Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nmaro Makari]

My only real worry is that this benevolent coup could end up in a bit of an Oliver Cromwell situation.

For those who don't know much about Cromwell, the New Model Army and the Engish Civil War, though Cromwell and the NMA originally meant well, religious toleration, rights of man etc, they ended up doing some dickish things, baiscally becoming a dictatorship which was monarchy in all but name, and got replaced by an exiled king in the end.

Though obviously there are marked differences between the scenarios, it demonstrates that this could go one of two general ways.

[Silas Vitalia]

I will likely get flamed for this but I'll go ahead and say one of the main reasons why the Egyptian Military is doing such a relative 'good' job about all of this is because the US has been heavily involved and interlinked with their military for decades.  I'm rusty on specifics but I was under the impression we've done a lot of work with their officer corp and leadership in training, etc.   Our military culture and especially it's role in our democracy, a lot of that 'culture' has been shown to the Egyptian Military. We have a close relationship with their military and not with their government.

[orange]

It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.

I swear I have read something like this in something important.

I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ...

A militia is a body of citizens organized for military service.

While the right to be armed is important, the writers of the US Constitution expressed the need for a well regulated militia or a citizens army as being necessary to the security of a free state.

I will likely get flamed for this but I'll go ahead and say one of the main reasons why the Egyptian Military is doing such a relative 'good' job about all of this is because the US has been heavily involved and interlinked with their military for decades.  I'm rusty on specifics but I was under the impression we've done a lot of work with their officer corp and leadership in training, etc.   Our military culture and especially it's role in our democracy, a lot of that 'culture' has been shown to the Egyptian Military. We have a close relationship with their military and not with their government.

Well, the US sells* the Egyptian (and other states) military equipment and with this equipment comes all kinds of training opportunities.  For example, when Egypt bought Abrams tanks for example, it is likely some cadre of Egyptian armor officers and crews got to visit Fort Knox and learn first how to operate it and then train others how to operate it.  In addition, I suspect more than a few of their senior leaders have had the opportunity to attend US military senior leadership schools (like the National War College).

*I use the term sell loosely here because I suspect the aid we provide comes with some strings attached, like buying American made military equipment vs Russian/Ukrainian equipment.

It is relatively easy to create this relationship between military officers and even enlisted, since they can train together and create those relationships before they are needed.   That option does not really exist for governance, since it is much harder to work out the kinks of the relationship when you can't take a "strategic pause" and discuss what went wrong and what went right.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.

I swear I have read something like this in something important.

I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ...

A militia is a body of citizens organized for military service.

While the right to be armed is important, the writers of the US Constitution expressed the need for a well regulated militia or a citizens army as being necessary to the security of a free state.

A militia isn't the same as an army/military. The thing with the well regulated militia is that even if the writers of the US Constitution thought of it as (also) an internal defense against unjust governance, they did implement it badly, because while there is a right to bear arms, there is no constitutional obligation to train to achieve military discipline.

Thus to form an organized militia, the armed mob would need military training, which could practically only provided by the US military, which isn't a 'citizens military' but an military of professionals. Thus, if the military is working as a tool of oppression, there is little possibility to form an organized militia against the US armed forces and the government.

For compairsion: Look at the percentage of people in the Swiss or e.g. Israel that served in the military and got military training and compare that with the US. I think the 2nd Amendment hat the security against an invasion from the outside in mind, not the idea to give the citizens the ability to forcefully remove a government if it's turning undemocratic.

[orange]

A militia isn't the same as an army/military. The thing with the well regulated militia is that even if the writers of the US Constitution thought of it as (also) an internal defense against unjust governance, they did implement it badly, because while there is a right to bear arms, there is no constitutional obligation to train to achieve military discipline.

I disagree that they implemented it badly.  I think the American Civil War demonstrates the effectiveness of well regulated militias to become armies.  However, throughout the 20th century the US military transitioned away from having to call upon the state militias in order create effective fighting forces.

Thus to form an organized militia, the armed mob would need military training, which could practically only provided by the US military, which isn't a 'citizens military' but an military of professionals. Thus, if the military is working as a tool of oppression, there is little possibility to form an organized militia against the US armed forces and the government.

You are correct in the modern era the core of the US military is entirely a professional military and has been since the draft was ended.  I think the lack of a citizens army creates all kinds of domestic and foreign policy pitfalls, to include a greater willingness of the political elite to utilize a professional military, ie go to war.

For compairsion: Look at the percentage of people in the Swiss or e.g. Israel that served in the military and got military training and compare that with the US. I think the 2nd Amendment hat the security against an invasion from the outside in mind, not the idea to give the citizens the ability to forcefully remove a government if it's turning undemocratic.

I do not disagree that the modern Swiss and Israeli military frameworks are better for maintaining a healthy state.

