Bharat Rakshak

Wael Ghonim of Google plays an integral part in ElBaradei's bid to seize power

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

As many honest people are still confounded over the true nature of the Egyptian protesters occupying Cairo's Tahrir Square, yet another hero lifted up by the globocrat controlled mainstream media has turned out to be linked, knowingly or unknowingly, to a foreign plot.

Google marketing executive Wael Ghonim had gone missing on January 28, 2011 after taking part in organizing the first of the protests just days earlier. When he was freed two weeks later he was exalted a hero and served as a catalyst both in Egypt and worldwide to try and reinvigorate the faltering protest.

While Wael Ghonim is portrayed as a passionate activist fighting for the Egyptian people, his allegiances are much more specific. Having been living abroad in Dubai, his Facebook page didn't pop-up overnight, it was actually created nearly a year ago in tandem with Mohamed ElBaradei's arrival in Egypt during February 2010. Ghonim also created ElBaradei's official campaign website. Ghonim and ElBaradei then concurrently campaigned for the coming November 2010 Egyptian election and built up an opposition network in support for ElBaradei. This network included the April 6 Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the independent labor unions now making up the bulk of the protests.

After ElBaradei's predictable loss, Ghonim shifted from campaigning to protesting. Contrary to popular belief, the protests weren't spontaneous or even tipped off by high food prices, but rather meticulously planned by Ghonim and the "Revolutionary Youth Movement," with members drawn from the opposition network ElBaradei had been busy building since early 2010. The date January 25, 2011 was specifically picked after the uprising in Tunisia played out.


The Wall Street Journal reported in detail how organizers selected spots where multiple protests would begin, the routes they would travel and where they would ultimately meet. They even walked the routes at different paces to calculate the time it would take to travel them. They hoped that their movement would spur others to join in before they all moved to Cairo's Tahrir Square.

When we consider that the "April 6 Movement" was in Washington in 2008 consorting with the US State Department partnered, corporate funded Movements.org, then moved on to supporting US International Crisis Group's (ICG) Mohamed ElBaradei beginning in February 2010 and finally organizing and participating in the protests starting January 25, 2011, it is fairly suspicious. That a Google marketing executive, returning from Dubai, was involved in identical activities also on behalf of ICG stooge ElBaradei and not being anything more than innocuous is a stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps Wael Ghonim is unaware that Google, the company he works for is a corporate sponsor of Movements.org. Perhaps he doesn't know who ElBaradei really works for and that he consorts with the very men making the US policy he feigns to deplore. Perhaps he is unaware of what designs such men have for his "new" Egypt and has no clue that everyone involved in his protest has been networked, funded, backed, and even directed by foreigners with nothing but exploitation in mind for Egypt's future.

For Mr. Wael Ghonim of Google, he should perhaps fire up his employer's ubiquitous search engine and begin educating himself on who he is consorting with, what their real intentions are, and for whose benefit, before bringing another 30 years of despair and anguish upon "his" people.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/wae ... egral.html

The real challenge the United States will face in the post-Mubarak era is that Egypt has been, and is now still, a praetorian state where the military holds tremendous power. And the United States has an interest in maintaining close ties with that military as well as encouraging political reform. Therein lies the next conundrum. With great apologies to W.B. Yeats: I wonder what new bargain slouches toward Bethlehem, waiting to be born?

Update: Sure enough, we now have reports that Switzerland is freezing Mubarak's assets.

While a breakthrough in relations between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran remains unlikely, the consequences for the United States of such a union would be very damaging. Iran remains focused on expanding its influence in the Persian Gulf and beyond, and connections to the strongest opposition party in the Middle East would be a great leap forward. The longstanding and growing ties between Iran and Hamas, as well as a look back at the relevant history, makes clear that U.S. policymakers should monitor this trend.

Ambar wrote:Having kept a close tab on this thread and reading every post, i still dont have answers for the following :

a) It was a US influenced regime change and the military promptly played bridesmaid in helping US.

If above is the case, then what exactly are the reason for this 'regime change' ? When did HM cross the line that prompts US to pull the plug?

b) To influence Israel to rethink its position and settle the Palestine issue for once and all.

