You misinterpret what I say, and your words prove my point:
"There have been mass protests a few other times in Egypt in the past few years when the military did not take over; some of those actually went the other way: they were protests that happened while the military was in charge that got them to cede some power."
I said:
"the military gets to decide what happens next."
In 2008 in Thailand, the military refused to act. This is also a decision: one not to intervene. As you say, there were other times when the Egyptian military did not intervene. The Thai military has also ceded some power at various points in recent history. The point (and the rule I state) is that they get to decide whether or not to participate as a political actor, and that mass protests are a useful indicator.
I distinguish Egyptian and Thai politics on the one hand, where the military arrogates to itself the right to intervene in politics, and on the other various societies where civilian control over the military is clear. This is what I mean by "the military gets to decide what happens next". If it was heretofore unclear that the Egyptian military claimed this right--and I will admit that to many people this was quite evident--they removed all doubt after their intervention.
I object, btw, to your claim of my being dishonest. You're welcome to take your comments elsewhere if you think so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-11 05:27 am (UTC)"There have been mass protests a few other times in Egypt in the past few years when the military did not take over; some of those actually went the other way: they were protests that happened while the military was in charge that got them to cede some power."
I said:
"the military gets to decide what happens next."
In 2008 in Thailand, the military refused to act. This is also a decision: one not to intervene. As you say, there were other times when the Egyptian military did not intervene. The Thai military has also ceded some power at various points in recent history. The point (and the rule I state) is that they get to decide whether or not to participate as a political actor, and that mass protests are a useful indicator.
I distinguish Egyptian and Thai politics on the one hand, where the military arrogates to itself the right to intervene in politics, and on the other various societies where civilian control over the military is clear. This is what I mean by "the military gets to decide what happens next". If it was heretofore unclear that the Egyptian military claimed this right--and I will admit that to many people this was quite evident--they removed all doubt after their intervention.
I object, btw, to your claim of my being dishonest. You're welcome to take your comments elsewhere if you think so.