Can Mubarak stay?

Originally posted by whodey
Like I said, he says he will step down. Obviously this is not his choice. He is simply giving in to the pressure. Conversly, those in Iran and China could care less if 99.9% of the population wanted them gone because they would just assume kill 99.9% of the population if they had to do so.

You are completely delusional about Iran and China.

30 years is more than Pinochet. Was he a softie too in your eyes?

Originally posted by Palynka
You are completely delusional about Iran and China.

30 years is more than Pinochet. Was he a softie too in your eyes?

Has the Mubarak regime outlasted the dictatorships in Iran and China? No. In fact, I would say on average that most brutal dictatorships last more than 30 years.

Originally posted by whodey
Has the Mubarak regime outlasted the dictatorships in Iran and China? No. In fact, I would say on average that most brutal dictatorships last more than 30 years.

Which dictator in Iran are you talking about that lasted more than 30 years?

Even Mao didn't last that much, but I guess he might have. However, had Mubarak died of natural cause last year, probably not many would have guessed he would be out any time soon.

Originally posted by Palynka
Which dictator in Iran are you talking about that lasted more than 30 years?

Even Mao didn't last that much, but I guess he might have. However, had Mubarak died of natural cause last year, probably not many would have guessed he would be out any time soon.

I am not talking about keeping Mubarak in power, what I am talking about is keeping his regime in power. In fact, I think he would just assume hand it all over to one of his sons or cronies. Really there is very little difference. It is akin to Castro handing over Cuba to his kin.

Remeber, keeping a certain degree of power does not mean you are at the helm, rather, it means that your cronies are.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not talking about keeping Mubarak in power, what I am talking about is keeping his regime in power. In fact, I think he would just assume hand it all over to one of his sons or cronies. Really there is very little difference. It is akin to Castro handing over Cuba to his kin.

Remeber, keeping a certain degree of power does not mean you are at the helm, rather, it means that your cronies are.

Are you going to tell me who is this puppet master figure who controls the cronies for more than 30 years?

You can wiggle all you want but to accuse Mubarak of being some kind of softie (or not as bad, whatever than means. What are you saying actually?) because he's stepping down after 30 years of rule is ridiculous. And remember we still don't know who's coming next.

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you going to tell me who is this puppet master figure who controls the cronies for more than 30 years?

You can wiggle all you want but to accuse Mubarak of being some kind of softie (or not as bad, whatever than means. What are you saying actually?) because he's stepping down after 30 years of rule is ridiculous. And remember we still don't know who's coming next.

We see this with the Egyptian protests today. They do not want a Mubarak appointee or someone allied with him to replace him.

I would say that Mubarak loses if the regime that replaces his has no ties to him politically. In that case, he would be akin to a paper tiger dictator. Conversly, if you assassinated the president of Iran, for example, someone exactly like him would pop up and replace him. Now that is a real dictatorship!!!

Originally posted by whodey
We see this with the Egyptian protests today. They do not want a Mubarak appointee or someone allied with him to replace him.

I would say that Mubarak loses if the regime that replaces his has no ties to him politically. In that case, he would be akin to a paper tiger dictator. Conversly, if you assassinated the president of Iran, for example, someone exactly like him would pop up and replace him. Now that is a real dictatorship!!!

Why should Mubarak care if the regime holds after his assassination?

And do you even have a point with these "Mubarak is not a real dictator" rant? Is it just to say that Iran is worse? Why don't you just say that instead of looking like a Mubarak apologist (and a complete tool in the process)?

Originally posted by whodey
I thought I might introduce the thought that Mubarak may want to stay. If he does, why couldn't he? After all, the Iranians squashed their citizens protests. The Chinese left their citezens dead in the street at Tiananmen square and both regimes are going strong with no forseeable end in sight. So why couldn't Mubarak take the same path as Iran and China ...[text shortened]... pected out of the Egyptian government? Are we to believe that Mubarak should be a better man?

When my daughter started college she was going to go into international relations. The first assignment was to prepare a list of recommendations for Saddam Hussein to use in his governance of the country. When the lists were turned in and reviewed, the instructor told the class (typical idealistic freshmen) that most of them would be taken out and shot by Saddam for what they'd come up with. Why? Because they advised Saddam to clean up his act, treat his people humanely, make reparations with other countries, etc. Such advice would not be what Saddam was asking for. He would be asking for advice on how to achieve what was in his interest to achieve, from his POV. For example, apparently he was advised to make the West believe he had WMD's.

