The New York Times reports: Brazen attempts by Egypt’s interim military rulers to hold on to power long after elections have elicited a sharp reaction domestically and for the first time have prompted Washington to warn about the potential for new unrest.
After months of mixing gentle pressure with broad support for the ruling military council, the Obama administration has sharpened its tone, senior administration officials say, expressing concern that the failure to move to civilian control could undermine the defining revolt of the Arab Spring.
The shift in tone is part of a difficult balancing act for Washington, which is keen to preserve its ties to the military and its interests in the region, chiefly Egypt’s role in maintaining peace with Israel. But Washington also hopes to win favor with Egypt’s newly empowered political opposition while avoiding the appearance of endorsing the military’s stalled transition to democracy. All things considered, some here have suggested, the change in tone may be intended to placate Egyptian public opinion rather than actually press the military to give up power.
It seems that the Egyptian Military is so entrenched in the everyday life of the economy, that to allow Democracy, they would have to give up all those fingers in every pie that exists as far as the people are concerned. As with any of the Military ruler[s] today, the power is too great to give back to the people. It seems that the only way for that to happen, is for an uprising that ends up in massive bloodshed. The power to do wrong, seems to outweigh the power to do good, especially in high population societies. Always at the barrel of the gun, which is usually provided by the West, in the so called battle for peace.