It's not over yet. Friday's protest should be the last one - unless of course they shut down mosques and churches too.

It's not over yet. Friday's protest should be the last one - unless of course they shut down mosques and churches too.

The elephant in the room in this article is the military -- did we not witness a number of signals that they may well be divided within themselves? That orders to fully crack down and impose order for 8 months may not be fully implemented by the soldiers? At best, this will lead to an internal coup or realization that no other scenario than Obama's "transition" can avoid a period of strife akin to civil war or guerilla war.
Also not mentioned is Obama's apparent willingness to leave realpolitik behind when it comes to playing a role in a historic pro-democracy uprising. I don't doubt that he's been trying to convince Israel that continuing to support Mubarak (or a simlilar replacement from the military) will not provide long term security. Any overt support for Mubarak, or sign of internal meddling, would only help ensure that the inevitable new Egyptian regime starts off with a less than sympathetic position on Israel.
The economic aspects are certainly a concern, but they point to the new reality of the region where such issues will soon overshadow the Palestinian situation. Friedman is right in today's Times to point out to Israel that they are best to quickly settle the Palestinian issue now, before it can come back as a contentious issue with the new govt (and newly empowered population) of Egypt.
Last Friday was the "Day of Rage", this Friday is being planned as the "Day of Farewell", obviously tonight the Egyptian military appears to be ready to go all Tianenmen on the protesters, but if Friday's protests are averted, they will only serve to give birth to a civil war or guerilla war that will oust Mubarak with a lot more disruption to the region than if he just left power on his own.

Your analysis is very much a 'man of the state' take on events and significantly leaves out the main actors in the Egyptian revolutionary movement -- vast numbers of predominantly young and poor, urban, working class Egyptians. They may have more to say here. The Egyptian armed forces may go for a Tiannemen Square type massacre in Cairo, or later some kind of a 21st century replay of a Free Officers Movement, but the armed forces are not a socially monolithic formation. The vast majority of enlisted men come from the same social strata as the anti-Mubarak insurgents in the streets. No army is hermetically sealed from the larger foces at work in the society that spawns it. See, for instance, the role that GI resistance played in sinking the US war effort in Indochina. A more appropriate comparison here might be the evolving collapse of the armed forces of Czarist Russia at the time of the February 1917 revolution. See also Germany in Nov. 1918, and the Spanish Navy at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. There have already been some reports of enlisted men mixing with the rebellious crowds.

The local elite might find it expedient to opt for a democratic management strategy to perputuate the reign of their social class, but the urban poor won't see the mass impoverishment and tremendous social inequalites that helped propel them into revolt disappear if they get a chance to choose a revolving set of technocrats overseeing their continued exploitation and dispossession.

History was supposed to have come to an abrupt and permanent end around 1989 or so. Class struggle was supposed to exist solely as an ideological construct in the foreign policy of the former goverment in Russia and not a phenomenon spontaneously generated by market society, so the re-emergence of the urban poor as a historical actor leaves contemporary political thinkers without functioning tools to grasp the bigger possibilites at work now. Reducing the movement in Egypt to a demand for democratic government is both an easy way out and a desperate effort to disappear the reemerging social question down an Orwellian memory hole.

...what's the basis for ever assuming that any other outcome was ever very likely or possible? It's been clear for some time, and has been pointed out by numerous informed observers, that the military was the key, especially given the lack of a coherent opposition with identified leadership, organization, and platform. It was further pointed out that the fraternization between protesters and troops tended to reinforce not weaken the military's primacy: The protesters virtually invited the military to constitute the state.

The protesters succeeded in gaining a commitment from HM not to run again, under a transition to a free and fair election process. Such a scenario could only have been underwritten by the military. Three steps forward, two steps back. No one was outsmarted: It's just that the Egyptians aren't any better at jumping over their shadows than anyone else. Put differently, why would the writer or anyone else assume that they or anyone else could transfer from dictatorship to full-fledged democracy overnight?

Foreign policy isn't missionary work I suppose.

I hope you are wrong Springborg.

