Pages

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Open Thread: How Will the Egypt Situation End?



Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 3rd, 2011, 8:40PM
The situation in Egypt continues to rivet news watchers. How might this end? What does this mean for the rest of region, for the concept of Democracy in the Mid-East, for other strongmen holding on to power, for the global economy, the price of Oil, and for stock markets?
Please write what you think is the most likely outcome, and vote for what you think is the highest probability outcome.



How Will the Egypt Situation End?

Posted on 02/04/2011 13 votes 8 comments
 
Given the turmoil in the Middle East, how is this likely to resolve itself? Peaceful transition, civil war, middle east implosion? 

What say ye?


 
Peaceful transition 
Posted by ritholtz on 02/03/2011 08:46 PM Reply
not gonna happen. mubarak a no-go. no problem. egyptian military + cia have plan to assassinate him (imo, of course).  -- morchocolat
Posted by morchocolat on 02/03/2011 09:01 PM
 
Peaceful IS possible.
Posted by Northern CA on 02/03/2011 10:08 PM
Sadly, probably status quo... some sort of bait and switch where Mubarak gets kicked out but replaced with some 'hope and change' military guy... A few months or years and the kettle will explode again.

Of course, if they have grain shortages this year all my bets are off.
Posted by svaha on 02/03/2011 08:47 PM Reply
 Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamists eventually take over Egypt after a short post-Mubarak period during which the Islamists hide their true intentions and dupe westerners, and a minority of  English-speaking liberals with almost no influence in Egypt get disproportionate attention in the western press. (See Iran, 1979.)
Posted by ed on 02/03/2011 09:04 PM Reply
What does "civil war" mean in this context?  I opt for retirement in Saudi Arabia by early next week, preceded by a few days of enhanced street theater (500 official deaths) before the Army takes the reins.  Rafah will be opened and the Zionists will gin up a shit-storm.  Ideally, we'll have a National Intelligence Estimate on continued policy of appeasement of Israel, one that will have teeth.
Posted by PirateLaddie on 02/03/2011 10:21 PM Reply
Hosni will resign in favor of Suleiman, and Suleiman will keep cracking down on protestors for at least a few weeks. 
Posted by serge on 02/03/2011 10:03 PM Reply
The common denominator is the economy which is responsible for varying degrees of "unrest" in many areas.  Over the near term, more "freedom" wont solve that problem and even if moderates take power, just as was the case in 1917 Russia, the extremists will eventually prevail, since none of the problems having to do with increased economic activity will have been solved
Posted by Bill on 02/03/2011 09:40 PM Reply
A smoldering and systematic unwinding of authoritarian governments.  Saudi Arabia will be transformed while Iraq will continue to be a toxic sandbox.  Israel will have it's hands full. 
Posted by Nuggz on 02/03/2011 08:56 PM Reply
Civil War
Posted by ritholtz on 02/03/2011 08:47 PM Reply
Is that your honest opinion or are you trying to stoke the conversation?
Posted by dgreenspan on 02/03/2011 08:58 PM
 
Don't see an answer you like? Suggest one of your own!
 
Photos From the Protests in Egypt

127 photos that are thought provoking, emotional, and very telling of a people wanting change in their government and their country......

