It’s a huge distinction, he didn’t just ‘remove a title’ from himself, he resigned his commission as an officer in the US Army. There was nothing symbolic about it; if he hadn’t resigned his commission he would not have become President. Very bad things happen when the civilian leadership has to answer to the military, or the leadership is in fact the military. Take a look at any of the military dictatorships or juntas in the third world in the last century or so, Japan from the start of the 20th century until its defeat in WW2, the history of Prussia and Germany, etc. etc. Eisenhower was not exactly the same person he was right before he resigned his commission. He was no longer a 5 star general, he was a civilian. He didn’t take office by military coup; he took office by democratic election. The possibility of a military coup occurring in the US is so remotely absurd precisely because the idea of civilian control of the military is so heavily ingrained in our military culture, and that of functioning liberal democracies. When McArthur came to odds with Truman over Korea, there was no question of the outcome when Truman relieved him of command, despite McArthur’s popularity.
Well gosh, I mean aside from the fact that he took power of the Egyptian government by means of a military coup when he was a general in the Egyptian Army, wins an ‘election’ with 97% of the vote and then decides to ‘resign’ from the military so that he’s called “Mr.” vs. “General” there’s no difference at all.:rolleyes:
Again, symbolism. He was the same man. Whether he resigned or not, he remains the same person. Same habits, same way of thinking, same brain. Do you think when someone resigns from the military, there is a magical transformation that happens? And he is at the head of the military. Whether his title is “Mr.” or “General”. What exactly is the difference?
Seriously, you don’t see how this is a symbolic distinction vs. a real one?
There was no election yet. When there is, maybe he will listen to some adviser and make sure he wins with 70% of the vote, not 97%. And why are you putting “resign” in quotes?
Well, you could argue that the whole U.S. Constitution is just “symbolic.” It’s nothing but a piece of paper, really.
The point of the Constitution is how well it is held to be legitimate.
Being a General is a great honor, a huge distinction, and a really pipperoo trip. The uniform, the stars, the salutes, the obedience: it’s a power thing.
For a President to give it up, to stand outside the pomp and ceremony, may be symbolic, but it is also a real sacrifice. Look at how tenaciously Muamar Ghaddafi clung to his military title of “Colonel.” Look at how many other totalitarian leaders – from Napoleon Bonaparte to the clod in North Korea today – love their uniforms.
In the earliest days of the U.S., we tried not even having an army at all. This was too great a symbolic nod toward civilian rule and pacifism, and the Whisky Rebellion forced our hand toward a more oppressive function of the military in government.
But even a symbolic principle can have concrete implications. In the U.S. “civilian control of the military” means that the President can’t start a war on his own: Congress must first give him permission.
(The War Powers Act is an interesting compromise. Presidents tend to hate it, but I think it’s workable.)
sorry but if you are going to join the debate then you need to know at least a little about the subject and know who the MB are and their members and where they give their seminars
I deal in facts and what Elibiary says in both Arabic and English. If you want the truth then you can archive Elibiary English account Tweets on his support for MB, and the avatar alone is used by Morsi supporters, and if you dont know these basic facts then you need to do more homework before commenting.
IF Sisi runs, and we don’t know if he will yet, then he will become civilian. He will no longer be the Musheer (Field Marshal of the Forces).
A new one will be appointed.
Egypt’s President then needs the approval of 2/3rds of Parliament and approval of Defence Council to take the country to war.
Sisi may wait and see who his opponents are before announcing to run because Sisi does not want to become the President. No matter who he went against he will win of that there is no doubt because the love for him is very high. I predict if the right person runs he will stay in Army.
Sabahi is the only one running at present and Sisi will watch closely of the people will accept him or not. Sabahi is a test balloon. Sabahi is about the only one at present the country would possibly vote for.
The West all go on about how Muslims don’t condemn and speak out about the extremists and this post is a perfect example of how when they do and manage to kick out an extremist government supported by the West the Muslim on the thread spends 2 days being hounded for supporting the army that has allowed the Christians who were targeted along with the Muslims by the extremists to sleep a little easier in their beds.
Seems so many people have double standards, an agenda, are ignorant or are just plain hypocrites because you would think they would be DELIGHTED!!! that the Egyptians ousted Morsi and his gang rather than spend post after post arguing about a stupid detail about numbers who voted. No wonder the region distrusts the intentions of the West.
You are right. Any terrorist acts that have occurred or that will occur do not make it a civil war. To have a full scale civil war the Egyptian army and police would have to split into somewhat equally powerful sides and then have an ability to engage in offensive and defensive combat for a sustained period of time. There would be a preponderance of outside meaningful economic and military support only for one side should a military split occur. And that support goes to the secularists for sure.
The Muslim Brotherhood or any fundamentalists can only operate as terrorists to control the secularists according to their ideology, but if they choose terrorism agsinst Egyptians they will be hunted down and jailed or killed.
I do not believe the vast majority of devout practitioners of Islam in Egypt would support the means of terrorist acts and tactics to live under a strict Sharia law that is enforced through the Egyptian government and Constitution.
But are terrorists acts by a very small group of extremists against the government and established military and police and those that support the government - war?
Arguably, depending on the particulars, but that’s not the situation Egypt would likely find itself in. Morsi was democratically elected, remember, and removed in an illegal coup by the military. In this referendum, people who campaigned for “No” were arrested. Obviously, the people opposed to an authoritarian, secular, military government are sufficiently numerous to have won one election, and had to be suppressed in another (even though they mostly just boycotted it).
You could argue that the military being unified (in support of itself) is enough to prevent a civil war, by convincing the opposition that they can’t win a war, but that was already the case before this referendum.
You clearly have very little understanding of military matters if you consider resigning a commission as removing a title from one’s self. Resigning his commission as a general meant he was no longer a member of the army. Commissioned officers are liable to recall to active duty for a number of years after they retire from the service, and officers of general rank are not ordinarily allowed to resign their commission; they are liable to be recalled to active duty at any time after their retirement in the event of national emergency or need.
If you are incapable of seeing the difference between being a general and being a civilian as anything more than symbolism, or civilian control of the military versus military control of the civilian government as only being a symbolic difference as opposed to a real one, I can’t help you.
You really need to ask? It’s no wonder you can’t see anything but symbolic distinctions and removal of titles as opposed to any real, substantive difference. I put “resign” in quotes because he took power through a military coup, resigning as a general after winning a rigged election would be a farce. Probably in vain, but I hope even you can see the difference between that and Eisenhower resigning his commission, winning a free and fair election and becoming president.
In the US, if a general, even a beloved one, resigns or retires that’s pretty much it. He quit his job, and no one follows him around after that. In Egypt I gather, a beloved general is always a general not only to his fellow officers but to the whole country. It’s not really comparable. Egyptian generals can become patriarchs of society, in the US they’re done as soon as they sign the paper.
