Arab people have never ceased to criticize “Arab armies”, with criticism increasing and reaching the extent of attacks every time Israel perpetrates a massacre or imposes a siege on the Palestinians, as well as every time foreign troops play a role in changing Arab regimes through long-range bombing or through invasion and occupation. Thus Arab armies have always remained in the background, their chief role being one of obstruction, until the time came when they leapt to the forefront, either to change regimes and support peoples or to safeguard this or that regimes in facing the people. And in every revolution, wagering on the army becomes inevitable, as it either takes the side of the masses and protects the revolution, joining the revolutionaries, adopting their demands and toppling the ruler, or takes the side of the ruler and makes use of force, violence and killings against the people, or the army becomes divided, part of it adopting the demands of the revolutionaries and supporting them in confronting another part, the leaders and members of which would have chosen to fight for the ruler to maintain him in his position. The Egyptian army provided a civilized example and imposed a state of affairs different from those that afflict the Arab World. In spite of this, the Military Council that runs the country's affairs does find itself exposed to criticism from time to time. It is in the nature of things, as the Council has been assuming a political process during the transitional period after the January 25 Revolution, and it is expected that the measures it takes, the decisions it makes and the legal decrees it issues will be subjected to the same extent of debate, between support and rejection. And every time, critics make sure to indicate their respect for the military institution, praising the army's conduct, the stances it has taken, its safeguarding the revolution, its support of the revolutionaries ever since it was deployed on the streets on January 28, and its understanding of some of the clashes or violations that take place as a natural outcome of the presence of large numbers of army troops and of citizens in the same location. And until power is handed over to a civilian government after the legislative elections scheduled next September, then the election of a President for the country by the end of the year or the beginning of the next, views will differ over the political decisions and measures taken by the Military Council. It is certain that the army will in the next phase play much greater roles than those which it has continued to assume since the revolution of July 1952. Directly intervening in political activity might not be one of these roles, but the army will most certainly, in addition to its natural role of protecting the country and defending its borders, be put charge of protecting the constitution and the goals for which the Revolution arose. So when one army General was speaking on a television show through a telephone call to clarify the clauses of the constitutional proclamation, his words were met with harsh objections. And when he pointed to the fact that there are some who speak of the negative aspects and ignore the positive aspects, mentioned the difficult tasks being assumed by the Military Council in several directions under difficult circumstances, and hinted to the difference between the Egyptian army and the Libyan army, which has been opening fire on the people there, his words were not allowed to simply pass, and were in fact met with strong responses, not just on this particular television show, but also in numerous Egyptian media outlets. Such responses focused on the fact that the absence of a clash between the Egyptian army and the people was not a choice made by one or more people from among its leaders, but rather an issue settled by the fact that the constitution itself states that the armed forces belong to the people. This led that same General himself to return and clarify that he did not mean to compare the Egyptian army to another army, and deny that he might have meant to threaten any party with the use force. Thus the incident passed before it turned into a crisis. Before this, the army had publicly apologized about a clash that had taken place near government headquarters during the night, between a few soldiers and protesting citizens, among whom were later proven to be baltagiya (thugs) driven by the formerly ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) in order to cause discord between the revolutionaries and the army with the aim of spreading chaos in the country to allow major figures of the former regime to evade prosecution or to flee the country. It thus does not seem that there is anyone in the Egyptian army who seeks after power or is maneuvering to seize it. And by the end of the year and the start of the next, Egypt will enter a new era under the democratic rule of a civilian government upheld by the army, while the armies of other Arab countries are “eliminating” what is left of their peoples.