However, to dismiss the idea that a military whose manpower is derived from the citizens as whole (versus professionals) does not act as a defense against domestic tyranny is to ignore the argument set forth in The Federalist #29.   The modern world makes the argument a little out-dated, but I think it remains fundamentally true - how can a would-be-tyrant impose their will using the militia/citizens army against those very citizens and their families?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

However, to dismiss the idea that a military whose manpower is derived from the citizens as whole (versus professionals) does not act as a defense against domestic tyranny is to ignore the argument set forth in The Federalist #29.   The modern world makes the argument a little out-dated, but I think it remains fundamentally true - how can a would-be-tyrant impose their will using the militia/citizens army against those very citizens and their families?

I don't dismiss the idea, I just think that the constitutional laws in the US are ill suited to secure that there is a militia/citizens army present. Similarly, I lament that Germany just transformed it's armed forces into being run by professionals.

[Nmaro Makari]

"To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff" - George Washington

Not wanting to move too off topic here, I'd like to express my serious and very sincere doubt that "citizen militias" are a viable long term solution to any country's domestic or foreign problems.

After all, look west of Egypt and take a look at how militias are working out for Libya.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The Confoederatio Helvetica exists since 1 August 1291 and is a federal parliamentary republic. They always had a citizens military. Certainly a citizen army doesn't solve all problems of a country, but I doubt that Washington was as experienced in the ways of democracy a the Swiss people.

[Nmaro Makari]

The Confoederatio Helvetica exists since 1 August 1291 and is a federal parliamentary republic. They always had a citizens military. Certainly a citizen army doesn't solve all problems of a country, but I doubt that Washington was as experienced in the ways of democracy a the Swiss people.

Among the problems with venerating the Swiss model, as people often do, one of the most poignant issues is that Switzerland does not bear the deep, deep scars of wars abroad and at home or vicious sectarianism or deep rooted historical societal conflict.

In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.

[Corso.Verne]

Even though I'm fairly liberal as it applies to gun control, the 2nd, and militias in general, I do think compulsory military service out of public education would change America for the better, although it would be impossible to implement now barring some sort of calamity that shifts the unconscious public dialogue, like 9/11 on steroids.

But yeah, I can't help but point and laugh at 2nd amendment fanatics and their contention that the right to bear is their golden ticket for maintaining their freedom and personal liberty. It is the 21st century, the government does not give a fuck about your AR-15 rifle. I don't believe the American armed forces could ever be used as a force of oppression in the way many military and paramilitary forces are, due to those soldiers being American citizens raised to despise such an act, but for precisely the same reason I think the concept of a militia effecting large scale political change hilarious. So they refuse your demands, what is your militia going to do? Start slaughtering American soldiers?

And although I am no expert, almost positive Silas is correct about the Egyptian military. This is exactly the reason why the initial Egyptian revolution did not end up the way Libya, Syria, and Turkey have. The Egyptian army had more at stake with US relations than with the incumbent Egyptian government, and because of this history of relative autonomy, the Egyptian generals are all powerful political figures in their own right. This is not to say that they are bastions of truth and justice, no more than the American military is, but they are perhaps the most progressive fighting force in that region of the world next to perhaps the IDF.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.

Err... the battle at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1385) at which the Swiss fought for their independence from the Holy Roman Empire, the famous swiss mercenaries, which had a monopoly on pike military service until 1490, the Swiss peasant war of 1653,  the Battles of Villmergen 1655 and 1712 and then the Sonderbundskrieg of 1847.

Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war⸮ Right.
And how about the Israeli citizen's army? They never had to bear the scars of war either?

[Saede Riordan]

How is this really that different then the proto-united states tearing up the Articles of Confederation and starting over? Egypt is in for a rocky few years, but I think it would be a mistake to crucify them over this, or write their democracy off as a failure. Au contraire, I think the fact that they're all willing to go back out there, go 'this isn't working for us,' tear everything out and start over, is a really good sign. I think its something we could use more of in the United States.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.

Err... the battle at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1385) at which the Swiss fought for their independence from the Holy Roman Empire, the famous swiss mercenaries, which had a monopoly on pike military service until 1490, the Swiss peasant war of 1653,  the Battles of Villmergen 1655 and 1712 and then the Sonderbundskrieg of 1847.

Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war⸮ Right.
And how about the Israeli citizen's army? They never had to bear the scars of war either?

I take your point about Switzerland but I believe Israel has been described as a military with a country, with more than a little justification. Also I wonder what modern Israeli doctrine is doing to their troop quality? Nothing good I suspect.

[Corso.Verne]

I believe they keep the citizen's army segregated from the career military units, who look down on them in the same way the armed forces tends to look down on reservists in the field. That being said, the overall standard for the IDF is pretty intense, so while their grunts are perhaps less effective than highly trained units, they still hold their own amongst the nations they tend to scrap with.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

I believe they keep the citizen's army segregated from the career military units, who look down on them in the same way the armed forces tends to look down on reservists in the field. That being said, the overall standard for the IDF is pretty intense, so while their grunts are perhaps less effective than highly trained units, they still hold their own amongst the nations they tend to scrap with.

Yes. But when was the last time the IDF fought a national army with any chance of inflicting damage on them? And how much are they being used for controlling civilians or blowing up crowds of folk in the hope of killing the target who is amongst them? I doubt any of this is helping to make good soldiers.