The MB leaders have blinked.


"Backers of ousted president Mohammed Morsi canceled at least one of the protest marches planned for Sunday, citing security concerns.
The Muslim Brotherhood-led coalition, furious over the ouster of former president Mohammed Morsi on July 3, called off a rally at Roxy Square in Cairo "after reports of thugs on rooftops of surrounding buildings," the Anti-Coup Movement said in a statement.
In a tweet, the group said "the march to the Constitutional Court has not been cancelled," despite conflicting media reports that it had.
The group had called for protests against Morsi's ouster by the military last month as well as the recent violence that has left more than 800 dead.
In his first appearance since a deadly crackdown Wednesday, Gen. Abdel-Fatah al-Sissi said Sunday that the military has no intention to seize power and called on Islamists to join the political process."  USAtoday


Well, there you have it.  as I expected, having been shown the "instruments of torment," the MB's leadership is backing away from the army's firepower on the streets of Cairo.  Actually they had not seen anything like the full firepower of the army in what has happened so far.

There is loose talk on American TV about American made tanks running over MB people on the streets and how terrible that is for anti-American feeling there.  In fact Egyptians generally detest Americans and always have.  Oh, your research associates may put on a brave show of bonhommie but they really don't like us.  They resent our wealth, our power and our arrogance.  Good for them.  We often deserve to be detested.

Nevertheless, I have not seen tanks in the streets of Cairo doing anything cruel this far.  Those machines in the picture are not tanks.  They are M-113 armored personnel carriers.  They are something like bulldozers with machine guns and an inch of aluminum armor.  An AK-47 bullet will go through the armor without any problem.   Look it up.

The government of Ehypt will outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood as a legal association.  This will deny it the right to be represented in court, deny it media exposure, deny it political existence.  You think that is irrelevant?  Wait and see.  pl

This entry was posted in Egypt. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The MB leaders have blinked.

  1. Petrous says:

    You are 100% correct. Jamal Abdul-Nasser had done the same to the MB. So, surprise surprise , history does repeat itself (specially if you do not behave; and they did not act as democrats – surprise- when they had the power).

  2. Tony says:

    “The government of Ehypt will outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood as a legal association”. Sadat and Mubarak done it and could not eliminate the ideology of MB. Colonel, I am curious to know why do you think this time will be different.

  3. turcopolier says:

    you should add Nasser to the list of those who suppressed the MBs political activity for 63 years. Ideas are hard to kill. Men and their acts are easy to kill or stop if you are resolved. it is not a question of their ideology. maybe they will have better luck 60 years from now. pl

  4. Jose says:

    The fall of the MB’s only makes it easier for AQE to appear out of thin air.

  5. turcopolier says:

    they will be suppressed as well. there is nothing inevitable or “written” about the supposed coming victory of political Islamism. pl

  6. Fred says:

    “In a tweet, the group said…”
    I wonder just who all those folks following the MB on twitter might be. They sure aren’t the fellahiin. Perhaps the D.C. crowd could figure out the implication of that fact.

  7. CK says:

    There was an anarchist movie a few years ago that posited the same thing: “Ideas are bulletproof.” Of course, if they weren’t; how would one know? A dead idea, unremembered, gone to the choir eternal — habeas corpus.

  8. Babak Makkinejad says:

    If they had wanted to “blink” then why did they do all of this?
    Why confront the Army and cause all these deaths when they could have “blinked” earlier, wait for the new elections, and participate in them?
    I mean, are Ikhwan stupid or what?
    What gives?

  9. turcopolier says:

    The MB louts in the street and the leaders behind badly misjudged their strength in their enthusiasm for the cause. That is why I say that the supposedly inevitable victory of political Islamism is a joke.
    As for Saddam’s options I was then head of US military intelligence for the ME and had studied his options closely. there were four lane highways from Kuwait to Dhahran and thence to Riyadh. My estimate was and is that six divisions pushed hard forward would have overrun the Ghawar oilfield and the air ans sea ports and then reach Riyadh in two weeks. Saudi Arabia had nothing with which to stop them and the US could not have acted quickly enough to have stopped them. He ordered his forces to stop at the Saudi border for no valid military reason. much as Hitler made mistakes during Barbarossa. That would have been the end of SA. pl

  10. Alba Etie says:

    Col Lang
    One plausible reason for stopping at the Kuwait border was because Saddam thought he might be able to keep Kuwait , without going to Riyadh . Is is true that Kuwait at one time was a province of Iraq ?

