One simple rule of revolution is that regimes fall when their security services refuse to fire on protesters, while uprisings often falter when security forces do go ahead and shoot. The situation in Egypt remains fluid, but thus far the Egyptian army has not violently put down the protest movement. Why? The answer is complicated.
Mark Thompson argued at Time's Swampland blog that the exposure of Egyptian military officers to norms of professionalism and civilian control in the United States may have been determinative in the Egyptian army's decision not to crush the anti-Mubarak protests. Thompson's argument draws on several strands of thought on how military-to-military contacts make a difference (.pdf). While it's almost certainly an exaggeration to assert that ties with the U.S. military caused the Egyptian army to observe restraint, it's quite likely that changing norms of military professionalism did play a role in the army's decision. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: Making Libya a U.N. Protectorate Would Be Wise but Impossible
- Next Up in Somalia’s Fragile Transition: Bridge Political Divides
- World Citizen: One Month On, Gauging Saudi Arabia’s New King
- Libya Needs More Than Unity Government to Halt IS Rise
- Diplomatic Fallout: Europe Needs Strategy to Address Libya, Ukraine Crises—Not Panic