Lets be realistic here.How does US actually ensure religious fanatics wont take over Egypt/Tunisia the way they did in Iran? We can all spin theories about embassy siege being a part of CIA's larger game etc, but there is no denying the animosity of between US-Iran. US support to Iraq during the war. The attack on USMC barracks,Lybian retaliation and finally the Iranian 655 incident. How can MB taking over Egypt help US cause in anyways? And are they really that naive to believe Israel will go back doing what GoI does in the light of Hamas on one end,Hezbollah on another and now MB in Egypt?

c) US did not like the idea of Mubarak's son taking over as the head next year as this would reek of nepotism.

Wouldn't it be simple to send a strong message through Egyptian army to Mubarak that he shouldn't count on their support in such a case?

The only explanation i can think of is what i had mentioned several times before : It is easy to get drawn into complicated spins and forget that it is a low gdp/high inflation/high unemployment/young nation just like Tunisia. People saw a window of opportunity and they maximized it. US had to pay a lipservice to 'democracy' and they did, but i'm sure they supported Mubarak until it became impossible to crush the protests. Then they let him hang dry and backed the next winning horse,El-Bardei / Suleman.

I'm gonna say what i said on the first day of revolt : In a vacuum, it is always the mosque that first fills in. If MB comes to power, then expect Egypt to go Lebanon,Gaza or the Iranian way. And we'll then know how 'NoBaba and Hilarious Clinton' show have made yet another strategic blunder.

Ambar wrote:
Lets be realistic here.How does US actually ensure religious fanatics wont take over Egypt/Tunisia the way they did in Iran?

RajeshA wrote:I think the whole thing was choreographed in Washington. This was a project scripted by White House, some ColorRevolution.org, Social Network Revolution Alliance, Omar Suleyman, El Baradei, Amr Musa (may be), and Egyptian Army. I think even Mubarak was taken into confidence by the Americans.

SwamyG wrote:Singha ji: http://tljind.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/ ... dia-again/ A wordpress blog on blogspot domain getting blocked in India.

Senior U.S. officials say the economic stagnation, youthful populations and simmering political frustration in those kingdoms - echoes of Tunis and Cairo - may provide the spark for widespread political change that could usher out allies in favor of angry, anti-Western opposition movements. How to encourage the election of governments that are responsive to their electorates and to U.S. interests remains a challenge.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, said the administration had reached out by phone to officials across the Arab world in recent days to assure them that the United States intends "to keep its commitments."

"In addition to that message of reassurance, we've also been clear, publicly and privately, that the best antidote to protest is reform that opens up societies," Rhodes said.

But a senior Republican member of Congress who has access to intelligence reports said U.S. spy agencies have seen recent indications that other Middle East leaders were dismayed by the United States' treatment of Mubarak.

"The other countries are mad as hell, and they're mad as hell at us," said the lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter candidly.

Emerging from the secular nationalist movement that produced Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, Mubarak presented five U.S. presidents with a choice: push for greater democracy in a bellwether nation that gave birth to modern political Islam or tolerate repression in order to promote regional stability and support an Arab government willing to offer Israel at least a tepid partnership.

"We do have mending to do with the Saudis and others, who seem to have concluded we threw Mubarak over the side," said Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser for the Middle East under George W. Bush. "It will take a little tending to the relationship with the king and possibly with others."

Abrams, who has been advising the Obama administration on Egypt in recent weeks, said "we come out of this as a country in pretty good shape, with a basis to build a relationship with the new government. "

WASHINGTON — Last Saturday afternoon, President Obama got a jarring update from his national security team: With restive crowds of young Egyptians demanding President Hosni Mubarak’s immediate resignation, Frank G. Wisner, Mr. Obama’s envoy to Cairo, had just told a Munich conference that Mr. Mubarak was indispensable to Egypt’s democratic transition.

Mr. Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Wisner’s key backer, was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time — even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away.

Seething about coverage that made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo, the president “made it clear that this was not the message we should be delivering,” said one official who was present. He told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to take a hard line with his Egyptian counterpart, and he pushed Senator John Kerry to counter the message from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wisner when he appeared on a Sunday talk show the next day.

The trouble in sending a clear message was another example of how divided Mr. Obama’s foreign policy team remains. A president who himself is often torn between idealism and pragmatism was navigating the counsel of a traditional foreign policy establishment led by Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, against that of a next-generation White House staff who worried that the American preoccupation with stability could put a historic president on the wrong side of history.