I don't see any posters on this thread going down this road, and the thread is not about what advice to give Mubarek, but what I am getting at is the question of what is in his personal interest to do? Can we glean what that is, from events so far? Assuming that staying alive is a central interest, to which staying in power is important but not essential, it is obviously in his interest not to step down now (so far), so there are no viable assassination threats -- not yet. That means he believes his immediate security forces are doing their job better than if he stepped down. Apparently it is in his interest to make a public promise not to stand for reelection, which, if believed by his behind-the-scene allies domestic and foreign, would result in a decrease in his power to influence them -- the lame duck effect. Apparently it is in his interest not to publicly order a definitive military/police crackdown, possibly because the order would be disobeyed, again showing his weakness. He has said he does not want to leave Egypt, which the protesters demand, so there may be some negotiating going on.

I suspect he has weakened himself enough that he cannot use military/police force to quash the public opposition a la China and Iran, and private opposition from inside and outside Egypt will not rally to him in support of that quash job. So I doubt there will be a crackdown of the size needed for him to retain his position and I doubt that he is getting tactical advice on such an approach. Instead he seems to be banking on the public cooling off and not coalescing around a strong candidate to oppose him. I just heard the government has offered a 15% pay raise to its 6 million public workers. So it's the carrot, not stick approach.

So from his POV, it appears that it he believes it is in his personal interest to stay in power, and he believes that he does not have the military/police stick as an option at this time. He will be a better man if he believes it is in his interest to be.

Originally posted by whodey
Someone who can crush revolts and keep himself in power. I suppose what makes a good dictator is unchecked power with enough military backing to maintain that power.

I'd expand on that, as per Machiavelli's The Prince, but there is no doubt that the ability to create overwhelming fear is essential.

Originally posted by JS357
I suspect he has weakened himself enough that he cannot use military/police force to quash the public opposition a la China and Iran, and private opposition from inside and outside Egypt will not rally to him in support of that quash job. So I doubt there will be a crackdown of the size needed for him to retain his position and I doubt that he is getting tactical advice on such an approach.

This is why I assigned him the term "paper tiger".

Originally posted by JS357
[b]When my daughter started college she was going to go into international relations. The first assignment was to prepare a list of recommendations for Saddam Hussein to use in his governance of the country. When the lists were turned in and reviewed, the instructor told the class (typical idealistic freshmen) that most of them would be taken out and shot by Sadd hieve, from his POV. For example, apparently he was advised to make the West believe he had WMD's.

I know exactly why such recommendations were a threat to someone like Saddam. The more brutal the regime, like the Saddam regime was, the greater the push to expunge him. Therefore, such things as equality and mercy become your natural enemy if you unleash it within a given society. In short, the more brutal a regime becomes the greater need to create increased fear for those who oppose it so that you can maintain power. Someone like Saddam secured power by means of brutality and fear and is why he could not be seen as backing down from anyone including the US.

Originally posted by whodey
I know exactly why such recommendations were a threat to someone like Saddam. The more brutal the regime, like the Saddam regime was, the greater the push to expunge him. Therefore, such things as equality and mercy become your natural enemy if you unleash it within a given society. In short, the more brutal a regime becomes the greater need to create incr ...[text shortened]... brutality and fear and is why he could not be seen as backing down from anyone including the US.

Now you should be starting to understand the secret in Mubarak's longevity as a dictator. But I bet you aren't.

Originally posted by Palynka
Now you should be starting to understand the secret in Mubarak's longevity as a dictator. But I bet you aren't.

There are elements of this in his regime, but by in large compared to Saddam he is a girly man, so to speak.

Originally posted by whodey
There are elements of this in his regime, but by in large compared to Saddam he is a girly man, so to speak.

The point is that escalation of repression buys you time, but small concessions buy you much more. Look at China. After Tiananmen they realized more repression would take it only so far. 20 years on and a revolution seems less and less likely.

Originally posted by Palynka
The point is that escalation of repression buys you time, but small concessions buy you much more. Look at China. After Tiananmen they realized more repression would take it only so far.

So what concessions did the Chinese government give the protestors? If I recall, hundreds died along with their protest.