This article is highly problematic on two fronts. First, it offers a monolithic and overly simplistic understanding of the military. I urge all readers of this article to take the time to read an excellent piece by Paul Amar that details the different factions of the military and the internal power struggles that will no doubt play a part in determining the outcome of this phenomenal movement. I provide the link here:
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/516/why-mubarak-is-out

Second, though some might argue that academic work is "objective" and outside of questions of morality and solidarity, I beg to differ. This article came out at the moment when the movement turned dark, when people on the streets in Egypt were being attacked and terrorized by government hired thugs, when their morale may have been temporarily down, and when cracks began to deepen in people's unity. An article such as this may serve to demoralize people. And moreover, this revolution is not being played by a rulebook, according to certain modeling and patterns of history. A new history is being made. Let us remember, that it's not over until it's over. And this is not over by any stretch of the imagination.

The Eurocommie and cheerleader schools of thought are represented by these two posters. But Springborg is a survivor of having taught at Santa Clara U. and has assimilated [and perhaps rejected] superficial socio-political nostrums and pieties in a process of intellectual growth surrounded by the loons of the anarcho-left.

Egypt reminds a historian of the old definition of Prussia "an army with a country attached to it..." or words to that effect. Yes, the Army is not a monolith, but it appears after a few days of shaking and baking, the iron filings are definitely lining up towards Mubarak's praetorian guard keeping control of the country. Springborg is right, but gives the silly tyro Obama too much credit for acting one way and talking another---typical of a sophomoric foreign policy major trying to make up his mind while events are doing that for him.

It appears that Mubarak's somewhat capable son, pushed as successor by his grasping mother, is now out of the running and that Omar Suleiman will succeed Mubarak as president in September. That is not the end of the world, and calling a Cairo urban mob of young idealists and frustrated workers and unemployed the arbiters of democracy is the usual trapdoor the MSM shallow sociologists fall into during occasions like this. Egypt has 90 million people and has an unemployment rate about the same as the US. It's economy has also been growing over the last two decades. Maybe if Obama would stick to his knitting at home and try not to project his idealism elsewhere, the situation will work itself out by itself. That would be better than a Muslim Brotherhood sharia catastrophe that would go back to stoning women and cutting off hands for burglary.

I still cannot fathom how a country receiving as much foreign aid from the US and having a treaty with Israel could possibly have a government that would likely have a strong Islamic bent. The "people" would likely insist on ending the treaty with Israel, and insist on breaking any cooperation with the US. Then the US would be obliged to end the foreign aid, and bad actors in the region like Syria and Iran would attempt to aid and abet Egypt if a government displayed a hardline attitude towards the West. (For financial assistance, the ever industrious Hugo Chavez could be counted on to try and fill the breech.) Sure, maybe a military dictatorship wouldn't be popular, but was there ever really another option?

Western experts on Egyptian internal affairs seem to be materialising by the second. My advice would be to adopt Linda's approach in continuing to observe the workings of this popular uprising and the regime's responses to it. It is not over until its over.

It is also important to note that this popular movement is not purely restricted to the borders of Egypt. Many other states in the region, particularly the impoverished ones, are experiencing the same sort of public discontent. We are a long way from any concrete conclusion or the situation 'returning to normal' as one commentator so distastefully put it.

Game over? I don't think so. Remember, we still give them $1.5 billion a year, mostly for the military guys. We could yank that from them if they step over the line.

I was in the Nile Hilton in 1979 - got kicked out to make room for Pres. Carter's peace entourage. I think the author is overly pessimistic.

It ain't over until its over. The dark days of dictators is running out of gas in the age of the Internet.

I have more faith in Egypt's people - they want FREEDOM. The lid is off Pandora's box.