In interviews, participants described those tensions, as well as offering the first descriptions of Mr. Obama’s two difficult phone calls imploring Mr. Mubarak to take the protesters’ demands seriously. In those conversations, as Mr. Obama pressed Mr. Mubarak without demanding that he resign, the embattled Egyptian leader pushed back hard, arguing that the protests were the work of the Muslim Brotherhood and agents of Iran, a contention the Americans dismissed.

The officials said the hardest of those conversations came on Tuesday, Feb. 1, barely an hour after Mr. Mubarak announced he would not run for president again. In Mr. Obama’s view, Mr. Mubarak still had not gone far enough. Describing the conversation, one senior official quoted Mr. Obama as telling the Egyptian president, “It is time to present to the people of Egypt its next government.” He added, “The future of your country is at stake.”

Mr. Mubarak replied, “Let’s talk in the next three or four days.” He added, “And when we talk, you will find that I was right.” The two men never talked again.

However direct the conversations between the presidents, the public stance taken by the United States fed the perception that there was confusion on the Potomac. Time and again, the administration appeared to tack back and forth, alternately describing Mr. Mubarak as a stalwart ally and then a foe of meaningful political change. Twelve days ago, Mr. Obama was announcing that Mr. Mubarak had to begin the transition “now”; last weekend his chief diplomat was telling reporters that removing Mr. Mubarak too hastily could undermine Egypt’s transition to democracy.

Inside the White House, the same aides who during his campaign pushed Mr. Obama to challenge the assumptions of the foreign policy establishment were now arguing that his failure to side with the protesters could be remembered with bitterness by a rising generation.

Those onetime campaign aides included Denis McDonough, the sharp-tongued deputy national security adviser; Benjamin J. Rhodes, who wrote the president’s seminal address to the Islamic world in Cairo in June 2009; and Samantha Power, the outspoken Pulitzer Prize winner and human rights advocate who was once drummed out of the campaign for describing Mrs. Clinton as a monster.

All agreed that Egypt, facing a historic popular revolt, needed to begin a genuine transition to democracy. The debate was how to deploy American influence on a volatile and fast-changing situation.

Despite the fervor on the streets of Cairo, and Mr. Obama’s occasional tough language, the president always took a pragmatic view of how to use America’s limited influence over change in Egypt. He was not in disagreement with the positions of Mr. Wisner and Mrs. Clinton about how long transition would take. But he apparently feared that saying so openly would reveal that the United States was not in total sync with the protesters, and was indeed putting its strategic interests first. Making that too clear would not only anger the crowds, it could give Mr. Mubarak a reason to cling to power and a pretext to crush the revolution.

It was not only Mr. Wisner’s and Mrs. Clinton’s comments that threw the administration off message. Mr. Biden told an interviewer that he did not believe Mr. Mubarak was a dictator — words he quickly regretted, officials say.

As the administration struggled to craft a message, it was playing to multiple audiences — the crowds in Tahrir Square, neighboring allies who feared the instability would spread, and home audiences on the left and the right.

Mrs. Clinton and some of her State Department subordinates wanted to move cautiously, and reassure allies they were not being abandoned, in part influenced by daily calls from Israel, Saudi Arabia and others who feared an Egypt without Mr. Mubarak would destabilize the entire region. Some were nervous because they perceived that the United States had been a cheerleader for the Tunisia protesters.

In fact, some of the differences in approach stemmed from the institutional biases of the State Department versus those of the White House. The diplomats at the State Department view the Egyptian crisis through the lens of American strategic interests in the region, its threat to the 1979 peace accord between Egypt and Israel, and its effects on the Middle East peace process.

The White House shared those concerns, officials said, but workers in the West Wing also worried that if Mr. Obama did not encourage the young people in the streets with forceful, even inspiring language, he would be accused of abandoning the ideals he expressed in his 2009 speech in Cairo.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton, too, has called for radical change in the Arab world. In January, on a trip to Qatar, she issued a scathing critique of Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” if they did not undertake swift political reforms. She said that stagnant economies and the bulge in the youth population was a recipe for the kind of unrest that later convulsed Tunisia and Egypt. And during a meeting at the White House on Jan. 29, officials said, Mrs. Clinton pushed for the administration to adopt language that would clearly lay the groundwork for Mr. Mubarak’s departure.