White House, Egypt Discuss Plan for Mubarak’s Exit

February 3, 2011


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is discussing with Egyptian officials a proposal for President Hosni Mubarak to resign immediately, turning over power to a transitional government headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman with the support of the Egyptian military, administration officials and Arab diplomats said Thursday.
Even though Mr. Mubarak has balked, so far, at leaving now, officials from both governments are continuing talks about a plan in which Mr. Suleiman, backed by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, chief of the Egyptian armed forces, and Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the defense minister, would immediately begin a process of constitutional reform.
The proposal also calls for the transitional government to invite members from a broad range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, to begin work to open up the country’s electoral system in an effort to bring about free and fair elections in September, the officials said.
Senior administration officials said that the proposal was one of several options under discussion with high-level Egyptian officials around Mr. Mubarak in an effort to persuade the president to step down now.
They cautioned that the outcome depended on several factors, not least Egypt’s own constitutional protocols and the mood of the protesters on the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities.
Some officials said there was not yet any indication that either Mr. Suleiman or the Egyptian military was willing to abandon Mr. Mubarak.
Even as the Obama administration is coalescing around a Mubarak-must-go-now posture in private conversations with Egyptian officials, Mr. Mubarak himself remains determined to stay until the election in September, American and Egyptian officials said. His backers forcibly pushed back on Thursday against what they viewed as American interference in Egypt’s internal affairs.
“What they’re asking cannot be done,” one senior Egyptian official said, citing clauses in the Egyptian Constitution that bar the vice president from assuming power. Under the Constitution, the speaker of Parliament would succeed the president. “That’s my technical answer,” the official added. “My political answer is they should mind their own business.”
Mr. Mubarak’s insistence on staying will again be tested by large street protests on Friday, which the demonstrators are calling his “day of departure,” when they plan to march on the presidential palace. The military’s pledge not to fire on the Egyptian people will be tested as well.
The discussions about finding a way out of the crisis in Cairo take place as new questions are being raised about whether American intelligence agencies, after the collapse of the Tunisian government, adequately warned the White House and top lawmakers about the prospects of an uprising in Egypt.
During a Senate hearing on Thursday, both Democrats and Republicans pressed a senior Central Intelligence Agency official about when the C.I.A. and other agencies notified President Obama of the looming crisis, and whether intelligence officers even monitored social networking sites and Internet forums to gauge popular sentiment in Egypt.
“At some point it had to have been obvious that there was going to be a huge demonstration,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence.
She said that intelligence agencies never sent a notice to her committee about the growing uprising in Egypt, as is customary in the case of significant global events.
Stephanie O’Sullivan, the C.I.A. official, responded that the agency had been tracking instability in Egypt for some time and had concluded that the government in Cairo was in an “untenable” situation. But, Ms. O’Sullivan said, “we didn’t know what the triggering mechanism would be.”
Because of the fervor now unleashed in Egypt, one Obama administration official said, Mr. Mubarak’s close aides expressed concern that they were not convinced that Mr. Mubarak’s resignation would satisfy the protesters.
In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of ABC News, Mr. Mubarak said that he was “fed up” with being president but that he could not step down for fear of sowing chaos in the country.
“The worry on Mubarak’s part is that if he says yes to this, there will be more demands,” said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “And since he’s not dealing with a legal entity, but a mob, how does he know there won’t be more demands tomorrow?”
A number of high-level American officials have reached out to the Egyptians in recent days. While administration officials would not offer details of the alternatives that were being discussed, they made it clear that their preferred outcome would be for Mr. Suleiman to take power as a transitional figure.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. spoke by phone to Mr. Suleiman on Thursday, the White House said in a statement, urging that “credible, inclusive negotiations begin immediately in order for Egypt to transition to a democratic government that addresses the aspirations of the Egyptian people.”
Mr. Biden’s phone call came after a mission by Mr. Obama’s private emissary, Frank G. Wisner, was abruptly ended when Mr. Mubarak, angry at Mr. Obama’s toughly worded speech on Tuesday night, declined to meet with the envoy a second time, officials said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made three calls since the weekend to Egypt’s powerful defense minister, Field Marshal Tantawi, who served on the coalition’s side in the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
Pentagon officials declined on Thursday to describe the specifics of the calls but indicated that Mr. Gates’s messages were focused on more than urging the Egyptian military to exercise restraint.
Officials familiar with the dialogue between the Obama administration and Cairo say that American officials have told their Egyptian counterparts that if they support another strongman to replace Mr. Mubarak — but without a specific plan and timetable for moving toward democratic elections — Congress might react by freezing military aid to Egypt.
On Thursday, the Senate passed a resolution calling on Mr. Mubarak to begin the transfer of power to an “inclusive, interim caretaker government.”
Anthony H. Cordesman, an expert on the Egyptian military at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that a transition government led by Mr. Suleiman and the military, with pledges to move toward democratic elections, was in his mind “the most probable case.” But he said the administration had to proceed with extreme caution.
“Everybody working this issue knows that this is a military extremely sensitive to outside pressure,” Mr. Cordesman said.
Even as the Obama administration has ratcheted up the pressure on Egypt, it has reaffirmed its support for other Arab allies facing popular unrest.
The White House released a statement saying that Mr. Obama called President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen on Wednesday to welcome Mr. Saleh’s recent “reform measures” — the Yemeni president promised not to run again in 2013.
And on Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called King Abdullah II of Jordan to say that the United States looked forward to working with his new cabinet — recently announced — and to underline the importance of the relationship between Jordan and the United States.
Philip J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman, declined to say whether Mrs. Clinton had enlisted King Abdullah in an effort to ease out Mr. Mubarak. But Mr. Crowley praised the king for responding to the unrest in Jordan.
“He’s doing his best to respond to this growing aspiration,” Mr. Crowley said. “And we appreciate the leadership he’s shown.”
Elisabeth Bumiller, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker contributed reporting.


Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Barack Obama on Thursday. The White House is in discussions to find a way out of the crisis in Cairo.

I bet the "Chaos in Cairo" will give this dumb song some life:

Steve Martin - King Tut (Live 1979)

Republicans Say Everything the Dems Pass Is Unconstitutional -- Even Policies They've Championed for Decades

 TEA PARTY AND THE RIGHT




By Joshua Holland, AlterNet



Posted on January 28, 2011, Printed on February 3, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/149705/
That Republicans are relentlessly attacking the constitutionality of what had long been one of their signature ideas for reforming the health-care system -- the individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance or pay a penalty – is a testament to just how far down the rabbit-hole our discourse has gone.
Late last year, when a federal judge ruled against the mandate (two other courts disagreed, and the Supreme Court will end up deciding the question), Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,rejoiced. "Today is a great day for liberty," he said. "Congress must obey the Constitution rather than make it up as we go along.” It was an odd testament to freedom, given that Hatch himself co-sponsored a health-care reform bill built around an individual mandate in the late 1990s.
Journalist Steve Benen noted that while “the record here may be inconvenient for the right ... it's also unambiguous: the mandate Republicans currently hate was their idea.”
It was championed by the Heritage Foundation... Nixon embraced it in the 1970s, and George H.W. Bush kept it going in the 1980s. For years, it was touted by the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Judd Gregg, and many other ... notable GOP officials.
According to NPR, the mandate was the Right's response to progressive proposals to establish a single-payer system. Mark Pauly, the conservative economist widely credited with the idea, explained that "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.'"
That was then, this is now. Since it was a Democratic Congress that enacted the mandate, this conservative idea for creating a business-friendly model of universal health care has become something profoundly un-American, according to many of those very same Republicans who championed it. (Asked about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate it had long promoted, Pauly said, "That's not something that makes me particularly happy.")
And as is generally the case in these heady days of Tea Party conservatism, it's not just that the individual mandate is bad – it's also “un-Constitutional” (just like child labor laws, federal disaster assistance, food safety standards, etc.). As Gary Epps, a legal scholar at the University of Baltimore, put it, "Conservative lawmakers increasingly claim that the 'original intent' of the Constitution's framers and the views of the right wing of the Republican Party are one and the same."
A brief filed in support of Virginia's challenge to the Affordable Care Act by the Landmark Legal Foundation – headed by noted wing-nut radio host Mark Levin, who believes that the Tea Partiers have been "tormented and abused far more than the colonists were by the King of England" – laid out the argument, calling the erstwhile Republican approach to universal health care “evidence of congressional power run amok.”
Congress can tax interstate commerce, it can regulate interstate commerce, it can even prohibit certain types of interstate commerce, but it cannot compel an individual to enter into a legally binding private contract against the individual’s will and interests. There is nothing in the history of this nation, let alone the history of the Constitution ... that endorses such a radical departure from precedent, law, and logic.
Like most of the Right's views of the Constitution – and the Founders' intent – this is entirely wrong; it's historical revisionism driven by ideology.
In 1792, none other than George Washington signed the Uniform Militia Act, a law requiring every white male citizen to purchase a whole basket of items – “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein” – from private companies. Bradley Latino at Seton Hall law school's Health Reform Watch added that “this was no small thing.”
Although anywhere from 40 to 79% of American households owned a firearm of some kind, the Militia Act specifically required a military-grade musket.  That particular kind of gun was useful for traditional, line-up-and-shoot 18th-century warfare, but clumsy and inaccurate compared to the single-barrel shotguns and rifles Americans were using to hunt game. A new musket, alone, could cost anywhere from $250 to $500 in today’s money.  Some congressmen estimated it would cost £20 to completely outfit a man for militia service -- about $2,000 today.
Some on the Right have argued that this history is irrelevant as the law was passed under the auspices of the Constitution's militia clauses, not the Commerce Clause. That's true, but doesn't change the fact that it disproves the claim that Congress has never compelled citizens to purchase goods or services from private firms – that's patently false, regardless of how the measures differed in their details.
