 Good afternoon and welcome to this public session of the CSS Williamsburg Forum. We'll be talking about Egypt this afternoon, and in particular, we are talking about the military in Egypt and the role of the military in a democratic Egypt. For those of you who are not familiar with the role of the military in Egypt, the military took power in 1952, ended the monarchy in the name of purging the system of corruption, and then ruled Egypt until Hassan Mubarak stepped down in February 2011. The military did not officially rule Egypt. Generally, the military led from behind the scenes. There were generals in suits who were the president of Egypt. Gamal Abdel Nasser was a colonel. Anwar Sadat was Abdel Nasser's vice president. Hassan Mubarak was Anwar Sadat's vice president. And Egypt had a history of essentially military rulers from the time of the revolution in 1952 until the time of the revolution in 2011. One of the most contentious issues in the future of Egypt has been what is the role of the military in this new environment. The military had been sacrosanct because the military had established the system and the military had been walled off from the system. And now one of the things that Egyptians talk about actively is should the military be subject to civilian rule, should the military by virtue of its national character be above politics. And those are some of the issues we're going to discuss with our distinguished panelists. I'm delighted to introduce, and the last time I introduced General Anthony Zinni, he told me it sounded like a eulogy. So let me make it shorter and more pointed. General Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general, a distinguished 35-year history serving the United States, was I think the sort of archetypal commander of CENTCOM. And I got something from the guys in the Special Operations Command, which had a title on it, You Can't Surge Trust. And as I have gone through the Middle East for the last 25 years, one of the things I hear over and over is the admiration and trust that General Zinni's former colleagues have for him. So he is here today to talk about his view of Egypt and more broadly of the militaries in Middle Eastern countries, which he knows as well as anybody. It's less of a eulogy, right? Yes, it's less of a eulogy. Good, excellent. Although I'm getting closer to the eulogy. To your right and my left is Dr. Ahmed Derag. He's a member of the Freedom and Justice Party Executive Board and Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party Foreign Relations Committee. He was previously Secretary General of the Freedom and Justice Party Chapter in Giza. He also served as the Secretary General of the Constituent Assembly that wrote Egypt's post-revolutionary constitution. He was Vice Chairman of the Cairo University Professors Association from 1999 to 2007 and received his doctorate in soil mechanics and foundations. From Purdue University, a master's degree in soil mechanics and foundations from Cairo University and a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Cairo University. He's a professor in Cairo University College of Engineering and a partner in an engineering consulting firm from 1987 to 1988. He was a senior engineer for Urban Associates in Orlando, Florida. Can I stop you for a second? I'd like to add one more point here. Okay. Sometimes I would disagree with him, but he's my friend, so I like him. He likes me, but sometimes I disagree about many things. Hopefully, today, we'll not disagree. Okay. You just heard from General Samach, the former Army General and Intelligence Officer. He's Chairman of the Gomhariya Center for Political and Security Studies and a member of the Egyptian Council on Foreign Affairs. He joined the Egyptian military in 1965, the same year that General Zinni joined the U.S. military and participated in 1967 and 1973 wars against Israel. He served in Egypt's embassies in the United Kingdom, as Minister Plenipotentiary in North Korea as political counselor. All the interesting parts of that tour I'm sure we'll get afterward. Since retiring, he's been working as a security expert, giving advice and participating in discussions with local and international media organizations. Mansoor Hassan, former Chairman of the Advisory Council for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which was the interim military leadership in Egypt after the Revolution, had nominated General Saif Ali Azal as its vice presidential running mate. So we have many, many years of experience, terrific judgment. What I thought we would do is we would start off with all the participants talking for about three minutes, just to try to open it up. I will moderate a discussion for some time. You all got a pad of paper as you walked in. If you have questions, if you would write the questions on the pad of paper, they'll be collected, they'll take them up, and I will try to group them to help facilitate an open discussion. So, General Zinni, you spent more than three decades thinking about militaries and civilian governments in the Middle East. You look at Egypt now. How should we see Egypt now? Well, let me talk from the military perspective. Because I think it's very important to understand what the U.S. military, Egyptian military relationship has been. I think everybody here knows that from the 1979 peace agreement, several things happen, the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. One was the demilitarization of the Sinai, and the agreement there would be a multinational force, and the United States commits a reinforced battalion to that. It's been there ever since