During Chinese lunar new year, at the height of the Egyptian unrest, I happened to tune to a CCTV (Chinese Central TV) report of President Hu Jintao's activities. It devoted about ten minutes to his visit to a "PAP" unit, to watch their amateur theatrical show and show their smiling, human side.

What is "PAP?" It is the People's Armed Police, the quasi-military, riot-control division of the Public Security Bureau. It was transferred from the PLA after 1989 to give a more civilian face to the government's response to large-scale demonstrations and other "subversive" activities.

Hu's visit to PAP in the midst of the Tahrir Square eruption was not accidental. He could have chosen to go to, say, the Chinese Red Cross or a thousand other agencies to watch their amateur theatrical performances.

I'm not really sure how you could consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a loser in this, and your supporting evidence in suggesting so is weak. I suppose it's just wishful thinking to hope so.

The 2005 elections (which appear to be your main source of evidence) in which they won only about 20% were clearly rigged, and the MB, being a banned organization, obviously had some serious challenges in fielding candidates and providing them with the organizational support that they would need to defeat government-backed candidates.

But more importantly is the following: After 30 years of emergency, authoritarian rule under Mubarak, Egypt effectively lacks a civil society. The one thing that I was really interested in when following the protests was its decentralized nature. There were a broad set of demands that just about everyone in Egypt could agree to, but there was little organizational structure, and few prominent figures leading the protests (the Google Exec is the only one with credibility; El Baradei has little among ordinary Egyptians).

I doubt that we'll see the development of strong political parties by the time elections roll around in September (that is if they do). The Muslim Brotherhood is the only opposition group with effective organizational abilities and a presence throughout the entire country (they are obviously strongest in places like Alexandria and rural areas, but their presence is felt everywhere), and so I expect them to make a very strong showing. Despite being branded as a radical organization by Western governments and media, they are at the end of the day very pragmatic, and will make the smart moves to ensure a victory in those elections. We'll see who's right in six months.

People's realization that some TIGERS may be paper-tigers.

Although you made a reference to 'democracy from the barrel of a gun' I think the neocons are big losers, and it's important to fight their self-serving narrative about Egypt.

1. The neocons believe in 'exporting democracy' (Gingrich as Trotsky?) which got us Iraq which turned out a mess with tens of thousands of people killed. In fact, the only truly lasting revolutions are those that come as a result of internal strife and internal political struggles. This is a lesson of modern history from Poland to the Philippines to Vietnam. External pressure and covert tricks can help over-turn a revolution (Iran, 1953, Congo 1961) but external pressure cannot make one. Iraq is example #1.)

2. There is no 'clash of civilizations', as leading neocons have proclaimed. 9/11 was a political act against the US just as the bombings in Saudi Arabia were a political acts against the Saudis. AL Queda tried to hide their political nature through religious extremism. But they and others like them are made up of anarchist cells who couldn't draw out even 5 people to Tahrir Square, much less force 2 Arab autocrats out of power within a few weeks of each other. The secular, cross-religious, scarved and non-scarved women and cross-section of Egyptian society from docs and lawyers in Cairo to 6,000 workers and the Suez Canal did the job. Millions of people risking their lives against police and military vs. nihilists blowing themselves up? No contest.

Those Westerners who whine about the need for a Christian-style 'reformation' in Islam missed the point, its political nature, altogether. What was needed was exactly the new political movement we now see. Proof? The Egyptians, Muslim, Christian, secular, piled on in nation-wide rebellion that quickly spread beyond Cairo and attracted all economic strata.

3. The Middle East is changing and Israel will have to also. Netanyahu called it wrong. Had Obama followed Netanyahu's pleadings and backed Mubarak, the democrats would have won in the long run, but with much more bloodshed and killing from a desperate Mubarak regime once again propped up by its US big-brother. The Obama administration, despite Clinton's 'Alice in Wonderland' day, took a stand with the future. Maybe that will give it the confidence to push Israel into serious negotiations for peace with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu's confidence that the old order in Egypt would prevail should certainly cause doubt about his ability to clearly read politics and lead Israel forward during a transition in the Middle East.
http://www.betweenlinesblog.com/

i don't want to incite a riot by posting this comment, but does this wave of political uprising across the Arab world seem to be exactly what the leaders of al-Qaeda had hoped for? The movement has yet to taken on an obvious religious tone, but I don't think this change comes as unwelcome by their leadership. With that said, how does the rest of the world great the new reality? If the U.S. is in fact optimistic, how do we feel about being on the same side of the fence as our enemies for an instant?

