By Joseph T. Stanik
Best Defense guest correspondent

I read with keen interest Lady Emma Sky's posting "Letter from Cairo: A Stroll through the Ancient City in Search of the New Egypt" (May 31, 2011). I followed her to Cairo by a month and like Lady Emma acquired a priceless history lesson: an account of the 25th of January Revolution from those who lived through it. Furthermore, through conversations with many Cairenes, I gained unique insight into their hopes and worries for the future. My two weeks in Egypt were very illuminating and generated the deepest respect and admiration for a great people who stood up to a corrupt, cruel dictator and ultimately forced him from power.

My first full day in Cairo, an American friend who is a graduate student at American University in Cairo and lives just two blocks from Tahrir Square gave me a thorough tour of the area of the conflict downtown. I observed several notable landmarks including the burned-out headquarters of Mubarak's National Democratic Party, which still bore a undamaged billboard touting the NDP as the best guarantor of the future for Egypt's children; the Sadat Metro Station at Tahrir Square, where protestors removed grates near the entrances and dug foxholes under the sidewalk; and the scorched but functioning interior ministry, where I didn't dare take any photos. My friend described in fascinating detail how the protestors built up their defenses around Tahrir Square. Very early in the rebellion, they realized that they must expand their perimeter or be overwhelmed by the security forces. They gradually worked their way up the streets radiating from the square, extending the area under their control and erecting sturdy barricades with any practical material they could lay their hands on. Several sidewalks are still missing paving stones that were used to construct barricades. A few yards back from the outermost barricade, the protestors built another one, then another, and then another.  The successive barricades enabled them to advance well forward to confront the security forces, Mubarak supporters, or hired thugs, and then make a covered retreat. When the army deployed to stabilize the situation, tanks and armored personal carriers took up positions between layers of the barricade, enforcing the separation between the protestors and their opponents.

Read on

By Emma Sky
Best Defense roving Middle East correspondent

The last time I was in Cairo happened to be on 9/11 when I was on a short visit to assess how to help build up the capacity of Egyptian human rights organizations. Everyone was glued to their TV sets, expressing horror at the fate of the people in the Twin Towers, and yet a sense of glee at the 'come-uppance' of the superpower. No one believed that the attack could have been conducted by Muslims. Conspiracy theories abounded. That evening, I took a felucca down the Nile. I thought things would never be the same. But I had no idea how America would choose to respond. It was all worlds away from my life and my reality. Or so I thought.

And so now, a decade later, I am back in Cairo for a five-day trip to get a sense of the country whose regime has been removed by the people themselves -- rather than through external intervention. "The situation is much better since the revolution," my taxi driver from the airport tells me. "There is more freedom. No police knocking on doors in the night." He, like most people I meet, claims with great pride that he was in Tahrir Square on 25 January.

I soon discover that 'more freedom' has made demonstrations a regular part of life in Cairo. The Friday midday call to prayer summons me to Tahrir Square. Some Egyptians head into the mosque, while others sit outside. Across from the Mogama (the government building), some are already staking out parts of the square to set up stalls and hold their demonstrations. They kneel in unison, praying together. After the prayers are over, more people join the demonstrators. People wave flags, paint hands and faces with the Egyptian colors of red, white, and black, and chat happily. Despite the removal of Mubarak and his cronies, the crowd still chant the slogan so identified with the revolution: "as-shaab yurid isqaat in-izaam" ("the people want the fall of the regime"). Today, there are further demands. People are protesting rumors of an offer of amnesty to Mubarak in return for returning the money he took and an apology to the Egyptian people. People are upset that Suzanne Mubarak has only confessed to having a paltry sum of money -- only $4 million in assets. She is fooling the Egyptian people. She should go to jail. So should Zakaria, Mubarak's chief of staff. There are posters of Mubarak trying to run off with the wealth of the Egyptian people, of his whole Cabinet with vampire teeth in their mouths, and of Zakaria as a tortoise accused of "corruption, blood, and slow governance." Posters call for unity between Muslims and Christians -- all are Egyptians. A bank employee tells me that an agreement between Hamas and Fatah has been reached because Mubarak is gone. He stated that Mubarak was America's poodle, preventing Palestinian unity. The atmosphere in the Square is one of carnival. Different people take turns leading the chants. I watch mesmerized. A man with a beard -- presumably from the Muslim Brotherhood -- leads the crowd in their chants. All join in. Then it is the turn of a young clean-shaven man. I move towards another area. A young woman, wearing a baseball cap with keffiyah round her neck, is standing on a platform singing before a crowd of young women. She shrieks the lyrics, inviting the woman to shout back. "She is no Fairuz," I mutter. And those around me laugh. What she lacks in musical talent, she makes up for in enthusiasm. There is plenty of good humor in Tahrir Square.

