During the 18 days of the Egyptian Revolution all eyes were on the Egyptian army. Everyone seemed to understand that the final outcome of this uprising depended on how the army responded. Less than one week into the uprising there was a global sigh of relief when the army issued a statement that it would not "resort to use of force against our great people," and being "aware of the legitimacy of your demands" were "keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirm that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody."
It is curious that with the departure of Hosni Mubarak we are in such a hurry to forget the role that the Egyptian army played, or did not play, in the uprising. Instead the pundits are trying to determine who should get the credit for the results. This response misses the mark.
As the uprisings spread across the Middle East it may be a good idea to contemplate why the ability of a people to change their government should depend on the whims of a standing army. One could say that Hosni Mubarak was driven out of power because the army decided it was time for him to go. We can only imagine what the result would have been if they had been ordered to suppress the demonstrations. What if they had done their job and had protected the government of the nation?
Democracies in many other countries demonstrate that governments can be changed without getting permission from the army. It is ludicrous that the peaceful transfer of power should come at the cost of maintaining a standing army. It is also ludicrous that the peace we enjoy in Western democracies should also come at the same cost. Standing armies cost money -- money that can best be used to educate and house our people. I can only imagine what the impact would be on the cost of fuel if the fuel used to keep the military mobile was made available to the open market?
Sadly, we are not at the place yet where we can get rid of standing armies. But that is the direction in which we should go. Peace at the point of a gun, even if that gun is not pointed in my direction, is not really peace.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
1 comment:
Thanks for sharing this article Darius. Your comment is pretty pertinent and must be considered. It takes me both in the past and the future. The future, first, because by 2025 the Air Force may not exist by then, according to plans. What is the fate of the Military in general? Also, it takes me to the past, for it reminds me of a study conducted by 15 of the most brilliant scientists of the 1960. Their task was to determine the conditions of existence of the nation were we to enter an era of Peace.
Much was said and prescribed. Since then very much has been implemented. Is it a coincidence that we are observing this tidal wave of protests in the Middle East?
Post a Comment