And despite the fact that there were a number of legislators serving in that Congress who had signed the Constitution five years earlier, “not one of militia reform’s many opponents thought to argue the mandate was a government taking of property for public use. Nor did anyone argue it to be contrary to States’ rights under the Tenth Amendment.” Those who opposed the bill simply argued that it would put too great a burden on the poor.
Of course, mandating that citizens buy a gun is different than requiring them to purchase health insurance. But as Rick Ungar, an attorney and writer, pointed out, Congress did in fact pass a mandate requiring health insurance...back in 1798.
The Act for Sick and Disabled Seamen created a government-operated hospital system – socialized medicine! – and mandated that all privately employed sailors purchase health insurance in order to sail.
It's not an exact parallel. Nobody was forced to become a merchant seaman. But as Ungar noted, “this is no different than what we are looking at today. Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform law.”
The Act also required sea captains to withhold 1 percent of sailors' earnings to finance the program rather then mandate that they purchase a policy themselves – it was the first payroll tax. But as Ezra Klein noted in the Washington Post, “if conservatives really do prefer a system of payroll taxes that purchase you public insurance to the private system envisioned in the Affordable Care Act, I'm sure there are a lot of liberals who would vote for a bill that repealed the Affordable Care Act and replaced it with Medicare-for-all.”
It's an important point – the liberal approach to universal health care is not only simpler and far more cost-effective, but unlike the Right's individual mandate, it also falls unambiguously within the federal government's enumerated powers.
Health care is also, in the words of the Congressional Research Service, “a unique market” in that one cannot opt out of it even if one wishes to do so. That's because, by law, we don't allow people to simply die in the streets, untreated. The uninsured without the means to pay nonetheless get (very costly) care in emergency rooms, and the rest of us pick up the tab.
And here, again, it's worth noting that “the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.” The bill was signed into law by none other than John Adams, considered to be among the most influential of the “Founding Fathers.” Thomas Jefferson was the president of the Senate at the time, and Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the Constitution, served as Speaker of the House.
As the current legislation stands, even the American Enterprise Institute concedes that “the majority of constitutional experts are betting that the courts will uphold the mandate” – although they're not happy about it. And that's because the other Constitutional arguments against the reforms are just as dubious. Conservatives have come to use the Constitution as a crutch, avoiding debates on the merits of various proposals by asserting, with a broad wave of the hand, that whatever the policy in question may be, it's all illegitimate.
The constitutionality of the health-care mandate will ultimately be decided by an activist majority on the Supreme Court. Nobody can predict how it will rule, but the Constitution gives the Congress power to “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ... and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,” a power the Congressional Research Service characterizes as ”one of the broadest powers in the Constitution,” and one that forms “the basis of government health programs in the Social Security Act, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause as giving the government the authority to regulate not only interstate commercial transactions in a limited sense, but also “those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.” (Our health-care system is the costliest in the world, and eats up about 18 percent of our economic output, so it's hard to see how one can argue that it doesn't have a “substantial relation” to our national economy.)
Then there's the common conservative argument that the Commerce Clause only covers economic activity, but not inactivity – a claim that is also factually incorrect, but was nonetheless accepted by Henry Hudson, the federal judge who ruled against the government in the Virginia suit. But even if it were true, it's hard to see the relevance of the argument given the Constitution's Necessary and Proper clause, which authorizes the government to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”
So, to recap: Congress is expressly authorized to raise taxes and spend public funds to further the “general welfare” of the nation; it can regulate any area that has a “substantial relation” to interstate commerce, and it can pass any law that is “necessary and proper” to further those enumerated powers.
On its face, there's nothing in the Constitution constraining the government from enacting its health-care scheme. But the heart of conservative rhetoric these days is that any legislation passed by Democrats is illegitimate and defies the will of the Founders, as channeled by the mystics who lead the Tea Party movement.
That's apparently the case even when those policies are among those they've championed for years based on their own ideological preferences.