the agreement. At that time, what I think most people don't realize is the Egyptian military made a commitment to move from their Soviet roots training, equipping to a U.S. model. That was a big decision, because it's a major way of transferring in concepts and doctrine and equipment. And that commitment was very strong, and it was very difficult to implement. In the course of time, of course, with the U.S. assistance, the military has come a long way, has really adjusted to a Western, particularly U.S. style of operations and equipment. Oftentimes, people look in some of our political leaders about the support we give and the amount we give and wonder why we give it and think it's still a relic of the agreement between Israel and Egypt. And they don't realize what benefits we get in our relationship with the Egyptian military that are not tied to that. When, right the year after the 1979 agreement, President Carter created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force in Tampa, Florida, out of the old readiness command. It was to become, three years later, the U.S. Central Command, a unified command. President Reagan made it a unified command and upped it. Carter did that because he feared the Soviet influence or even possible Soviet direct invasion into the Gulf region and into the Middle East. And he created and obviously articulated the Carter Doctrine that we would not accept that and we would be prepared to react in some way. And that RDJDF and CENTCOM was designated to be the insurers that that wouldn't happen. And we had several missions. One was obvious to ensure the free flow of energy resources from that region, but also to ensure access to the region and freedom of navigation. If anyone looks at the map of the world, you'll see and understands the major trade routes from the Strait of Malacca to the Strait of Hormuz to the Bobbleman Deb at the base of the Red Sea up through the Suez Canal. That is a critical lifeline for trade, not just energy and oil and natural gas, but obviously a trade route that is critical to the world's economy. And Carter and subsequent presidents wanted to protect that. And also the mission of CENTCOM was to help try to ensure stability. Now, with that came the relationship military to military and the security assistance programs we ran. It was a major security assistance program we've had with the Egyptian military. What have we gotten from that? The Egyptians sent a division to the First Gulf War to be by our side when Saddam invaded Kuwait. They sent a brigade to be by our side in Somalia. And obviously the interoperability, the training together, based on the same doctrine, that made it much easier to operate with them. And from a CENTCOM or Central Command point of view, that was a major commitment and a major ally to participate in that. With the creation of CENTCOM and the RDJTF, it was an understanding that we could not get access to that region if we didn't carry with the major military force without Egypt. It was considered, as the term I heard when I arrived at CENTCOM, the keystone. Without the access through the Suez Canal, the overflight rights, basing rights in Cairo West and elsewhere, we could not flow forces to meet an emergency in there to reinforce our forces. That has always been forthcoming from Egypt. We've always had a quick response on the need to get our planes and some of the bases, particularly Cairo West, priority in the Suez Canal. In addition to that, like most areas of the world, training space is very difficult to come by. And we ran it in the time when we were concerned about major thrusts into the Middle East or Hegemons in the Middle East that might cause problems. We were concerned about a place to train that had the contiguous air, land and sea space that we can operate at a scale that we needed to practice. The Egyptians provided that. And the largest military exercise in the world, Bright Star, was conducted every other year. And actually it was to the advantage of our European forces, European command, because they were able to participate and of course they didn't have that kind of maneuver space and that kind of agreement to provide that kind of training environment anywhere in Europe. I'm going to end this up because I think that people think that the $1.3 billion is some sort of gift that just arrives. First of all, much of that is done in kind with U.S. equipment, U.S. training, officers and NCOs that come to U.S. schools. I just lectured at Maxwell Air Force Base at our Air Command and Staff College and Egyptian officers in there as they are in every one of our military schools. That involvement, that close cooperation, that close relationship has been critical to us since 1979 in accomplishing our military missions and the relationship officer to officer has also been very close. I watched as the events took place, you know, obviously in 2011, I watched very carefully on the reaction of the Egyptian military and of course I would say compare what happened there to what happened in Libya and what happens now in Syria with their military. I think they remained very restrained. I think they were interested in making sure that everything turned out in a way that was in the best interest of the people and resolved itself in a way and it's still resolving itself that makes Egypt come back to be a prosperous country, one with the kind of democracy that we appreciate and as John said, the military is figuring out its role now and I would not want to break that tie at this critical moment between the US and the Egyptian military. It's been very strong. We've been on