Could this happen without the threat of radical Muslims lurking in the shadows? I don't think Jim Crow would have been busted had the Black Panthers made MLK seem like a reasonable man. These protesters enjoy the same dialectic legitimacy. I don't think personally violence is right for the individual though I think, as Jefferson writes it may be justified and warranted. But, violence is the very thing the police understand. When we are open to hearing others and include all people at the table we might find we far more common ground than any of us would be comfortable with. When people are heard, and listened to, violence, even shouting is unnecessary.

I don't disagree they are losers, thankfully their message was challenged by their own neighbors. As here, and in Israel, the most religiously extreme are the most organized, the loudest and drive contentious legislation. They have throngs of blindly supportive, decent people who haven't really thought their position through.

I was surprised to see that Iran doesn't warrant a mention on this list. Surely the events of the last several weeks in Egypt resonate more with many people there than anywhere else.

The Obama administration rather fumbled things after June, 2009; it got taken by surprise, and worried so much about avoiding blame for "meddling" that it ended up just blinking vacantly as the Tehran regime overpowered its opposition. New opportunities may arise in Iran after Mubarak's fall; the administration must be better prepared to take advantage of them.

The recent events shouldn't be judged separately from the results of the upcoming (well, hopefully upcoming) elections. The military succeeded in stabilizing the situation, let's see how they fare as caretaker government.
The US itself has proved in 2006 that democracy has no value by itself. I sincerely hope that the blunder of that year wouldn't repeat itself and Obama will try to accommodate to the Egyptian people's will whatever it might be instead of dictating to them,

As for Al Quaeda, I think they are big winners right now. First, two US-friendly dictators have fallen, a few more are trembling. Secondly, it is almost certain that the new Egyptian government will be nowhere as close to US and Israeli interests as the Mubarak-led one. So it seems that they have one just won one of the most important Arab states. Naturally, it could change with the elections.

If I were Arab, I would feel greatly offended by the remarks in various pages. You state that it took the present revolution to show the Arab people that there are alternatives to terrorism? So in your opinion the Arabs know nothing but terrorism? Let me remind you that there have been many-many political movements, groups, actions, act of self-determination and advanced political understanding in the history of the Arab states thousands of years before America was even discovered. So I think these kind of idiotic stereotypes have no place on a site like this.

Hi, sure there are winners and losers of the rvolution. I have also taken part in the 1989 upheaval in the former GDR. Surely that's not all gold. Winners are those people working for democracy and human rights. Losers forever yesterday not to use the new opportunity and of the myriad ways in getting an offer to do something. All beginnings are difficult, but each one has something to contribute to build something.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
John F. Kennedy

"Which goes to show that those who supported nonmilitary efforts to encourage more participatory forms of government were right (and those who sought to spread democracy at the end of a rifle barrel were not)."

I won't disagree that non-military efforts are wrong or right/effective or non-effective, but there should be no dispute that the Cedar Revolution, the Green Revolution, the Tunisian Revolution, the Egyptian Revolution, the Yemani Revolution, and nascent movements in Jordan and Syria (some of those mentioned are ongoing and some summarily crushed) would NOT have happened without the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - at the point of a gun. The waving of purple fingers has had profound effects in the region. And the world.

I don't understand why we aren't helping freedom fighters in the Middle East. I mean we publically helped depose the Iranian democratic government in the 1950s making way for the current regime. Why are we doing all we can to help now? If we help them then there's no room for the Muslim Brotherhood and extremists to come in and oppress the people. For a great write up on Iran's history and the current state of the Middle East see www.twoangelsofjustice.blogspot.com

To really understand what has and is happening in Egypt click here:
http://66.147.244.196/~theinvio/?p=1707
http://66.147.244.196/~theinvio/?p=1813
http://66.147.244.196/~theinvio/?p=1961

At this time it seems that the losers of the region are the old guard, the ruling elite, the status quo, however you want to
characterize them, and the winners are the younger generation, especially those who choose a path that does not include sectarianism and fundamentalism. In short, it looks like a victory for modernity (which is also a loss for Bin Laden). Also, if the events in Egypt inspire grassroots revolutions throughout the region it will be a win for Obama, who went to Egypt shortly after becoming President and made a speech at a university encouraging Muslims to embrace modernity, moderation and democracy.
It could also provide to FP and its contributors a boost similar to what the O.J. trial did for Court TV LOL.

These types of articles are just sophmoric fluff used to insulate and maintain the facade of the West's way of life.

"Pax Americana"? What cowardice. You can't call your own country what it is in the language of your country, then you have no standing to measure any other part of the world of which you are far less acquainted.

And then jumping on the usual bandwagons. Who courageous. How devouted to the Truth.

If you are interested at preventivo assicurazione moto click here preventivo assicurazione moto