Saviors in Uniform?

Posted: February 1st, 2011 by Militant Libertarian

by William N. Grigg

“The army is all good men but the police, every policeman is bad,” explained Egyptian demonstrator Mustafa Abdel Wahab to Time magazine. Mr. Wahab is as tragically mistaken in the first assessment as he is correct in the second.

In Egypt — as is the case nearly everywhere else — the police and army are what Alexander Hamilton called
“correspondent appendages of military establishments.” Not every
individual soldier or policeman is exceptionally depraved, of course.
But the institutional purpose of such establishments is to serve the
depraved interests of those who control the State. This is why, as
Hamilton pointed out, military bodies (which include police agencies)
“have a tendency to destroy … civil and political rights.” Decades of
“emergency” rule in Egypt have destroyed whatever trivial substantive
differences may once have separated the police from the military.

In the
late summer of 1994 I spent a couple of weeks in Cairo covering a
United Nations conference on population control. That event attracted
thousands of people — politicians, delegates, lobbyists, activists, and
journalists — from around the world. In anticipation of media scrutiny
the Mubarak regime made a considerable effort to prettify itself. The
cosmetic changes included issuing brand new white uniforms to the
heavily-armed police officers who were deployed in small groups
everywhere in downtown Cairo.

I
remained in Cairo for a few days after the conference ended. It was my
expectation that the departure of the Important People would bring about
a change in the security situation. In a sense, I was correct: The
white uniforms were put away, and the heavily-armed police who prowled
the streets reverted to their standard military attire. Like other
visitors, I had assumed that the high-profile police presence was the
exception, rather than the rule. We were wrong.

The
ongoing upheaval in Egypt offers a potent illustration of the fact that
government police agencies are instruments of plunder, rather than
protection — and that protection of person and property is best handled
privately.

When
they weren’t beating people in the streets or hauling them off to be
murdered, plainclothes thugs from Egypt’s Central Security Service (or Mukhabarat) brazenly
looted private businesses or provided protection to those who did — deputized criminals referred to by one protester on the scene
as “prisoners who have been released by that bastard Mubarak in return
for their services to beat up civilians.” Egyptians not employed in
the coercive sector responded by creating private anti-looting
patrols.

Private defense: Egyptians link arms to protect property.

Public
loathing of the government’s police force is widespread in Egypt,
which is a healthy development in any society. However, as Mr. Wahab’s
comments illustrate, the growing disrepute of Egypt’s police organs
organs has actually enhanced the stature of the military.

Writes Steve Coll of The New Yorker:
“There have been reports that protesters are relieved to see the Army
in the streets; no doubt, as in many other like countries, the Army has
more credibility than the corrupt and often torture-prone police.”

For
31 years, Hosni Mubarak has been a CIA sock puppet ruling through
decree while maintaining a pretense of “legitimacy.” Mubarak avoided
naming a successor, most likely because Washington didn’t give him
permission to do so. In the terminal crisis of his reign, he has tapped
Omar Suleiman,
the head of the Mukhabarat secret police, to serve as vice president.
Since Suleiman has been running Egypt’s apparatus of imprisonment,
torture, and murder for decades, this appointment wasn’t really a
promotion. And in his current position Suleiman would be in charge, even
if somebody else is cast in the role of figurehead.
Dictator-in-waiting: Suleiman, left, with Israel’s PM Netanyahu.
Ian Black, Middle East editor for the London Guardian,
points out that Suleiman “is the keeper of Egypt’s and the
president’s secrets, a behind-the-scenes operator who has been
intimately involved in the most sensitive issues of national security
and foreign policy for nearly 20 years.”
Not only was he was the dungeon master and chief persecutor of Egypt’s political dissidents, but he also coordinated rendition and torture operations with the CIA. He’s also been a dutiful asset of the Pentagon, according to WikiLeaks.
A Foreign Policy profile of Suleiman published two years ago
points out that Suleiman was a rent boy for both sides during the Cold
War circle-jerk: He attended “the Soviet Union’s Frunze Military
Academy” while Cairo was a Soviet client, and then “received training at
the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School and Center
at Ft. Bragg in the 1980s. As head of the Mukhabarat, Suleiman was”one
of a rare group of Egyptian officials who hold both a military rank …
and a civilian office….” His most important assignment was to monitor
“Egypt’s security apparatus for signs of internal coups.”
Unlike
those who had previously held his position, Suleiman became a public
figure several years ago as Mubarak — who reportedly suffers from
cancer– became enfeebled. He and his handlers spent several years
building internal coalitions and developing diplomatic contacts abroad.
As Cairo-based journalist Issandr Amrani points out, “most Suleiman
supporters recognize that to gain the presidency he would most likely
have to carry out a coup — perhaps a soft, constitutional one — but a
coup nonetheless.”
Thumbs up for tyranny!
Well,
how about a “People Power” coup, orchestrated with the help of the kind
folks in Washington? That appears to be what we’re seeing in Egypt now,
and we could conceivably see something similar here in the United
States before the decade is over.

The convulsion in Cairo brings to mind Brig. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap‘s essay “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,” which was published in the Winter 1992—93 issue of the U.S. Army War College journal Parametersa subject I have discussed before.

Dunlap
used the literary device of a smuggled prison letter composed by
“Prisoner 222305759,” condemned to death for “treason” by the American
military junta of Gen. E.T. Brutus. Following a series of military
disasters overseas and domestic crises at home, Brutus staged a coup in
the name of protecting “public order” from the corruption of the
political class.

In the decades leading up to the putsch, the “Prisoner” recalled, “The one institution of government in which people retained faith was the military.”
Even as the public lamented the corruption and profligacy of Big
Government, they had nothing but bottomless respect for the Regime’s
chief instrument of death and property destruction. The military
retained its prestige in spite of the fact that its structural defects
— made painfully visible by a long, bloody, and futile war in the Gulf
—  left it “unfit to engage an authentic military opponent.”

While
the military was no longer well-suited to fight and win wars, its subtle
integration into every element of domestic life made it perfectly
suited to carry out a coup:

“Eventually,
people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel
patrolling their neighborhood. Now troops are an adjunct to almost all
police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our
burgeoning population of elderly Americans live — [military dictator]
Brutus calls them ‘National Security Zones’ — the military is often the
only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally
positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup.”

During
Egypt’s long “state of emergency,” its army managed to lose two wars
abroad, while fine-tuning its skills as an instrument of domestic
suppression. Granted, it has announced that it will not fire on Egyptian citizens, which is always a welcome development. But why should the Egyptian Army fire on protesters, given that the citizen uprising is helping to entrench military rule, rather than end it?

With
our own economy unraveling and our political class becoming shamelessly
predatory and unbearably impudent, it’s not difficult to imagine
a similar scenario playing out in America, with Tea Party Republicans — for whom the military (which in our system includes our own “torture-prone” police) is sacrosancteagerly welcoming a military coup as “liberation” from Big Government. Perhaps Field Marshal Stanley McChrystal — formerly military proconsul in Afghanistan, most recently seen flogging Soviet-style “national service” in the pages of Newsweek — could be tapped to play the role of America’s Omar Suleiman.

Your donations — which help me keep Pro Libertate on-line — are very appreciated! God bless.

Dum spiro, pugno!

Share

Leave a Reply