battle fields together. They've given us everything we needed to respond to critical situations and been by our side when that happened and I think it's important to get through this and work with them to find out what that right level is involving an emerging Egyptian political system in society. Thank you. Thank you, John. I feel kind of protected sitting here in between two veteran generals and gives you a feeling of security that sometimes we lack. When you talk about the military in Egypt, you talk about a very deeply rooted and very well respected establishment in Egypt. The Egyptian military has traditionally been probably the most sustainably respected establishment in the country. As General Zayn indicated after 1952 the military has been in control of running the country which many believe that led to a lot of the problems that we are going through right now. Nevertheless, this did not really deeply affect the status of the military for the Egyptian people and the role of the military after the 2011 revolution was very much appreciated by the people. There was a feeling that the military protected the revolution established a smooth transition between the era of the ex-president to the new era. There is a little problem that the military stayed in power a little bit longer than they should have been after the revolution which led to few mistakes or some mistakes basically because the military are not very well trained and well geared to getting too much involved into the political life of a country like Egypt particularly after the revolution. As a matter of fact and this is not just my view, this is the view of most of the top military people in Egypt that this hurt the image of the military in Egypt so it was a deep desire that the military really get out of this political dilemma back to the role that the military should really have been doing and this is happening right now. As a matter of fact I believe, most Egyptians believe that this is happening at a higher pace than what you would see in other countries that passed through similar conditions. We've been very thoroughly trying to study experiences of other countries that were subjected to long term military control and everybody agreed that there should be a transitional period from the military era to the totally civilian era of at least not less than 10 years, if not even more. I believe this is happening at a higher pace. The first step was established after the Constitutional Decree issued by President Morsi in August of 2012 that established the right positioning for the military and that was supplemented by what we provided in the new Egyptian constitution and I'll definitely address this later in the discussion. I believe that we are going through a very good transition in this respect and there are very few points that we love with time that will lead to a very good status of the army as it should be really. Thank you. We are talking about an army for the largest Arab country in the region maybe the most respected army with a lot of experience, five wars of course nobody wants war but that's the reality that the Egyptian army is the only army in the Arab world, Middle East plus Israel of course and in Africa as well the only army went through five wars five wars was a lot of wars you get experience out of that the reason I'm bringing this point that the Egyptian army has a lot of experience which is not available to many other armed forces not only in the Arab area or in Middle East I went through this I went through two wars as you know we transferred the lessons and the experience to the existing officers because all of us are out of the service now but what I want to say that it is the most respected army in the area the role of Egyptian army is not only locally actually it's locally, regionally and internationally up till now locally because they have to defend the country and domestically and we've seen what they did in the 25th of January and on the 28th of January when they went down to the streets and I'm going to talk about that now and regionally as well they're still playing a good role when it's needed the United Nations is really giving tasks every now and then to the Egyptian army right now we do have peacekeeping forces in Darfur in Sudan with the blue berries as well as we do have the army because I'm out now they do have a hospital military hospital in Beirut Lebanon up till now helping the Lebanese for the medical services sometimes you know the clashes and all these things and issues going there so sometimes they have lack of medical services that's why the military Egyptian army went there and they have their own officers doctors and other stuff helping Lebanon for that so that's what I call a regional service and up till now they're still giving that when it's needed because they know that the army can do that I'm not talking about the Egyptian people I'm talking about the local they played that role before they went to Kosovo they went to Congo they went to Bosnia and Herzegovina so yes it is well known internationally regionally and locally it is up a very professional armed forces and I'll actually when General Zaini mentioned that the Egyptian forces when they wanted to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and I'm happy that General Zaini mentioned that so we are talking about one kind of our armed forces one kind of army at least in our region it's not like any other army with the help of the United States giving the army, the Egyptian army the latest technology of weaponaries and training joining training and technical support and spare parts