Cairo is "near anarchy" according to the Washington Post. Security forces are fading into the background, at least for now.
...Protesters appeared to have free rein as they swarmed a city devoid of police and littered with the burned-out hulks of armored personnel carriers.
There were no immediate reports of fresh violence Saturday, but at midday the army issued a statement asserting that anyone gathered in Cairo's main squares would be treated as a criminal.
The Egyptian capital descended into near-anarchy Friday night, as the government sent riot police, and then the army, to quell protests by tens of thousands of demonstrators. By the end of the day-long battle, the protesters were still standing and the police were nowhere to be seen.
Since they deployed, Egyptian soldiers have remained steadfastly neutral and protesters have been imploring the troops to join their cause. ...WaPo
...Protesters commandeered a flatbed army truck. One protester was driving the truck around the square while a dozen others on the back were chanting for President Mubarak to leave office. Nearby, soldiers relaxed around their tanks and armored vehicles and chatted with protestors. There were no policemen in sight.In another sign that the army — in which every man has to serve — was showing sympathy for the demonstrations, in a different central Cairo square on Saturday a soldier in camouflage addressed a crowd through a bullhorn declaring that the army would stand with the people.
“I don’t care what happens,” the soldier said. “You are the ones who are going to make the change.” The crowd responded, “The army and the people will purify the country.” ...NYT
Mubarak stands firm. He refuses to step down. He will reset his cabinet but there's really no telling whether the replacements will be better or worse than the originals. He pleads the plea of the weak, unprincipled leader (we have 'em, too): "national security."
He clung instead to the formula that has sustained him again and again since he inherited power in 1981, after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. The time-tested Mubarak approach has been to shift blame, usually to Egypt's shell of a government, while portraying his heavy-handed regime as a bulwark against chaos.
But after a day that saw Egypt's riot police overwhelmed, forcing Mubarak to turn to the armed forces to try to reimpose order, it was not at all clear that the former air force officer could withstand a challenge from unprecedented crowds who have demanded above all else that he step down.
Until now, Egypt's middle and upper classes have largely agreed with Mubarak "that the alternative to the regime was something much more dangerous,'' said Khaled Fahmy, chair of the history department at the American University in Cairo.
"But now there's a huge generation, or maybe two generations, brought up under Mubarak for whom the language of security has not delivered," Fahmy said. ...WaPo
The US (talk about weakness and pleas of "national security"!) usually piddles around trying to make up its mind whether to support freedom (scary) or government suppression (safer, more familiar). The Obama administration looks as though it's trying to have its cake and eat it.
By nightfall, it seemed clear that only two events could end their revolution: a massive use of force by the Army or Mr. Mubarak's yielding of power.
The United States should be using all of its influence - including the more than $1 billion in aid it supplies annually to the Egyptian military - to ensure the latter outcome. Yet, as so often has happened during the Arab uprising of the past several weeks, the Obama administration on Friday appeared to be behind events. It called for an end to the violence against demonstrators and for a lifting of the regime's shutdown of the Internet and other communications. Encouragingly, the White House press secretary said that the administration "will review our assistance posture based on events that take place in the coming days." ...WaPo
Well, almost.
But U.S. statements assumed that the 30-year-long rule of the 82-year-old Mr. Mubarak would continue. After speaking to Mr. Mubarak, President Obama said Friday night that he would continue to work with the Egyptian president; he did not mention elections. Instead, in an apparent attempt to straddle the two sides, the administration suggested that the solution to the crisis would come through "engagement" between the regime and the protesters. ...WaPo
Joe Biden added to the confusion and dismay.
To question, as Mr. Biden did, whether the protesters' demands are "legitimate" is particularly obtuse. ...WaPo
The Washington Post's editors are right.
In fact, the leaders of the uprising, including former U.N. nuclear official Mohamed ElBaradei, have set forward a moderate and democratic platform. They seek the lifting of a hated emergency law that outlaws even peaceful political assembly; the right to freely organize political parties; and changes to the constitution to allow free democratic elections. Their platform could transform Egypt, and the Middle East, for the better. But the precondition for change is Mr. Mubarak's departure from office.
Rather than calling on an intransigent ruler to implement "reforms," the administration should be attempting to prepare for the peaceful implementation of the opposition platform. It should be reaching out to Mr. ElBaradei - who Friday night was reported to be under house arrest - and other mainstream opposition leaders. And it should be telling the Egyptian army, with no qualification, that the violent suppression of the uprising will rupture its relationship with the United States. ...WaPo