But she also expressed concern later that a hasty exit of Mr. Mubarak could complicate Egypt’s transition to democracy given the lack of a political culture there. Added to that, many foreign policy experts still worry that Egyptians are ultimately faced with a choice between the military on one side and the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group, on the other.

For Mr. Obama, the turning point came on Feb. 1, when he watched Mr. Mubarak give a defiant speech on television and then called him to make the point that if the Egyptian leader thought he could avoid reform, he was mistaken. The next morning, he instructed his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, to not to shy away from his demand that day that meaningful reform must begin “now.”

“I want you to be clear that I meant what I said when I said ‘now,’ ” Mr. Obama told his aides, according to a senior administration official. The result was Mr. Gibbs’ line that “now started yesterday,” which appeared to harden the administration’s position even more.

But it also angered the administration’s allies, who made their displeasure clear in a flood of calls. It was in that tense atmosphere that Mrs. Clinton left on Feb. 4 for a security conference in Munich without Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, who was initially supposed to attend, too.

The surprise speaker was Mr. Wisner, who addressed the group by video link just days after returning from Cairo, where he had gone to deliver Mr. Obama’s message in person to Mr. Mubarak.

Mr. Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt, comes from the old school of nurturing American relationships. And he warned the audience in Munich that “you need to get a national consensus around the preconditions of the next step forward,” and that, in the remarks that so angered Mr. Obama, Mr. Mubarak “must stay in office in order to steer those changes through.”

In Munich, Mrs. Clinton and other Western officials put their emphasis on the “orderly” part of an “orderly transition” in Egypt. Mrs. Clinton ticked off the list of hurdles that had to be surmounted: Political parties had to be created, leaders had to emerge from an opposition that had been suppressed for 30 years, the Constitution needed to be amended and voter rolls assembled. That process, she added, “takes time.”

Mrs. Clinton’s message, officials said, was conflated later with Mr. Wisner’s. Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama was angered by Mr. Wisner’s remarks, not by Mrs. Clinton’s. But speaking to reporters on the flight home from Munich, Mrs. Clinton echoed at least part of Mr. Wisner’s argument, warning that Mr. Mubarak’s abrupt resignation could prompt a chain of events, stipulated by the Egyptian Constitution, which would lead to elections in two months — far too short a time.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said, “The secretary sees the need for profound transformation in the Middle East — and sees it as consistent with both our values and long-term interests.” But, he added, “She is also very mindful of the challenges and seeks to ensure it proceeds in a way where people’s aspirations are realized and not thwarted, where lives are valued and not lost.”

Back in Washington, though, Mr. Obama was moving quickly to counteract the comments in Munich.

The White House recruited Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who appeared on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” and declared that Mr. Wisner’s comments “just don’t reflect where the administration has been from day one.”

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Kerry played down the administration’s mixed messages. “A little confusion came out of Munich,” he said. “Apart from that, they calibrated it appropriately, to try to give the process room without making it an American process.

THE SUPERPOWER AS SPECTATOR
Mark Steyn on the World
FRIDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2011
If you missed my TV and radio appearances this week, here's a recap of my thoughts on Egypt:

This is not a happy ending but the beginning of something potentially very dark. The end of the Mubarak regime is the biggest shift in the region in 60 years, since Nasser overthrew King Farouk's dissolute monarchy and diminished London's influence in Cairo. We are witnessing the unraveling of the American Middle East - that's to say, of the regimes supported by Washington in the waning of British and French imperial power after the Second World War. The American Middle East was an unlovely place, and perhaps the most obviously repellent illustration of the limitations of "He may be an SOB but he's our SOB" thinking. It's "our" SOBs who are in trouble: After the fall of Mubarak, what remains to hold up the Hashemites in Amman? Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood is more radical than Egypt's, the regime is less ruthless, King Abdullah's Arabic is worse than his English, and pretty westernized Queen Rania, who seems so cute when CNN interviewers are fawning all over her, is openly despised outside the palace gates.