ammunition all this kind of stuff the army will maintain the level needed at the region and at the area that's why I'm happy that General Zaini as well mentioned the 1.3 billion dollar military aid to the Egyptian army since 1987 they started that of course you know that that was part of the Kambi David March 1979 agreement and since 87 Egypt is starting to receive the 1.3 billion dollars and people now are talking about cutting of that or talking about maybe cancelling that I think it's going to be a big mistake if the Americans do will do it and Egypt is the second largest actually country receiving this kind of aid from United States the first one is Israel with 2.4 billion dollars in 2008 George W. Bush signed his administration signed an MOU understanding with Israel to increase that to 3 billion dollars as of 2018 but in the same time they did not do that with Egypt and we say okay leave it as is we're going to be happy but don't touch it there is a debate for that now I guess and is that helping as well United States I guess yes because according to our statistics this 1.3 billion dollars it's only actually you have to use it in the states with the equipment, military equipment made in USA so it creates according to our statistics more than 10,000 jobs a year for American citizens so everybody is benefitting out of that it's not only Egypt is benefitting out of that but the Americans are definitely benefiting out of that strategically they benefit something else that the most respected army in the area is using 80% of the Egyptian army forces equipment and weaponry is made in USA and 20% from some others including Russia, China and all this kind of stuff not a lot of China anyway so by doing that by keeping the aid you still creating more jobs for the Americans you're still providing the best army forces in the region in the Arab world, in Africa, in Middle East with the American equipment as well as the other strategic cooperation like joining training and others so it's a mutual benefit for everybody the point of increasing that is out of the question I don't think Egypt wants that but decreasing that is an issue so hopefully they will not do enough for the aid but again the strategic operation between the two countries is essential for both of them why America wants Egypt why America wants to ally with Egypt why America wants to help Egypt to make sure it is a stable country I believe it's many many items but let me concentrate on two items only first item as Janel Zini said and I fully agree with that Seoul's Canal is a very important pathway from east to west to east why it's important now it is important for everybody to go through the Seoul's Canal carrying crude oil or carrying commodities carrying military aid whatever you need that definitely with the threat of Iran if Iran threatening USA as we see now in the area I think you need the Seoul's Canal badly why because you have to move your aircraft carriers from west to east again to be able to retaliate against Iran if Iran will throw some missiles or rockets against the American basis in the Gulf as well as in the south of Europe so retaliation will not be from the States it will be from a navy as well as aircraft carriers from the Gulf and Seoul's Canal for that secondly Egypt has which is very important to the States has a mutual border with Israel and Israel is a main alliance to the USA so keeping the border with Egypt quite keeping the border in a safe way that relaxes the entire region not only Egypt but that gives a more relaxing kind of atmosphere to the entire area definitely America will benefit out of that many other items but let's concentrate on this oh sorry then I think it's I have more but later on thank you very much one question is to focus on the Egypt piece which Dr. Darragh started with the internal piece one of the things I think a number of people were surprised by in the Constitution that was promulgated in the early winter was the fact that the military retained certain privileges which some people thought the military either wouldn't or shouldn't have in a more democratic Egypt as you think forward to a democratic Egypt in the long term what should the relationship be between elected civilian authorities and unelected civil servants protecting national defense in the military I'd like both of your perspectives okay let me start by explaining a little bit of what was being put in the Constitution about the military and its role and the points that some see as still extra privileges for the military that shouldn't have been there for in a new democratic era number one it is stated that the Minister of Defense has to be from the military as has the case been for more than 60 years of course this is this may not be the case in many democracies but if you look at the case of Egypt particularly this has been the culture not just for the military but for almost every aspect of of human life for example people would not accept a minister of higher education who is not a university professor people would not accept a minister of health who is not a doctor I did meet an Egyptian minister of education who was a major general who'd never graduate from college but that's a separate and all ministers were coming from military background that's different and he was a tank guy to boot anyway that's right but this is a general culture now and we still I'm afraid that we still lack the class of politicians that are able to move between different ministers being in charge of different ministries like in parliamentary systems for example this is number one to make this transition not