It's a weird phone you have ...

It can receive text messages, but not send them. Had your phone this new fangled technology of sending texts, rather then just receiving them, you would of known upon asking me why this was in fact a "coup."

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT:
a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.

Nixon "resigned." That's not what happened here. If it were a simple resignation then upon Mubarak's departure the second in the line of succession within that government would have assumed control. That didn't happen. Let me explain:

Let's start with this - on Thursday Mubarak again tells Egypt and the world that he is not stepping down, but rather will not seek "reelection" come September 2011, when his current term expires. Friday Morning he announces he's out. Clearly he didn't leave on his own accord. Someone marched down that hallway (heavy emphasis on marched) and informed him he was out. The Egyptian military, via their "Supreme Commander," then dissolved the entire Mubarak government. That commander then announced to Egypt and the world that they (the military) would be issuing details on the transfer to a "more democratic" (his words) government on Saturday. They (the military) then assumed control of all curfews and security, and issued orders that NO government official was allowed to leave the country. They even coordinated with Cairo Airport, providing the list of names and photos so as to enforce this. Now no one is going to tell me that Minister A, B or C still has power if he hasn't the power to get on a plane if he chooses.

So, the military was clearly the impetuous behind Mubarak's 24 hour change of heart. They then retired his government (not just him). Announced they were dictating curfews, minus civilian leadership & under their own authority, and that they would be issuing details on what the new government will look like come Saturday. And just for emphasis on who's in charge - every senior member of government is on defacto house-arrest. And given the military authority is derived from the simple fact that they have all the guns (or most of em'), I think you can add the looming threat of violence as well.

That would be like when Nixon resigned rather then Ford assuming the presidency the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs announced he was suspending the entire Nixon administration, cabinet members and the like, dissolved congress, and would announce details on the new form of government in a week. Wouldn't you of considered that a coup? That's what happened here.

Now, all that being said, I am very relieved that the military asserted itself prior to any widespread outbreaks of violence, and before the Muslim Brotherhood was able to make any grab at power. As I said, the US should ensure the Egyptian military's salaries if necessary.

And here's why I am relieved - Mubarak departed 32 years to the day of when the Shah of Iran "resigned." Khomeini stepped off the plane in Tehran 1 month later. We should heed the historical significance ...

The "Muslim Brotherhood" is the original Islamic fundamentalist group. They were formed in the 1920's. They were banned in Egypt in the 1950's. It was they whom organized and carried out the assassination of Egyptian President (& Mubarak predecessor) Anwar Sadat 32 years ago, for his "betrayal" in making peace with Israel. Hamas commonly refers to itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. Bin Laden was schooled by its members (literally) in his early days of activism. These guys are the ideological grand pubas of all the Islamic-Fascist terror groups that came after them, the region over. Their "ideological and spiritual leader" (that's the guy's title), is on record at an Islamic conferences as late as September 2010 pronouncing the Holocaust as the Jews "righteous punishment." Their charter calls for a "world-wide Caliphate." These are hard core fascists. Fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. Which is why I was shocked when I listened to our NID (National Intelligence Director, who's role post 9/11 is coordinating the various US security agencies) testify before congress this very week and say that the MB was now largely secular, and had forgone violence in most cases. This is an out and out fabrication, and Israel is screaming the opposite. So why would he say it, other then to lay down cover for a future diplomatic engagement with the US? And that's exactly what I think is going on. See, it doesn't matter if they are only 5%, or 10% of the population. So long as they are the only (or best) organized opposition, they have a real chance of resting awawy control of the government in any election (see: Hamas).

So, the question begs - will we see the rise of another Turkey, or another Iran?

I'm less then optimistic. Does anyone remember the recent thread of mine and Titus in which the thesis (one I thought we all agreed upon) was that to be a "practicing" Muslim is to be incompatible with democracy? And we agreed that until such time that Islam-at large (as practiced circa 2011) underwent a Renaissance, it would remain incompatible with democracy, save an external event (i.e. Iraq). Well if that's true, then consider that Egypt is 80 million people strong, the vast majority of which are Muslim, making it the largest Muslim-majority nation in the world. And now, save the military, there is a power vacuum. Or at least power "opportunity." So why, given our agreed upon thesis, would I be anything less then pessimistic about a genuine democracy emerging in Egypt?

And believe me, no one hopes I'm wrong more then me.