Read on

When it comes to Libya, I have been struck by the vehemence of views on both sides of the discussion in Washington. When Americans are so confused, it can't hurt to help someone from the region what they think. So I asked my friend Yasser El-Shimy, a former Egyptian diplomat now teaching in the United States, for his opinion. See if you can guess what he advocates:

By Yasser El-Shimy
Best Defense Maghreb bureau

Despite what American generals and defense officials have been telling us, Libya is not Lebanon (1982), Somalia (1992) or even Iraq (2003). The common concern voiced against U.S. participation in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya is the fear of "mission creep." The concern is legitimate, but it does betray a lack of understanding of the situation in Libya. Unlike previous American military interventions, the local population in this case is quite willing to carry out the hard task of ground confrontations. Washington could help oust one of the most repressive autocratic regimes in the world without sending a single soldier to the battlefield. The Libyan rebels in Benghazi, Tobruk, Misrata and other liberated cities are ready and willing to fight Qaddafi's forces, when they are supplied with weapons that can match Qaddafi's. What is more, given the personality cult that is Qaddafi's regime, if an airstrike could target him (and his inner circle), the regime would collapse before the dust has even settled.

Another common objection raised against intervention is the potential terrorist ties some of the rebels might have. Whilst we have no method of ascertaining every rebel's affiliation at this point, we know that a lingering civil conflict in Libya (certain to happen if Qaddafi clings to power) would create ample ground for radicalization and extremist recruitment. Al Qaeda in Maghreb (AQM) would surely exploit the deep resentment and grievances among the revenge-seeking population. Leading an international mission to save civilian lives, and help moderate figures come to power may well help prevent this scenario from taking place. Under no circumstances, however, should U.S. or international troops have a mission on the ground, as this may turn Libyan society on itself, and may become a quagmire akin to Afghanistan's.

The world needs to understand what is at stake in Libya. First, although hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians have perished at the hands of Qaddafi's brigades and mercenaries so far, these numbers would pale in comparison with the expected massacres, should Qaddafi be allowed to prevail. The Tripoli-trenched dictator would exact ruthless retribution against Eastern Libyans for what he views as their treason. Qaddafi has already promised to "cleanse Libya house by house." If the world decided to stand by while the unfair fight rages on now, they must be prepared to witness acts amounting to genocide on the sidelines later. An intervention then would be far more costly than it would be now, and unlikely to succeed.

Read on

Libya is looking really interesting. As a friend of mine once observed, how good an officer can Colonel Qaddafi really be if he hasn't received a promotion in 30 years?

I also wonder how this is going to play out in Iraq, given its place between the Shiite and Sunni worlds.

Andrew Sullivan, bouncing back smartly from his time on the injured reserve list, summarizes the American role in the Middle East social upheaval: "We finally figured out how to help democracy in the Arab world: get out of the way and nudge quietly from a distance."

Meanwhile, my CNAS colleague Andrew X-man is vacationing in Cairo, this year's Davos. Here are two of his reports.

Speaking of CNAS, here is an optimistic piece by my two bosses about the state of the war in Afghanistan. I feel out of touch with that war, but I hope they are right.