just for the military but for all kinds of activities the second issue is related to the budget yes the budget it still is still one figure in the Egyptian budget but this is now announced the draft budget has just been submitted to the Shura council and everybody knows now the military budget it is around 30 billion Egyptian pounds 10% increase from last year's 2.5 billion dollars that's right about three times as much as the military US 8 to Egypt so this is a known figure and it should be discussed within what's called the national defense council the national the composition of the national defense council by the constitution is civilian and half military and it is chaired by the president who is definitely a civilian which means that there is a reasonable amount of civilian overlook of the affairs of the military not just the budget but even things like how the army is ready to perform its duties and so on and so forth in your mind is this a transitional status or is this what the status should remain in the future in my mind this is a very good step within the transition and it is yet to be defined how to achieve a better overlook of the civilian because if you look at who is represented in this national security national defense council you would find the speakers of both chambers of the parliament you would find the prime minister find the president it is stated that the president can invite whoever is needed to discuss issues related to what is being discussed in the council no matter who he is so this is a reasonable within a transitional period I believe this is a very reasonable overlook and we still need to define then let's say 10 years how this can be improved maybe even more discussions in the parliament within national defense committees or things like that the third issue is related to the trial of civilians in front of military courts and this has always been a problem in Egypt particularly during the last 15 to 20 years a lot of people suffered from that and it has been the request and the aspiration of people to get rid of this problem together in the constitution it is clearly stated that no civilian can be tried should be tried in front of military courts unless committing certain acts of aggression towards the military the good point is that who defines these acts of aggression is it the military or somebody else actually in the constitution it stated that this should be defined by a law is to be issued by the parliament that is by the representatives of the people in a way the representatives of the people would establish what is considered to be an aggression act against the military again this is this is a very good progress I mean you do not find somebody being tried in front of a military court because of his political views or political activities definitely during the transitional period there has been some mistakes a lot of people were tried in front of military courts but that was before the constitution was issued I believe this is over now in Egypt the general has been writing notes I just want to have this more of a dialogue he wants to see it so what we have heard is for a transitional period this is okay this is going to be a continually moving target as Egypt's democracy unfolds over the coming years in your view is that the right perspective and should there be limits on civilian oversight? let me start by a few remarks and then I'll come back to this point which is actually going to answer the question as well in regard of the civilian minister of defense in Egypt it's very premature I don't think now we are ready for that I don't think the officers would accept that because I doubted very much that we do have the caliber of course Egypt is 92 million people and maybe we do have a lot of people knows about army but not to lead the army not to lead the most important army forces in the area now and it's a habit now and it's a rule that the minister of defense is a field marshal or marshal whatever but to come and bring a lawyer with all respect to lawyers or engineer to that I think it's going to be odd a little bit now and I don't think this will be accepted by the army and I know what I'm talking about I'm very close to the army and I know what they are thinking about maybe 20 years from now maybe I don't know but right now it's not the right time the national defense council which is actually one of the points in the constitution it's 15 people 7 military and 8 civilians including the president so they have the majority if they want to say no at any time for anything and the army didn't interfere in that they said fine why not it's Egypt at the end of the day but again the majority between the civilians not between the military I just want to highlight this point the civilians in front of military courts maybe Dr. Amr said there is no definition how can you put a civilian in front of the military court now I think it's clear if you kill an officer like what they do every day in Sinai now then you have to go to the military court if you injure one if you shoot one and injure one if you go and shoot an RPG in one of the barracks which happens every day and now then I don't think this guy has to go to a civilian court and tell him come and let's see what you do because actually the judge himself we will not know what is going on there what is the barracks looks like what is the RPG looks like whatever so if you go and break a barracks and steal a gun again you have to be in front of a military and this is everywhere by the way so it's definition is very clear and I don't think the army now wants to see any civilian in