Mohamed El Baradei moves to become the face of the opposition, calling for a "mega protest" today. Al Jazeera reports from yesterday indicate his Tahrir speech went "meh," and apart from the fact that protesters, first, want Mubarak gone rather than the revolution represented and that representative possibly co-opted by Mubarak (and the U.S), NYT's Mona El-Naggar (below) looks at ElBaradei other problem (going back to his return to Egypt in Feb. 2010 - blogged here) - his legitimacy as opposition. And why a lot more Egyptians aren't feeling the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency...
... which is precisely his problem: he is former head of the IAEA and his claim to fame isn't domestic but stems from his opposition to the Iraq war on grounds that Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps that's why NYT's Lede spotted this video making the rounds, perhaps in an effort to try to remind people who he is and what he did.

As Egyptians show Americans they are being shot with tear gas canisters "made in the USA", Reiham Salam over at National Review makes an intellectual case for two Americas - the people and its government:
... which is precisely his problem: he is former head of the IAEA and his claim to fame isn't domestic but stems from his opposition to the Iraq war on grounds that Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps that's why NYT's Lede spotted this video making the rounds, perhaps in an effort to try to remind people who he is and what he did.

AliaMalek/Twitpic
As Egyptians show Americans they are being shot with tear gas canisters "made in the USA", Reiham Salam over at National Review makes an intellectual case for two Americas - the people and its government:
... I came across the following observation: @CineversityTV: Egyptian protester says American gov’t gives our dictators tear gas and guns, but American friends gave us proxies #jan25....In the contemporary United States, the entire population does not feel as though the national security apparatus speaks for them. This was always true, of course. But now the dissenting minority can actually exercise “soft power” of its own, through the deployment of philanthropic resources, knowledge capital, etc. Americans aren’t just embedded in diaspora-based “brain circulation” networks. They are embedded in free software “brain circulation” networks, the WikiLeaks movement, social enterprise networks, increasingly cosmopolitan evangelical religious networks, and many other networks that are based on shared affinities, ideologies, etc., and not on shared ethnolinguistic background or nationalist loyalties.Which America? The America that sells the tear gas and turns a blind eye to dictators they need in curbing the Islamists or the America that gave the world facebook and twitter? The truth is one enables the other and vise versa. Anyway, here is Johnathan Wright, former Cairo bureau chief for Reuters, on Mubarak's appointments:
So when idiots on the Internet tell me that America is to blame for Hosni Mubarak, I have to ask, which America and which Americans? The America that Egyptian authorities are blaming for sponsoring and protecting a handful of young Egyptian democracy activists who may well be at the center of the disturbance? U.S. think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute that publish books like Reuel Marc Gerecht’s The Islamic Paradox that make the explicit case that (a) democratization in the Arab Middle East will lead to anti-U.S. and anti-Israel governments and that (b) this is nevertheless a crucial first step to more decent, humane societies in the region that the United States government should support?
Or is the slow-moving machinery of diplomacy, which, to preserve a diplomatic triumph of 1979 and fearing the political and security consequences of rapid change, hasn’t been able to respond as nimbly and quickly as civil society? Indeed, it’s the very fact that government is so slow-moving, consensus-oriented, and resistant to change that I think it is so important that we reduce its carbon footprint, mindshare, and power.
My interpretation of Mubarak's appointments starts from the basis that Mubarak is a stubborn autocrat who cannot give up power willingly. On Friday night, when he dismissed his government, his only concern was to stay in power for another day, another two days, perhaps to the end of the week. He was not thinking about presidential elections in September or the presidential aspirations of his son Gamal, perhaps even of his own 'legacy'. He was thinking that the longer he could cling on, the greater chance he would have of regrouping his forces to fight another day and maybe restoring some credibility. The greatest danger he faced in the last two days was that those around him, especially the army, would tell him he had to go, in order to save the country -- in just the same way that the Tunisian generals and government seem to have told Ben Ali he must leave. His quick fix was to lock Suleiman and Shafik, a former air force commander and Mubarak associate, into the centre of power. They at least have shown their loyalty by accepting the appointments, though one can only guess at the deliberations now underway between the rest of the military leadership. If he survives this week, then he can think again about his long-term plans. Whether this emergency survival plan will work depends, as in Tunisia, on the determination of the people in the street and on the power dynamics within the army command.The Arabist and the Guardian's Ian Black concur. Meanwhile, Israel, going by this Al Jazeera report today wants Mubarak to stay; the Jerusalem's Post editorial however indicates Israel won't mind Suleiman--i.e. another Mubarak--at the helm:
The mass protest on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other Egyptian cities is not an articulate political movement that has clear ideas about what it wants to achieve, other than the ousting of Mubarak. In fact, besides the Muslim Brotherhood or political parties taken over by it, there is not a single significant organized political movement in Egypt that can muster a large enough constituency to present a coherent alternative to the present regime. Progress that would allow the Egyptian people to live a better life, with basic human rights, freedoms and greater economic opportunities, can most likely only be achieved via a transition from Mubarak to someone like Suleiman, who can maintain order while fostering gradual change. It certainly won’t be achieved under yet another radical Islamic regime. An orderly transition would be better not just for Israel, but for the Egyptian people as well.Meanwhile rumors yesterday about the army being ordered to fire on protesters led to some speculation by Scott Lucas over at EA on the trigger happy Ministry of Interior being railed in and explains, to some extent, the deployment of, yet held in-check, military hardware in form of fighter jets over the crowds at Tahrir yesterday:
Two very different rumours that we are watching....1. The Army has been ordered to fire on protesters tonight. 2. Minister of Interior Habib el Adly, as well as key ruling party figure and tycoon Ahmed Ezz, have been arrested. El Adly exited the Ministry of Interior amidst live fire this morning. We're watching the situation carefully, but here is one interpretation. The story about el Adly was broken by the US Government's channel Al Hurra. That is the first occasion during this crisis that Al Hurra has been out front with news, and no other outlet is carrying this. There were stories yesterday of a serious split between the civilian leadership in the Government and the military over whether to use live fire. And today it is notable that some have said el Adly was the Minister preparing the order to shoot. So one interpretation is that someone high up in the US Government, which has been calling on Cairo to avoid violence, or someone in the Egyptian system close to Washington put out the story that el Adly had been detained. The signal would be that the Obama Administration does not want, in any circumstances, the bloodshed of protesters. This is just speculation, of course, but it is as reliable at this point as the "news" which is circulating.