I have to say that the situation in Egypt is too foggy, many are saying that we (the anti-protesters) should stop doing so because the people don't feel safe or have food to eat as long as we are holding our position in Tahrir square.
There are some remarks to say:
1)the protesters in tahrir are those who understand that freedom is more valuable than food and drink, while the whole majority (the rest of the 80 millions) just want to eat, drink, marry and have sex, and live their lives without any objection on anything.
2)A game is played now so that the anti-protesters after being beaten by police and pro-protesters whom we know are from police and the ruling party, the protesters are being accused that they are ruining their country by only standing peacefully in tahrir square. And sadly the state TV and those of the ruling party succeeded in exporting this vision to the ordinary people and now people are accusing the protesters of being traitors to their country.
there are so many to say, but a last point.
3) If the revolution failed and Mubarak stayed, I assure you that all those in Tahrir square (I mean those with good intentions to change and..), all of those would feel that they are so depressed that they will look for any immigration outside that country, so Egypt will lose those who are really faithful and hardworking for the free countries in the world ( as if this matters to Mubarak).
Feel free to comment or ask about anything.

This article is certainly interesting, but, like so much of the commenting, seems to have no real factual basis. Significantly, no facts and no sources are cited. We all have our opinions based on what we read and some, like the author, even have some background expertise to throw into the mix, but actual facts seem to be in very short supply. These predictions may very well turn out to be correct, but then again....

WikiLeaks confirm that Omar Suleiman was personally implicated in torture. Please read: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2005/08/05CAIRO5924.html\

Very rightly said. I think Egyptians have almost lost the opportunity. Once the momentum of any movement breaks down its very difficult to put things back in motion. The change will never come until and unless Mubarak feels the heat. What the demonstrators doing in Tahrir square is giving Mubarak enough space and time to turn the tables back on the demonstrators. It was a miscalculation that by staying in Tahrir square they would put enough pressure on Mubarak to step down and by bringing Egypt to a stand still. Mubarak has nothing to loose even the complete Egypt comes to a stand still. They have few more days and if they don't start marching towards Presidential Palace to kick Mubarak out, it is almost over for them. The routine in Cairo and rest of Egypt would start coming to "business as usual" if the demonstrators kept on sitting in Tahrir square. People can't keep occupying the square for endless. They will have to return to their normal life once they run out of money and business. If Egyptian people really want to bring in a change they will have to march and kick him out otherwise the complete drama would fizzle out. And time for the Egyptians is running out.
Shams Zaman - Pakistan (smszmn72@yahoo.com)

Unfortunately Shams Zaman's observations here are probably quite accurate. I hope I'm wrong.

Robert,
There is one fundamental issue that should not be overlooked, this demonstration were initiated by face book rallying.
The point is, this generation of <30 years old, all have their basic understanding of the world through www. They understand and look for the freedom and democracy as they see online.
As soon as they go out to the street they are met with all the manifestation of corruption, and oppression. This generation is liberal and they are the best barrier against fundamental Islam.
In genuine democracy, Muslim brotherhood would be 20% at best.
Only democracy can insure the stability of the region. Military crackdown will produce violent Egypt. With millions of youth demonstrating, after military crackdown or oppressive security regime, I can imagine 5-10% would turn to underground work, and violence. In other words, hundreds of thousands of angry Egyptian at the footsteps of Suez Canal, the petroleum pipeline, and at the boarder of Israel.
In short, the best way to ensure stability in the region is to support democracy.

Mr. Springborg,

You were wrong.

Best regards,
People of Egypt

Two comments about some of the blogs and commentary.

1. It is triing, to say the least, to watch so called experts shill for Obama -- the Egptian people took this action and trying to turn this into an Obama versus Bush debate simply demonstrates the parachiol nature of those who can only see geopolitical dynamiics through a narrow peephole called American domestic politics. Bush faced a much more brutal regime in Iraq -- the comparisons are meaningless.

2. That said, I was stunned to see the amounts of money Mubarak allegedly stole from his country. Having lived in Egypt and reported there, I knew he was corrupt, but over the past 15 to 20 years he has apparently been hard at work stealing more than governing -- if the estimates of his wealth are accurate.

3. Leaders who steal so much, so blatantly from their own people deserve what they get -- in this case, I hope, a long and humiliating exile and the insistence by a new government that much of this wealth be returned to the people it belongs to -- the people of Egypt.

Worth recalling, too, that one reason Egyptians put up with Mubarak so long is that he brought some stability after Nasser and Sadat. But they were sick of him 20 years ago. Now comes the next phase -- how to cobble together a government that is not simply a reprise of the previous regime..