front of any court because of the headache of it so they are not running after it they don't like it, they don't want to do it period so this is from the for this point in regard of what was your question John you were going to answer now the question is whether there should be limits on civilian oversight are there things that are beyond the purview of civilian oversight in your judgment I guess so, I don't think there will be a limit now but I think it's going to take its time and it will come by itself later on but there is no demand for that now, there is no need to do it today that's what I am talking about to do it being having unlimited civilian oversight yes, I doubt it very much yes, I don't think people will accept that now and even the army doesn't want that one of the things that the U.S. military has done over time is to build up civilian expertise on military affairs and one of the things General Petraeus was in many ways a pioneer on is engaging with civilians to explain what he was doing militarily to build public support for his military strategies is that something that you in your career saw as something people either understood they had to do in Vietnam and then built is that something that came out of the the new media environment in Iraq, I mean where does that piece of trying to reach out to civilian expertise so the military has understood where does that come from well, first of all, I would disagree a bit that I don't think we get that right you know I'm part of a region where I'm responsible for U.S. engagement with the militaries in the region part of my job was to work with the militaries to try to bring them to a point where they understood their role and function in a democracy now they may not have had a democracy this is the regional militaries these are the regional militaries they may not have had a democracy at the time but this is in the hope that they progress toward that and they're prepared for it when I was in the European command when the wall came down we immediately went into Russia and the republics and to Eastern Europe and we actually had a number of our generals over there trying to work with them in this actually it was very confusing the first meeting we had in Moscow the NATO generals the Dutch generals stood up and told them why they needed to unionize their military and a democracy and we choked him and got him off the stage so there's different interpretation combat training comes in I want to say one thing that's critically important here for a society to be stable the institutions the political, the economic, the social institutions and the security institutions all have to be viable and responsive and coordinated unfortunately when we are involved in a nation our participation is not coordinated so for example I may be making progress on the military side and maybe there's not that same progress on the political side and in order to punish the political side they'll sanction the military side I've seen this happen dozens of times for example I saw it in Kenya I saw it in Turkmenistan where we had a commander of the forces that cleaned up corruption cleaned up some of the things that were going on in the military, his level of progression toward where we wanted was here while the political was here and so our political genius decided to sanction the military in effect we did this to Pakistan after Charlie Wilson's war and we paid a big price for that in the end so what we need to do a better job is to pull it together it's so easy to focus on the military side and say well if they're not progressing to where we want them economically, politically and those institutions let's grab the military and you could lose progress at where you're going none of us are perfect many of the militaries we work with are not where we want them to be it's a long process for example, their officers come to our schools and you have to educate two generations or two decades where the officers to begin to realize at the top that maybe something is sticking I had the commander of military in one country that I won't name I was under tremendous pressure to take over the government and he got me aside privately and he told me one time I just cannot do it I will not do it and he smiled and he looked at me and said you guys trained me too well and I can't do it I wish we saw more of that sort of thing again this military, the Egyptian military I talked about the relationship with the US and the benefits we received I just want to emphasize one point that the general talked about they are often the number one contributor to keeping missions and if we are creating that culture in their military, remember also what he said they are the biggest military in the region and they are the largest Arab country I just came back from the Middle East not too long ago basically in the Gulf and everybody talks about Egypt because if Egypt goes wobbly the whole region goes wobbly if Egypt gets this right it will be a model and example for the rest to follow so it's too easy for us in the questions to find fault but you've got to look at this in terms of where we are what we gained over time not to lose that momentum and how to build on that in this tremendously sensitive transition period they are going through at all levels, the government, the military the economic system and in the short term there will be some decisions that maybe we are not happy with and need to be ironed out in the long term but maybe we can't eat that elephant all at once and sure people are impatient to get it there and I think that we have to have that patience and