Egypt Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie arrest ordered

[Coyotl]

Source: BBC online

Egypt's state prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant for the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Badie, and at least nine other senior figures.

Mr Badie is accused of inciting the violence in Cairo on Monday in which more than 50 people were killed.

Many Brotherhood members are already in detention and warrants are said to have been been issued for hundreds more.

Meanwhile, a foreign ministry spokesman has said ousted President Mohammed Morsi is being held in a "safe place".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23256937

---

... and at least nine other senior figures. ....

[Scootaloo]

1. Why can't I shake the feeling....

That when elections are held, Hosni Mubarak will sweep back into office with 97% of the vote?

[Coyotl]

2. Who knows, but it certainly won't happen.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Funny. CBS News last night called that shooting "a massacre."

Seems like it was the Army not only inciting, but actually perpetrating the violence. Can Sissi arrest himself?

[Lenomsky]

4. The shit is about to hit ...

[happyslug]

5. I expect a long slow fight, tensions will slowly build.

The Egyptian Army is NOT known for Bottom up tactics, i.e. Mission Tactics.


Mission tactics has been the preferred tactics since the mid 1800s, is basically that the purpose of Officers is to direct what the Army does, but the actual battle is fought by squad by squad as part of an integrated team. The General Staff prepare the plan, makes sure the troops have supplies, make sure the troops have an idea what is the objective, but what squad or tank takes what hill is up to the Squad or Tank as long as they can see it as part of the overall objective.

The above is very simplified, but roughly what most Effective Armies do. The problem is the Egyptian Army is not noted for such actions. This is typical of Countries with mass armies that also do NOT trust their own people. Such countries do NOT want enlistees to make to many decisions, left alone their may decide to overthrow the leadership. Thus such countries prefer a more rigid command structure.

A good example of this was the Iranian-Iraqi War, While technically both countries were being embargoed, the embargo was enforced with vigor against Iran, but ignored when it came to Iraq under Saddam. As the war progressed the reports show the Iraqi Army better equipped, better supplied but being held in check and in fact in retreat against the better lead Iranian army. The US had to go out of its way to buy Soviet Equipment for Iraq so Iraq had tank and air superiority, and still the Iraqis came close to losing the war. The difference had to do with what both countries viewed their Citizens. Iraq distrusted the Shiites (with good reasons, they still preferred to be ruled by Iran then the Sunnis of Iraq), the kurds (remember this is BEFORE desert storm, so the Iraqi Kurds were not only Saddam's enemy but a US enemy) and even some of the Sunnis not tied in with his tribe and family. Thus Saddam insisted on a very top down command structure that hurt performance, while Iran was much more willing to give Company Grade Officers and NCOs the ability to decide combat decision on their own. The up to date equipment (and it is believed Foreign Fighter-Bombers pilots) barely permitted Iraq to hold its own against the better lead, but with more and more of its equipment captured and repaid Iraqi tanks for the T-54 is the easiest tank to repair, parts could be made in Iran. The pre-war Iranian Tank, the British Chieften, while better armored was rarely used do to a shortage of spare parts.

The more I read about the Iran-Iraqi war, the more I am impressed at what the Iranians did given the restrictions they had to operate under. Since that time they had repaired they relations with Russia and re-equiped themselves with Russian Equipment but apparently also retain the leadership methods they used in the Iran-Iraq war.

The problem with Egypt is the Egyptian Army is more like the Iraqi Army then the Iranian Army and for the same reason, the people of Egypt do NOT support the Generals that ruled Egypt over the last 50 years. Egypt is NOT a tribal country like Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan, it is to dependent on the Nile to be Tribal in the same sense that term is used in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan. While the Aswan Dam ended the annual flooding of the Nile, how those floods were handled was the basis of Egyptian Society from the First Egyptian Pharaoh dynasty to this day. Under the Pharaohs, the Priests of Egypt would predict when the Flood would begin, when it would recede (they did this based on have something similar to today's calendar) AND THEN DIVIDE UP THE LAND TO THE PEASANTS BASED ON SURVEYS THEY HAD DONE SINCE THE FIRST DYNASTY. The Land had no fences or other markers that could survive the flood (remember the Flood also dropped off a lot of soil on the land thus no permanent markers in areas that were subject to the flood, which was also the best land for farming). This was the basis of the power of the Ancient Priest of Egypt, not the worship of the Gods, but the division of the land.

The ancient Egyptian Priesthood survived well into Roman Times and became part of the Roman Ruling Establishment. Under the early Empire, the Priests retain their control over who farmed what land. Records are unclear for it was the only Provence of the Empire a Roman Senator could NOT go to without getting Imperial permission first (Egypt and what is now Tunisia were the grain basket of Rome, a revolt in Egypt would lead to food riots in Rome and NO Emperor was going to risk that, thus the ban on Senators in Egypt). On the other hand, Constantine did receive Christian Bishops from Egypt in the Nicaea Council and the few reports of Pagans in Egypt are Pagan Greek philosophers in Alexandria NOT Ancient Egyptian priests. It is if clear the Christians had taken over the function of dividing the land after each flood well before the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (c450) but it appears to be unknown when and how. It appears to be almost a village by village conversion with some of the Christian Villages retaining ancient pagan village activities, first as Christian village activities and today as Islamic Village Activities).

