White House quietly prepares for a post-Mubarak era in Egypt

[IDemo]

Source: Los Angeles Times

The White House stance has been even-handed as officials have suggested President Hosni Mubarak might stay in power if freedoms, competitive elections are allowed. But an insider says the U.S. is not ready to keep Mubarak in power at all costs.

By Peter Nicholas Washington Bureau
January 30, 2011, 12:56 p.m.

A tight-lipped White House is taking an even-handed approach to the crisis in Egypt, suggesting that President Mubarak might be able to hold onto power if he allows competitive elections and restores individual freedoms. But inside the Obama administration, there are signs that officials are preparing for a post-Mubarak era after three decades.

One former senior administration advisor said he had spoken to his old colleagues inside the Obama administration in recent days about the unrest in Egypt. As early as last Wednesday, the Obama administration recognized that they would not be able to prop up the Mubarak regime and keep it in power at all costs, the former official said.

"They don't want to push Mubarak over the cliff, but they understand that the Mubarak era is over and that the only way Mubarak could be saved now is by a ruthless suppression of the population, which would probably set the stage for a much more radical revolution down the road.''


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-white-house-egypt-20110131,0,6627312.story

[dipsydoodle]

1. suggesting that President Mubarak might be able to hold onto power

demonsrates a complete inability to understand the aspirations of the Egyptian poplulation.

I wouldn't have expected otherwise from the US Administration and I suspect that neither would the Egyptians.

[tabatha]

2. Did you read past the first sentence?

"the Obama administration recognized that they would not be able to prop up the Mubarak regime and keep it in power at all cost"


"They don't want to push Mubarak over the cliff, but they understand that the Mubarak era is over and that the only way Mubarak could be saved now is by a ruthless suppression of the population, which would probably set the stage for a much more radical revolution down the road.''

[dipsydoodle]

5. Yes

but that didn't change what followed.

Its got sfa to do with the US even if at low cost let alone any cost. Its solely up to the Egyptian population.

They do keep note of these WH ramblings over there - easy to see that on their twitter links.

Doubtless the WH will continue to bury itself.

[grahamhgreen]

9. +1

[PoliticAverse]

3. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-John Kennedy

[tabatha]

4. That is exactly what was stated

but in different words....


"They don't want to push Mubarak over the cliff, but they understand that the Mubarak era is over and that the only way Mubarak could be saved now is by a ruthless suppression of the population, which would probably set the stage for a much more radical revolution down the road.''

[emulatorloo]

6. And they don't have any interesting in saving Mubarek

which is how some people seem to be reading the except, Even though the article does not say that at all.

I appreciate you posting the article.

[AndyTiedye]

7. Pushing Mubarak Off a Cliff is the Prerogative of the Egyptian People

[no_hypocrisy]

8. I don't see how the WH can.

It seems to me that since post-WWII, the WH only feels "comfortable" when it can control the government of another country. I mean control either by military or by money.

This situation is like Iran-Redux because there's a real chance that the new regime will be independent and not looking for a "partnership" with the U.S.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Says who?

ONE FORMER SENIOR ADMINISTRATION ADVISOR, Peter Nicholas and the rubes who rec'd this POS.