continue that support doesn't mean that we don't point out things that we feel need to be done better and need to push for commitments there but this is too important a relationship too important in the region for us to pull away from this it has all sorts of implications not only on the Arab-Israeli relationship but within the Arab world in the Muslim world and also just basically for the economy and stability of the region because when things go wobbly there it extends out almost globally thank you I want to pick up General Zinni mentioned Pakistan which in many ways evolved into a system where there were parallel military and civilian structures what is the Egyptian read how Pakistan's evolved what parts of Pakistan's experience are worth emulating what parts of Pakistan's experience must be avoided at any price we'll start with the general okay let me first correct a little piece of information in the beginning mentioning that the army was ruling the country for 60 years continuously that's not correct from my point of view 1952 when the army created the revolution or call it Kodita call it revolution whatever and kick out the king of the country King Farouk until 1954 they formed a cabinet government 60% of those were uniformed officers 40% were completely civilian after that 1954 until now the army did not form a government at all few members sometimes one or two one minister of defense another minister of military production usually but he is civilian as well he used to be an officer then he takes his uniform off and then he starts to join the cabinet as a civilian man but we haven't seen for the last 25 years for instance 7 or 8 officers in the army we haven't seen that you mean the cabinet probably 60 to 70% thank you very much 60 to 70% of the provincial governors a large part of the business community that was maybe during the late 80s beginning of 90s but after that yes maybe four or five of them and up till now we insist I like to see the hard and difficult governorates governed by an army officer ex-army officer ex-army officer like Sayinay for instance Sayinay now is not very stable so northern Sayinay, southern Sayinay I don't think a civilian governor will be suitable for that now when you're talking about west of Egypt Matruh which is again the border with Libya and you know what's going on in Libya what's going on in the border with Libya I don't think a civilian governor would be suitable now anyway this is what we're talking about but we're not talking about Cairo, Alexandria or something like that this is not anymore under the army ex-army officers but even the new ones we're going to have some new governors next week within a few days 10 of them or 8 of them will be changed and people now we would like to see ex-army officers and those governed rates because they are the suitable people to run it so it's not matter of they want to go to get the job what is the job? I mean it's a governor I think I'm a general ex-general I like to be ex-general more than be governor now it's not a really good job to do believe me it's not really the right one to do but anyway Pakistan exactly the example which we can look at and do it because it's a mixture between both now the army mentioned clearly many times from the Field Marshal C.C. himself or the spokesman of the army many times and you can see that in the internet and their sites that they will not touch the political life of Egypt period they don't want to be involved anymore in the political life of this country of Egypt they learned a lesson in the 18 months with the SCAF the Supreme Council of Army Forces and I don't think they want to see that now I can confirm that to you now and to everybody so the Pakistani example is not really the one they are looking for because it is mixture between uniform officers and civilians which is not going to be the case at all in Egypt whatsoever I can guarantee that you will not see a retired general or officer in the cabinet unless he is minister of defense or running the country somehow this is over retired officer retired officers and as I mentioned in some places like special government rates like this one but you won't see a retired officer minister of education as I mentioned or minister of whatever no you won't see that again you don't want it retired general running I personally don't want to do that your political career is over is what you are telling me now well the last election people are asking me to do it and my family said don't do it I am not saying that it is a tough job now in Egypt it is not an easy job to do it is not a nice job to do believe me being away of that is much better now when you asked me about Pakistan I remembered about a year ago I was in London I met one of the ex-generals in Pakistan and I asked him what can we learn in Egypt from your experience and he said I can tell you one sentence look at whatever we did and please don't do period that was it so I agree with General Asif Ali Azar I don't think it is a legal at all in Egypt but I do disagree with him on one issue we are not talking about for the last 60 years we are not talking about it is not just the issue of military people taking key positions no but the military people were taking the key position which is the president and that was confined within the military establishment it was known since Nasser actually before that Nasser then Sadat then Mubarak and actually the project ex-military ex-military but but anyway I mean the military had this idea and actually this in a way helped a little bit because there was a kind of rejection to the idea of inheriting the