Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Was the army's ouster of Egypt's president a military takeover (coup)?

I watch news from all over US, BBC, RT, China today, etc .... There is little said about Egypt in the US news. Most of the countries say that a coup occurred. The US Secretary of State says no coup occurred However, Gehad El Haddad, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman asked, "Does Secretary Kerry accept Defense Secretary Hagel to step in and remove Obama if large protests take place in America? Will the U.S. army freeze the constitution and dismantle congress and senate? Can they appoint a president that they solely choose?”

Sounds like a coup to me .... The US lack of diplomatic relations has made it necessary for US citizen and embassies to be on alert and avoid certain parts of the world. Should we continue to have career politicians be in charge of the diplomatic efforts .... has not worked well since John Foster Dulles.

  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: I am not sure. Because what Mr. Haddad used was not quite the analogy. So, let us put what I think I understand what happened in Egypt.
    President Obama is elected. He proceeds to take action by executive order that supersedes the constitution and using his supporters in congress to pass his new agenda. He appoints new judicial authorities to support his change of government . The people elected him to make the government work better, not to change it into a new one. There are huge riots in the streets of Washington demanding that he return to the US Constitution as written. The Army Generals who have taken an oath to obey all lawful orders of the President have determined that the president's disregard of the Constitution and using his political supporters to usurp the Federal Government decide that by the Constitution, he is not giving lawful orders and with the support of the majority of the people remove him from office. Would it be a coup or a removal from office of an usurper of the US Constitution?
    Boy, that is a tough one.....
  • Aug 4 2013: Its very much a coup, that happens to have popular support (at least from the secular and non-muslim parts of the population, which is a little under half I think), and that removed a regime which while elected democratically, was not behaving like it (limiting rights to minority groups, adjusting the constitution consolidate their power, slowly but surly strengthening the executive arm while undermining the judiciary...).

    While it technically falls under the definition of a coup, its a very odd one. The military is trying to re-install a democratic regime, has a lot of popular support, and doesn't seem interested in running the country in the slightest.
    A coup is in of itself not a negative thing. Its a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used for both good and ill.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: I'll get back to you in year. If the military is running Egypt then I will answer in the positive. If a non-military appointed, freely-elected leadership is in place, my answer will be "NO". As for career politicians acting as diplomats I say BAD IDEA!! Politicians are at their best when pushing their agendas through the legislative proprocess. When they come down off The Hill they best serve America by glad-handing constituents, kissing babies, and leaving diplomacy to those who know how to thrive on Protocol, Geritol, and Alcohol (Adlai Stevenson).
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2013: Yes

    As you know O needs to keep giving money to his agenda acolytes.