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
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- In South Sudan, U.N. Peacekeepers’ Biggest Challenge: Staying Neutral
- Diplomatic Fallout: Bold or Not, Next U.N. Secretary-General Faces World of Pain
- Strategic Horizons: Understanding the Enemy: Inside the Mind of the Islamic State
- The Realist Prism: Even After Midterms, Obama Faces Hard Choices on Energy, Climate
- Diplomatic Fallout: U.N.’s Syria Cease-Fire Plan a Risky Gamble, but Worth It