I know, we've heard and seen lots of bellyaching about President Obama being caught in the middle on Egypt. But in retrospect, what's not to like? President Obama supported the democratic movement but not so fast that he looked eager to throw overboard a longtime autocratic pal. And it all went down fairly nonviolently, so far. Aside from Frank Wisner going off the reservation in Munich and giving Mubarak a bit wet kiss, pretty well done. This is good change, brought about -- so far -- in a good way.  

If I were an al Qaeda bigwig, events in Egypt would worry me -- in two weeks, those crowds have brought more change to the Arab world than AQ ever did. And so I would say this is a quiet net plus for the United States. 

Meanwhile, a reader asks: For the last 30 years, Egyptian officers have studied at U.S. Army institutions. So, he asks, are they different from the "change resistant" Mubarak/Sadat generation, and if so, how? 

Nor did I know that Egypt has a draft. Shanker and Schmitt, the euphonious security duo at the New York Times, noted the other day that, "General Enan commands a conscription army -- drawn by law from all sectors of Egyptian society and therefore tightly knitted with the populace. Every adult male is required to serve."

The well-read Ike Skelton, who recently retired as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, dropped by CNAS earlier this week for a chicken salad and a talk about what was on his mind. During his 34 years in Congress, the Trumanesque Democrat paid a lot of attention to professional military education, so I was struck by his criticism -- unsolicited -- of the armed services' senior colleges. 

"I have a concern that the war colleges need to sharpen their pencils in education, as opposed to training," he said. He especially worries, he added, about whether the military's strategic thinkers were being detected, groomed, and protected. "My question to the commandants of the war colleges is this: How many students that you are graduating this year could sit down and have a serious discussion with George C. Marshall? The last time I asked that question, the answer was 'three or four.' The challenge is recognizing who they are." He also said he thought the war colleges should be more rigorous, "just as difficult as any law school in the nation." Anyone who lately has dropped by the golf course at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, knows that that would raise the bar considerably.

Some of his other thoughts:

--"You may see a real donnybrook" in the Congress over the defense budget, especially, he said, especially as the inclinations of the House and Senate seem to be diverging.

--The fallout from Egypt?: "The big winner in all this is going to be Iran." (I didn't get a chance to ask him to say more about that prediction.)

--He is deeply concerned by a lack of understanding between the military and American society. "Those who protect us are psychologically divorced from those who are being protected."

Here's are some recommendations by an Egyptian friend of mine who writes a good blog, Underreported, about the media and the Middle East. You might want to bookmark that.

By Yasser El-Shimy
Best Defense Cairo bureau chief

The Obama administration has consistently chosen to overlook all the signs pointing to imminent instability in Egypt. The mountain of grievances and exasperation Egyptians have was overlooked in favor of the more illusory notion of stability. When a popular revolution finally started to sweep Egypt, the White House wasted a lot of time stressing Mr. Mubarak's "stability" and "friendliness." This ambivalent attitude enraged many Egyptians who viewed the United States as the guarantor of their tormentor's survival. Photos of American-made tear-gas canisters and rubber bullets used heavily against peaceful protesters were all over social networks. Secretary Clinton's statements on Sunday calling for an "orderly transition" were a step in the right direction, but were alas drowned in the midst of all previous unhelpful comments.

To be sure, it is not all grief for America in Egypt. The protesters are overwhelmingly secular and demand a civilian, secular, and democratic state. There is no genuine threat of an Islamist takeover. Egyptians also seek better living conditions, a functioning economy, employment and political representation. These aspirations do not betray any proclivity to delve into costly foreign wars or hand the country over to bearded politicians. This would seem to be the fulfillment of America's democratization agenda for the Arab Middle East. This strategic reconfiguration could usher in an era of democratic stability, peace and weakened fundamentalism.

Here are five steps Washington should take to expedite the Mubarak regime's inevitable demise, and allow a transitional government to lead Cairo into democratic elections:

Read on