Egypt & Middle East Post Mubarak.
- Thread starter Ananda
- Start date
Ananda
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
It's to early to say that after Mubarak, Egypt will be a 'democratic' country. Even if more ' democratic' environment occured after Mubarak, we still do not know how's the level of 'openess' will endured.
One thing for sure, Those 'Civilian' politician that used to be on one side toppling Mubarak, now will try to 'stab' each other, when the 'big enemy's already down. The military still many considered a positive force due to their 'practicall' support on the movement. However how much they will allowed Egypt 'new democracy' to take form need to be seen.
Again only a very minority of any revolution on developing countries that can really produced 'a democratic' and 'functional' regime after the fall of a Dictactor.
One thing for sure, Those 'Civilian' politician that used to be on one side toppling Mubarak, now will try to 'stab' each other, when the 'big enemy's already down. The military still many considered a positive force due to their 'practicall' support on the movement. However how much they will allowed Egypt 'new democracy' to take form need to be seen.
Again only a very minority of any revolution on developing countries that can really produced 'a democratic' and 'functional' regime after the fall of a Dictactor.
I get your point about to ensure continued U.S. aid. If Israel do something dumb like strike West Bank or Gaza and cause heavy civilian deaths. The Vice President is an old school soldier back in the 70's so I wouldn't be susprise if the Army go into Sinai and try the Israelis again. Israelis defeated the Egyptian in 67 and 73 revenge is hidden but its still in there. I don't have to tell you how long a revenge in a nation can last remember Serbia that all I have said. Things can change quickly so watch the next 6 months and see what happen.:mad
Egypt's military leaders aren't idiots they are not going to attack a nuclear armed Israel which is backed by the US.
The chances of Egypt deciding to have a go at Israel is practically nil as the military and whoever forms the next government has other pressing matters of national importance to attend to. They have all to lose and nothing to gain from attacking Israel.
There are also other factors to bear in mind:
1. Unlike Syria and the Palestinians who still have land occupied by Israel, Egypt got back the Sinai as a reward for signing the 1979 peace deal.
2. Militarily and economicly Eqypt is in no state to embark on a war with a Israel
3. In the very unlikely event that Eqypt because of unhealed wounds from 1967 and 1973, as you suggested, decided to have a border skirmish with Israel, it would receive no backing from the countries like Saudi, Jordan and the Gulf states as these countries due to historical and ideological factors are much more concerned with what they see as a threat coming from Iran. And of course these countries are also more concerned with regime survival.....
According to news reports based on one estimate of very doubtful credibility, which includes such things as (state-owned) presidential palaces in his personal wealth.
I've seen other estimates that the Mubarak family, including his sons & wife, may have $2 billion or so. May be more, may be less - but the $40-70bn estimates I don't find credible.
I disagree with you about the Saudis if the Israelis hit civilian that will change there attitude. They aready said they dislike the Israeli actions in Gaza attack in 2008. The moderate Arab position is a Palestine nation in West Bank and Gaza everyone know this. This Palestine issue is serious with the Arabs talk to them and you will find out why. They are more concern with Palestine issue since 1948. And militarily the Egyptians are in better shape now then ever before also the Israelis military is better also. They also have western equipment in there hand now its a different military force that gotten better. I wonder how the fight will turn out when you have U.S. weapon vs U.S. weapons. Something to think about !!!!!!! My conclusion is if Israelis do something dumb now no one know what can happen since the old guards in charge of government right now. I'm watch and see what happen and pray that God make peace.
You can disagree with me all you like but facts speak for themselves
. What did the Arabs do in 2006 when Israel when into Lebanon and later into Gaza - abosolutely nothing apart from holding 'emergency' meetings and issuing joint statements [as they usually do]!! The priority for most Arabs states is regime survival and economic prosperity not confronting Israel over the stalled peace talks. Despite all the talk about 'Arab unity', in private many Arab countries were more than happy to see Israel going into Lebonan hoping that Hezbollah would be cut down to size. Similiarly, in private many Arab countries, namely Saudi, would be more than happy to see Israel and the West taking military steps to prevent an Iranian 'bomb'.It is a misconception to assume that the Arabs or anyone for that matter,
will automatically do better on the battefield if they are armed with U.S. weapons, which BTW many already are. Are you suggesting that the end results in 1973 and 1982 would have been differrent if Syria and Egypt were armed with U.S. weapons rather than Soviet ones - would the Israelis have re-capturing the Sinai and the Golan heights on account of U.S. weapons being used by their foes? At the tactical level, Syria and Egypt lost because of a number of reasons - poor initiative by junior officers, the tendency to stay put, and not maneuver when on the defensive, etc.