  11. turcopolier says:

    He seems to have thought that. It was a very bad miscalculation. the plan as written by the Iraqi general staff would have carried them all the way to Dhahran and Riyadh within a cople of weeks of crossing the Kuwait frontier. This would have profoundly altered the situation and presented us with the necessity of entering through UAE or Red Sea ports. The Saudi decision to let us in the country was a surprise to many including me. Nevertheless, the US had so few forces in SA for several weeks that the Iraqis could have run right over them. We had a battalion of paratroops from the 82nd, one squadron of fighters and only the ammunition and bombs that were flown in with them. this was a “speed bump” on the road to Dhahran. pl

  12. The beaver says:

    It looks like the Pharaoh will be set free today.
    The military may not have the intention to seize power but let’s see if the old guard does not make a comeback with the son of the Pharaoh running for the presidency.

  13. Eakans says:

    As soon as he saw SA being reinforced, he didn’t think that all of what he was promised (presumabely, if he stopped at the border) was a stalling tactic? Guess we will never know now, but surely it wasn’t just a stupid miscalculation; instead it was also likely a resuot of the doubt in his mind that we would betray a “company” man.

  14. turcopolier says:

    He halted his forces at the border, in fact pulled one armored brigade back into Kuwait, before any announcement was made of Saudi willingness to be defended by us and certainly before the arrival of our little deterrence force. The Iraqi army halted on the Saudi border because of a phase line built into their plan, a phase line that had been established in deliberate planning with the agreement of the head of state. there were three more phase lines in the plan. There would have been a temporary halt on each of these. the military could not have advanced beyond any of these without Saddam’s decision. I was the chief military intelligence person on this here in Washington and IMO Saddam could have seized all of the Eastern Province and Riyadh and we would have backed away from a fait accompli. pl

  15. turcopolier says:

    I am told that Amre Mousa is their preferred candidate. Gamal can be a pain. pl

  16. turcopolier says:

    If you think Saddam was a “company man” you really are a simple minded ass. pl

  17. Matthew says:

    “That would have been the end of SA. pl”
    We can dream, can’t we?

  18. The beaver says:

    May be for the short term – to appease everyone around – the 25th January crowd and the anti-Mursi secular demonstrators.
    Mousa is not a young pup ( he had been praising the qualities of Jamal for President back in 2011) and who knows what the tea leaves would tell us 2 yrs down the road.
    The nepotism and corruption machines need to be kept oiled for the”elites”.

  19. turcopolier says:

    This is Egypt we are talking about. what you call “corruption” is a way of life. pl

  20. eakens says:

    My point was that perhaps he felt he was and that was what dictated his actions.

  21. eakens says:

    Thanks. Its nice to get this insight after having read articles about what Glaspie did or did not say to Saddam at the time and what was being inferred.

  22. turcopolier says:

    Saddam never thought anything of the sort. He was very reluctant to accept US intelligence support in the war. He always believed that the Americans were false friends who would abandon Iraq as soon as the Saudis and Kuwaitis stopped fearing an Iranian victory. He was right. The realization on his part that this had occurred after the cease fire was accepted by the Iranians was instrumental in his decision to invade Kuwait. Kuwait had lent Iraq a lot of money during the war for the purpose of keeping the Iraqis in the fight against Iran. When the war ended Kuwait immediately started demanding paymentp. l

  23. turcopolier says:

    glaspie was frightened of Saddam and hid within her talking points from state. these were written by people who did not want to see US intervention in a Kuwait/Iraq War. That would have included just about everyone in the USG at that point. Nothing in her instructions said that she could threaten Saddam. ambassadors don’t make foreign policy. New Subject – Iraq did not solicit US combat intelligence support in the war against Iran. that was offered at the urging of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait who were frightened of Iran. pl

  24. confusedponderer says:

    So the Kuwaitis had the Iraqis do the bleeding and dieing for them – Wiki writes of 150,000–375,000 Iraqi soldiers and militia killed and an economic loss for Iraq of more than $500 billion – and the Kuwaitis had nothing better to do but to demand payback just as if Iraq had done nothing for them but taking a loan?

  25. Hypothetical? If a post-American withdrawal Iraq invaded Kuwait now what would the US do? The Saudis? Iran?

  26. Charles I says:

    Surely Israeli Air power could dial up a Highway of Death II in a real pinch, no?

  27. Charles I says:

    And in my wildest dreams Israeli Air power could/would not be put to this task?

  28. turcopolier says:

    Charles I
    “Surely Israeli Air power could dial up a Highway of Death II in a real pinch, no?” What on earth are you talking about? If you mean could Israel stop a future Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with air power. My answer would be no. The IAF lack the capability for an expeditionary positioning in Kuwait and they would not have the weight over the distance to do the job. An air force is not a flying club. The Israelis both on the ground and in the air have no ability to do anything logistically but operate from their home stations. Air refueling is not really a palliative for that. pl

Comments are closed.