'm not "trolling" at all. Instead, this is serious stuff. To be self-
interested about this, there is a risk of WWIII that would hurt me also.

This is about the importance of 'democracy', that is, settling political
differences at the ballot box without blood instead of in the streets with
blood.

And it's about a 'process' to change a government and give a 'legitimate'
government that can have wide support of a 'social contract' that can avoid
civil war and maintain peace.

And this is about international political arson.

The people of Egypt and the newsies should be careful about what they wish for
because the might get it.

Your main point seems to be that by evidence direct, indirect, and 'generally
accepted common knowledge' a 'lot' of people in Egypt very much don't like
their government. So, the "hundreds of thousands" are, to be simple, 'very
unhappy'. I can agree with that.

I will go further and agree that the Mubarak government hasn't done enough to
help the people of Egypt and has been brutal with dissenters. And I will agree
that Egypt should have a better government.

Still, we need to be a little careful here. I mention two reasons for being
careful:

One reason is the newsie suggestion of the romantic 'narrative' of
uncorrupted, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, native Egyptian youth
spontaneously risking their lives in the streets against a decades old,
corrupt, self-serving, self-perpetuating, ugly, brutal, violent, exploitative,
evil dictatorship selfishly and 'defiantly vowing' to hang on to their unjust
power and privilege and continue crushing to poverty, destitution, and often
death the ordinary Egyptian people just to enrich a Mubarak led cabal of
wealthy exploiters, all heavily driven by outside powers, hint, hint, the US,
its need for oil through the Suez Canal and its desire to protect the 51st
state, rich, brutal, inwardly directed Israel as it continues to scarf up the
centuries old olive groves of the long suffering, native Palestinian people.
Do I have the newsie's 'story' about right?

Yup, if a 'story' isn't good, then the newsies "will make it good" and thus
grab readers by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, create 'compelling
content' via vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment
and, thus, grab eyeballs for the ad revenue and please the editors,
publishers, and stockholders.

Second, we're playing with both the good of Egypt and WWIII here, so let's be
a little careful.

To be a little careful, at

<http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/population_of_egypt_2010>

the 2010 population of Egypt is supposed to be 77,231,905.

Now the newsies say that "hundreds of thousands" have been in the streets or
the square or wherever. So, not even the romantic newsies have said
"millions". So, we're talking no more than one protester per 77 people or so.

That seems to be true but, as you point out, maybe not "the whole story".
Okay: For each dedicated, sincere, life-risking protester, we should count
more unhappy Egyptian people elsewhere in Cairo and the rest of Egypt. Okay,
I'll go along with that.

So, as in the US where the citizens have the right "to petition the government
for redress of grievances", the protesters should be able to gather, speak,
shout, and scream in the streets, and the government should listen and,
hopefully, act. Okay.

The Egyptian military could have flown over the streets with some helicopter
gunships and then flown back to base with the streets quite silent but didn't
do that. Uh, there are stories that for years the Egyptian military has gotten
north of $1 billion a year from the US and that the top of the Egyptian
military has been thoroughly educated in US military colleges. Hmm.

But, wait, there's more! There's the long, terrible 'transgression' of the
evil Mubarak cabal. Now from 'the voice of the people' in the streets, there
is 'retribution' for the evil cabal. If, as the newsies and apparently the
White House want, the old Mubarak leaves office, then as he rides across the
desert to retirement and into the sunset, he will get 'redemption'. So,
borrowing from the 'Ring' of Wagner, the 'Ring' of Tolkien, the 'Star Wars' of
Lucas, and the 'Jurassic Park' of Spielberg (and close to Goethe's 'Faust'),
we have the classic trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption. So
we have a second grade version of a 'morality play', popular all the way back
to the beginnings of that foundation of the newsies, English literature. Still
better would be a protest leader who ascends the barricades, gets the
spontaneous acclimation of the hundreds of thousands, walks into the
Presidential Palace, crisply saluted by smiling military guards, and gets the
girl. Newsies just LOVE English literature! Democracy, reality, not so much.

Also, in the US are many guilt-ridden people who believe that the world would
be one shining city on a hill just but for US evil foreign policy
manipulation. So, whenever a 'friend' of the US falls, less guilt is felt.

Then there's the oil: The guilt-ridden are convinced that the US has been
'raping the natural world' to burn oil to support an 'unsustainable', dirty,
filthy, unclean, wasteful, greedy, lazy, planet destroying lifestyle. So, if
the oil were cut off, then less guilt would be felt.

Ah, two more morality plays for the newsies!

With these various morality plays of the newsies, does something bother you
here?

Hint: Uh, just where is the 'democracy'? Or if that is asking too much, what
about the 'process' of selecting a government?

For one step more, if some hundreds of thousands of people, maybe representing
a few million people, in a country of 77 million people can bring down a
government just by gathering in a square, then what is left of any reasonable
government selection process?

Next, if Mubarak does what the people shouting in the streets want, then how
to get a legitimate new government? That is, it's not enough just to bring
down the old government; in addition it is crucial to build up another one.
And in all of this, 'legitimacy' is from important up to crucial. Uh, without
a lot of 'legitimacy', there is little basis for a crucial 'social contract'
that will let the streets empty and the country get back to work. The newsies
are suggesting that the only legitimacy needed is the shouting of the
uncorrupted, sincere, dedicated, patriotic, native Egyptian youth, and this
should bother you.

Next we come to what is likely the 'realpolitik' of this situation: Uh, even
the most superficial reading of political history can show that the volume of
screaming in the streets can be enormously amplified by some well-funded
organization. Who and where might such funding and organization be from? How
about from people who want to see Mubarak fall and have a chance of getting a
government in Egypt they like much better? Net, can't take every 'Egyptian
patriot' shouting in the streets at face value.

For the good of Egypt and most of the world, I'd say:

Without a legitimate government, Egypt could descend into civil war, heavily
about Islamic theocracy versus 'Western democracy', that could spread from
Casablanca east to Afghanistan and further east to the Philippines, block the
Suez Canal, disrupt world oil, start a war with Israel, and lead to WWIII.

If a theocracy takes over Egypt, then it would be Sunni like UBL. However, I
can believe that even the Shiite Iranians would prefer a Sunni theocracy in
Egypt to a Western secular democracy friendly with the US.

To avoid civil war, etc., Egypt needs a government with at least what passes
for 'legitimacy'.

For the sake of at least legitimacy, the 'process' Egypt has for selecting a
government should continue. In particular, the legitimacy of the present
government should not be destroyed by shouting in the streets and, in
particular, then replaced by a government with even less legitimacy and, thus,
more risk of civil war.

For the sake of legitimacy, Mubarak should stay in office until September as
planned.

Uh, the original idea of democracy was to settle differences at the ballot box
instead of in the streets.

If the people in the streets are a genuine, patriotic, indigenous, spontaneous
political movement representing a significant fraction of the people of Egypt,
then good: They should do well in the elections in September and do good for
Egypt afterward.

But what the newsies want, for Mubarak just to leave office, is mostly just so
that the newsies can have a 'story' and is irresponsible and risks blood in
the streets up to WWIII. I'm still working but am having difficulty
constructing even more contempt for the newsies than I have already: Their job
is to find a fuel leak, throw lighted matches, and then write their 'stories'
awful conflagration.

In getting Mubarak to leave before September, the people in Egypt should be
careful about what they wish for because they might get it.