Soviets tactics has often been blamed but in reality, as Jonathan Pollack suggested in his 'Arabs At War', the Arabs just took good Soviet tactics and made them bad. He also is of the opinion that had the Iraqi army in 1991 been equipped with U.S. or western equipment, the results would have been the same due to poor training, poor tactical proficiency and flawed tactics. In his analysis of Syrian combat performance in Lebonan in 1982, Pollack concludes that apart from the performance of Syrian special forces in delaying the Israeli advance, Syrian performance didn't really show a marked improvement compared to 1973.
Last edited:
I should have mention the training of the Egyptian Army is different from 60's and 70's and the things you mention I already know this in previous thread I stress the importance of training and use of equipment and tactics. We can make another thread about the tactics of Soviet against Western tactics what it all boil down to is the training. I already know what you saying about junior officer and stuff. How can you explain that Hezbollah did good against Israelis it was the training and discipline. The junior officer problem have been addressed in the 90's after U.S. military advise the High Command what needs to be improved along with other things. Hezbollah has been doing some of the most rough training any military can do. The Egyptian Army has been doing some heavy training and it has been working on all this issues from the 70's. I alway stress knowing and training with any equipment no matter it from Russia or U.S. I personal know this anyway. You right about the Arab response that is a fact I can't say anything about that. Remember one thing, things can change daily. Just like when you doing a operation thing going great and all of sudden things change for the worst. You can't predict what going happen? That go for me toYou can disagree with me all you like but facts speak for themselves
It is a misconception to assume that the Arabs or anyone for that matter,
will automatically do better on the battefield if they are armed with U.S. weapons, which BTW many already are. Are you suggesting that the end results in 1973 and 1982 would have been differrent if Syria and Egypt were armed with U.S. weapons rather than Soviet ones - would the Israelis have re-capturing the Sinai and the Golan heights on account of U.S. weapons being used by their foes? At the tactical level, Syria and Egypt lost because of a number of reasons - poor initiative by junior officers, the tendency to stay put, and not maneuver when on the defensive, etc.
Soviets tactics has often been blamed but in reality, as Jonathan Pollack suggested in his 'Arabs At War', the Arabs just took good Soviet tactics and made them bad. He also is of the opinion that had the Iraqi army in 1991 been equipped with U.S. or western equipment, the results would have been the same due to poor training, poor tactical proficiency and flawed tactics. In his analysis of Syrian combat performance in Lebonan in 1982, Pollack concludes that apart from the performance of Syrian special forces in delaying the Israeli advance, Syrian performance didn't really show a marked improvement compared to 1973.
I would certainly hope so! Any army that has not changed it's training methods/syllabus since the 60's and 70's would be in serious trouble if the balloon went up, wouldn't you agree?
I was merely emphasing my opinion that it was superior tactics or tactical proficiency, quality of it's junior officers, etc, on the part of the IDF that enabled it to achieve victory in 67 and 73, because you mentioned giving some thought on whether the outcome would have been different if both sides were equipped with U.S. gear.
In addition to the right training and motivation, Hezbollah made full use of the terrain and had some understanding of how the IDF would operate, having observed them for a long period and having fought them before.
Yeah the King just offer a big economic package to his citizens. He's feeling nervous for sure. It a matter of time for it citizens to go after him if he don't act soon. His plan made be just enough to calm them down.
Last edited:
You're be surprise who become idiots it can happen
What possible reason would Egypt have to attack Israel especially since they got back the Sinai decades ago and they have a pressing need to ensure relations are good with Uncle Sam, to ensure that finnancial aid is not interrupted? The main agenda now is to improve the economy and create a new government. The military has given no indications that they want to stay in power and even if they did, war with Israel is not on top of their agenda.
None of Israel's neighbours, no matter how much sympathy they have with the stateless Palestinians or even Syria which has yet to get back the golan Heights, are itching to have a go at Israel...
That is true. But the main tension in the Middle East is about the Palestine issue. How many wars broke out because of this. Now I said if Israelis hit civilian and alot were killed for whatever reason and the Palestine somehow have another upraising. That when I said this can happen. The only country in the area in my opinion that has a strong military is Egypt right now beside Iran but they have old equipment but they making progress. The Party of God in Lebanon is training hard too. Once this Palestinian issue is resolved that when peace in the Middle East will come. Until then you still have the threat of a war. No matter what you said the main issue is the Palestine issue it been that for years.