Iran is nuclearizing, Turkey is Islamizing, Egypt is ...what exactly? Well, we'll find out. But, given that only the army and/or the Muslim Brotherhood are sufficiently organized to govern the nation, the notion that we're witnessing the youthful buds of any meaningful democracy is deluded. So who'll come out on top? The generals or the Brothers? Given that the Brotherhood got played for suckers by the army in the revolution of '52, I doubt they'll be so foolish as to make the same mistake again - and the hopeychangey "democracy movement" provides the most useful cover in generations. Meanwhile, James Clapper, the worthless buffoon who serves as the hyperpower's Director of "Intelligence", goes before Congress to tell the world that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "secular" organization. Americans ought to take to the streets to demand Clapper vacate whatever presidential palace in DC he's holed up in.

Amidst all this flowering of democracy, you'll notice that it's only the pro-American dictatorships on the ropes: In Libya and Syria, Gaddafy and Assad sleep soundly in their beds. On the other hand, if you were either of the two King Abdullahs, in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and you looked at the Obama Administration's very public abandonment of their Cairo strongman, what would you conclude about the value of being an American ally? For the last three weeks, the superpower has sent the consistent message to the world that (as Bernard Lewis feared some years ago) America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.

Sanku wrote:In the final analysis, it does not matter whether Unkil gamed/choreographed the movement in Egypt or not. People's movement have their own way of making themselves felt, I would compare this what the English tried to do with Congress in India.

I do think, it will not be business as usual in Egypt anymore.

WASHINGTON — President Obama heaped praise on the peaceful protesters who deposed Hosni Mubarak on Friday, declaring, “Egypt will never be the same,” even as his national security team acknowledged that the swift uprising would almost certainly upend American strategy in the Middle East.

Crowds in Cairo on Friday erupted in jubilation at the news of President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation. President Obama praised the demonstrators, saying they “bent the arc of history.”
Standing in the foyer of the White House, where just a week before he had started to press Mr. Mubarak for immediate reforms without calling for his resignation, Mr. Obama described the Egyptian uprising as a model of nonviolence and moral force “that bent the arc of history.” While comparing the 18-day protests to Gandhi’s peaceful resistance to British rule, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the student protests that brought down a dictator in Indonesia, he also set out a series of benchmarks that he said he expected the Egyptian military to follow, warning that “nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.”

“That means protecting the rights of Egypt’s citizens, lifting the emergency law, revising the Constitution and other laws to make this change irreversible, and laying out a clear path to elections that are fair and free,” he said. “Above all, this transition must bring all of Egypt’s voices to the table.”

Mr. Obama’s tone was optimistic, and he promised the crowd in Cairo’s Tahrir Square — which was listening to his brief broadcast live via Egyptian state television — continued American support for Egypt. That support, however, is likely to take new forms: Administration officials agreed that the $250 million in economic aid was a pittance compared with the $1.3 billion in annual military aid, and the White House and the State Department were already discussing setting aside new funds to bolster the rise of secular political parties. Under Egypt’s current Constitution, alternatives to Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party are all but banned.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama promised “whatever assistance is necessary” to pursue a “credible transition to a democracy.”

But as he spoke, White House officials were assessing the longer-term impact of street revolutions that have deposed two dictators in less than a month, starting with the ouster of Tunisia’s leader, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Middle East leaders from Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Yemen have moved to pre-empt similar uprisings.

In Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which depended heavily on Mr. Mubarak, officials were blistering in their criticism of Washington, arguing that the United States abandoned a long-time ally without first building in guarantees that Egypt’s revolution could not be hijacked by religious extremists.

In his final press briefing at the White House on Friday, Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, told reporters, “I think it’s important that the next government of Egypt, as we’ve said in here many times, recognize the accords that have been signed with the government of Israel.” But other officials have acknowledged privately that if Egypt turns into a noisy democracy that includes the Muslim Brotherhood, there will undoubtedly be political debate in Egypt about whether the 1979 peace accord with Israel should remain in force.

“We don’t think that there is any real chance the Egyptian military would have any interest in seeing the peace accord walked back,” one of Mr. Obama’s senior aides said this week. “But it’s a warning we must issue.”

The Saudis, like Mr. Mubarak himself, portrayed the uprising as the creation of “foreign powers,” which was widely interpreted as code words for Washington and other Western powers.