presidency to Mubarak's son within the military so that helped but the overall culture of the military of deserving to be to have this position by an ex military that was the culture over the last 60 years and when when Sadat wanted to bring a vice president he appointed Mubarak he brought him from the name he was not retired at that time he was commander of the Air Force and he brought him to be a vice president to prepare him to be a president and that was was the norm so this is the difference of course it's not this is I mean I'm sure that this is over I mean everybody agrees in Egypt nobody in Egypt wants this any longer neither the civilians the military and I've been talking to a lot of senior and people who are still in service you know some of them are in staff right now and they say very clearly that those the political forces because now there are some calls from some of the political forces to get the military back to power one of them told me that this particular people two months ago were leading protests against the military asking them to step aside so and and they say that being in the political life damaged the image of the military very much and really did not allow them to to concentrate on what should really be done by the military I'm going to ask one more question and turn to you so if there are people on the sides with questions and if you could hand them to people in the aisles we'll get to them but the other country in the region that people think about is Turkey a country where the military has played a different role in Turkey's political evolution over the last eight decades or so what are the lessons one should draw from the Turkish experience maybe Dr. Draghi is starting the generals there are a lot of similarities between the the Turkish experience and what we used to have in Egypt again but again we the people in Egypt because we the change happened through a revolution we were ready even more than Turkey to change from this military control into a total civilian control very quickly and actually that remark I understand that remark was even made by Prime Minister Ardoğan when he was once in Cairo and he said that that change happened quite impressively within a very short period of time so I guess that the involvement of the military in the political life in Turkey has damaged all aspects of life in Turkey and once this started to change we see the development that is really taking place right now in Turkey and of course this is partly due to the leadership leadership of Ardoğan and the AK Party but also it is partly because they are changing very quickly into a real civilian democratic state rather than one that is democratic on the surface but deeply controlled by the military to be fair there are also some who argue that it was the awareness that the military was in the wings that constrained democratic actors and led to a genuinely some would argue genuinely some would argue not really genuinely democratic Islamic political party and absent the knowledge that the military was not only ready but sometimes had come in to protect the national interest that Turkey's political and economic evolution had not gone nearly as well absent have the sort of national consensus that the military helped nurture in general well again the Turkish example is not really like Egypt I was talking about uniformed officers were running the country involved in the political life every day controlling the entire civilian life and when Ardoğan came he changed that but we're not talking about the same case at all in Egypt the other point is the people in the street they were split again some of them they need how they want at least the military people to stay and that happens in a few demonstrations and riots in Turkey during that time and others they want to change which is normal that people with and people against again the issue is not applicable in Egypt at all we are talking about an army who doesn't want to touch the political life of the country who doesn't want to run the country anymore whatsoever and the issue is they are ready to help whenever it's needed domestically, locally if the president or anybody the people of Egypt want them to come down for a certain mission they will come down for a certain mission but without touching the political life without running the country and I will stop in that just briefly I would just say that Turkey is an example where the military felt they were the keepers of the values that Ataturk had espoused and only they could be the protectors and even when they had governments that were in there in charge they did as you said John Hover in the background ready for a move and I think that what has to change in these environments is the political the development of the political institutions and the parties have to be seen as also keepers of the values and the things that are important for the security and well-being of the nation and then some trust has to be given to the militaries as they evolve away from this and I think this has happened in Turkey and now we'll accept it may be a bumpy road but it's not worked out and it's never in anybody's best interest to have military rule in the long run it's not productive we see that south of our own borders that's almost a cyclical event when they take over governments it never works well and so that trust, that evolution that understanding that the other institutions in the society should have equal responsibility for the values and the kind of society you want as I think where they all have to go eventually and the Turks I think are there just about completed