Now, the Christians retain this function till the Crusades, thus as late as the Crusades Egypt was majority Christian. The Mumaluks wanted religious uniformity and slowly took over the social functions of the Christian Priests to gave them to Islamic Imans. This included dividing up the land after each flood. Each peasants saw that the Imans, when there was a possibility of a dispute, decide for the family that had embraced Islam, thus also embraced Islam (this is probably how the Christians had done the same to the Ancient Pagan Priests From the time of Edict of Milan in 312 AD and till the final ban on Paganism by Justinian around 530 AD).

Now, you also must understand Sunni religious dogma as to Religion and the State. Unlike the Shiite and Catholic Religions, Sunni Religious Doctrine states that if you are in a Sunni State, it is up to the leader of that state to pick and remove the Islamic Religious leaders AND that the real head of Islam in that Country is the Ruler of the Country. i.e. Religion and The State are one and the same. Thus, In Egypt, all of the top religious Moslem leaders are hand picked by the leaders of Egypt (and Morsi never had a chance to name one, so they are all Mubarak's appointees). Now you can have independent religious organizations in Islam, thus the Moslem Brotherhood but the Moslem Brotherhood has always been a little bit on the illegal side in Egypt. I do not mean the Moslem Brotherhood was criminal, but that since it refused to accept the State as the natural leader of Islamic Egypt it was violating the rule that all Moslens must follow they leaders, and in the case of Egypt the Government of Nasser, then Sadat then Mubarak and today the leaders of the Coup (Since the Moslem Brotherhood was founded under the King of Egypt and the de facto rule by Britain, we can add those two to the long list of people it has been criminal for the Moslem Brotherhood NOT to follow).


Now, Aswan Dam ended the Flooding and the need to redraw farm land each year. Thus that power is not longer with the Religious leaders of Egypt. It has been transferred to the Engineers who control the flow out of the Aswan dam. I mention the above for it shows HOW Rural Egypt has been organized for the last 6000 years. You can NOT change 6000 years of practice by 50 years of NOT needing to divide up the land after the flood thus it still has effect. In many ways when the AL-Nour Party decided to back the Coup that was more important then the Army Backing the Coup. Al-Nour, in many ways represents the traditional top down Government-Religious nature of Egypt that included the tradition of dividing up land after the flood AND the traditional view of having to followers the Leaders of Egypt.

I mention the above, for I do NOT expect to see a massive revolt, I expect to see a slow raise in protests (as under the Shah when he was over thrown, such protests extended into the US for 4-5 years BEFORE he was over thrown) and the Military being asked to suppress those protests, and being unable to do so do to the enlistees following orders that they HAVE to to followed for an officer is near by, but do nothing more then is required to avoid punishment themselves (For example, when the one tank unit was sent into Cairo during the Arab Spring, it just sat there and left the protesters get on the tank and wave they signs and flags, or if you remember the Tanks in Tiananmen Square where the one protester stopped the tanks by standing in their way, and the Tank crew did not want to run him over).

Side note: In the Case of Tiananmen Square, Chinese Army Units are organized regionally under commanders tied in with certain Communist Party leaders. The Tanks the protester stopped belonged to the "Good Army" whose leaders did NOT want to suppress the students, a but a few days later another unit from another Chinese Army, the "Bad Army" did the suppression. In some ways, the Egyptian Army may have the same problem, certain units more trust worthy then others. I have NOT heard of any reports good or bad, but I suspect they are units the Coup leaders do not trust and will keep out of Cairo, they do NOT want a repeat of the attempted Coup against Gorbachev, where Yeltsin rushed to the Russian "White House" (Where the Russian Duma sat) and refused to submit to the Coup, and the next thing you know a Company of Tanks deserts the Army, surround the Russian White House in support of Yeltsin. That is the last thing the Coup leader want, for that defection was the first sign the Coup had failed.

Thus I expect a slow series of push and jabs as the Moslem Brotherhood tries to determine how much support they do have AND how much support the Coup within the Army. The level of support will determine how much force can the Army actually apply. If there are to many un-trusted units, then the Moslem Brotherhood may get back in power soon, but the units are few, then it will take more time.

You will be surprised when un-Trusted units have shown up in situations like this one. During the General Strike of 1877, Pittsburgh was in full scale revolt against the Pennsylvania Railroad. The State of Pennsylvania sent in the Pennsylvania National Guard. The Pennsylvania National Guard in 1877 consisted of three brigades, Technically each had a Number but mostly referred to by where each Headquarters was, the Philadelphia, the Harrisburg and Pittsburgh Brigades. Along the Allegheny River the troops formed into a line to push the Strikers away from the Rail-yards. During that push the Philadelphia Brigade opened fire on the Strikers. This caused three things, one the Strikers back off a little, many strikers went to gun stores to get guns (and it is reported the gun store owners just gave them out after hearing of the shooting) and the Pittsburgh Brigade came close to also opening fire, but on the Philadelphia Brigade. Literally the Commander of the Pittsburgh Brigade told the Philadelphia Brigade commander to stop firing for he was barely able to prevent his men from opening fire. This is NOT mentioned in the Official reports for what happened afterward was worse, but to avoid the possibility that the Pittsburgh Brigade would open fire on the other brigades, they were sent home with their guns for the other units had not way to secure them.

Howard Zinn on the General Strike, and the many reports of Militia refusing to open fire on the Strikers:
http://libcom.org/history/articles/us-rail-strikes-1877

http://books.google.com/books?id=ByYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=1877+General+Strike+reports&source=bl&ots=HFbygHf9X7&sig=K3p3IoNvTh4D3ePdHaMb6AT9u2Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aBPeUeO2DNa04AP094C4DA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=1877%20General%20Strike%20reports&f=false