“We are astonished however at what we see as interference in the internal affairs of Egypt by some countries,” Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said Thursday, as Mr. Mubarak was still clinging to power. In an unusually direct shot at the White House, he said, “We are shocked to see that there are countries pre-empting even the will of the Egyptian people,” never addressing the fact that the protests in Egypt seemed both widespread and homegrown.

While there are few signs yet of protests gathering steam in Saudi Arabia, the government there has taken steps to raise wages and try to keep the contagion from spreading across its own desert.

Yemen and Syria, according to an analysis circulating in the White House, could be more vulnerable. But even as administration officials worried about how the protests could spread, they seemed to be all but inviting it in Iran.

White House officials were clearly relishing the discomfort the uprising has created for Iran’s leaders.

On Friday, White House officials noted that the Iranians, who initially greeted the protests in Egypt because they were aimed at a secular leader who had helped isolate Tehran, had changed their minds. They were blocking broadcasts by the BBC, and putting some opposition leaders under house arrest.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. all but urged Iranians to go out onto Tehran’s streets, in a repeat of the June 2009 demonstrations: “I say to our Iranian friends, Let your people march. Let your people speak. Release your people from jail. Let them have a voice.”

Just a week ago, trying to coax Mr. Mubarak to transfer his powers or leave office, Mr. Obama called the Egyptian leader a “patriot” who cared deeply about his country. On Friday, after Mr. Mubarak slipped out of Cairo, Mr. Obama mentioned him only once.

Instead, he focused his comments on the young people in the streets, and a military that “would not fire bullets” into the crowds that gathered in Tahrir Square, also known as Liberation Square. He struck a decidedly optimistic tone about Egypt’s future, repeating lines from his own presidential campaign in 2008, saying that Egyptians could now create a government that “represented their hopes and not their fears.”

Even some outsiders who have been critical of the administration’s mixed messages during the Egyptian crisis — from its early declarations to Egypt as “stable” to its wavering on whether reform could happen with Mr. Mubarak still in office — said Mr. Obama struck the right tone on Friday. “He has done better than his government has done,” said Robert Kagan, a conservative scholar and essayist at the Brookings Institution.

But there are widespread concerns in Washington about the weeks ahead, starting with the worry that once Tahrir Square clears, the military might try to recreate a state it would dominate. “It is going to be critical to make sure the military remains true to the transition,” Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said in an interview. “If that is secured quickly, then I believe the process can flow quite smoothly.”

Mr. Kagan said he thought the risks were relatively small.

“Once the military decided they were not going to kill people in the streets, I don’t know what leverage they have. If they tried to re-establish the military dictatorship that Egypt has had for years, it would be pretty difficult.”

shyamd wrote:

The trouble in sending a clear message was another example of how divided Mr. Obama’s foreign policy team remains. A president who himself is often torn between idealism and pragmatism was navigating the counsel of a traditional foreign policy establishment led by Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Biden and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, against that of a next-generation White House staff who worried that the American preoccupation with stability could put a historic president on the wrong side of history.

US seeks India role in Egypt elections
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Feb 14, 2011, 01.50am IST

WASHINGTON: A possible Indian role in any upcoming elections in Egypt given New Delhi's expertise with ballots was the unexpected subject of conversation over the weekend between external affairs minister SM Krishna and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

In a phone call initiated by Krishna, mainly to raise the Tri-Valley students issue, Hillary Clinton first mentioned the Egypt developments, noting that Washington and New Delhi were almost consonant in their approach of wanting a peaceful transition. She then wondered if India could be associated with helping the Egyptian electoral process given its experience and expertise in conducting elections, according to sources.

Krishna told the secretary that India would be ready and willing depending on the approach Egypt and other friendly countries made on this matter over the next few weeks. New Delhi has a long association with Cairo and is generally looked at favorable in Egypt.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... ?prtpage=1

shyamd wrote: Mubarak shut up all the moderate voices and allowed the extremist ones of the MB to exist underground. While Israel wishes Mubarak to stay, they didn't think about the future. Its infact a major strategic failure for the Israeli's. The man who they supported allowed the extremists to continue their activity underground instead of the moderate voices.

shyamd wrote:I think you are right, its hard to predict what's going to happen but we need to take into account history,
As well as current situation.