Meat Shields

In the world of computer and electronic gaming, a somewhat strange term has developed: Meat Shield. For those who do not engage in gaming, the term, as defined on Wikipedia, appears to have two slightly divergent meanings. First, it can mean a heavily shielded character such as a tank or other armored unit able to protect other, weaker characters such as soldiers (or "meat") characters which can be hidden or shielded behind it from enemy fire. The second definition provides for the use of a stunned (or dead) enemy character as a shield from enemy fire.

Now one might wonder what that has to do with anything. After all, gaming has obtained a reputation for taking one away from the real world, right? That is often true. Not, however, in Egypt; the liberals and secularists are learning just what it means to be a meat shield.

Of course, at the time of the Arab Spring revolution, the liberals and the secularists imagined themselves the Tanks, moving against Mubarak's forces, stoutly withstanding the brunt of the military's repression of the revolution. They imagined themselves the leaders, guiding the great unwashed, less-educated and weaker masses toward their utopian vision of a secular and undoubtedly socialist democracy. And at the time,it seemed so reasonable; after all, the masses of the Muslim Brotherhood seemed to be right behind them.

However, the secularists and the liberal elite are now learning how the second meaning of "meat shield" plays out in real life. Sure, the folks in the Muslim Brotherhood said, "We're right behind you." It simply meant they needed help to take down Mubarak, and wanted some extra bodies out there to shield them from Mubarak's troops. It is not likely that Islamists have any other use for the liberals; liberalism does not fit their political or religious agenda.

Now, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Secularist candidate, has announced he won't be continuing his run for President of Egypt. His withdrawal, he says, is a protest against the military leaders for not moving the country towards the democracy he envisioned. It seems that the government the people have elected, which gives to Islamists over two-thirds of the parliamentary seats along with tremendous input into the writing of the Constitution, does not satisfy the Secularists.

ElBaradei had apparently envisioned a constitution written by "a committee made up of delegates of political parties, universities, labor unions, and other institutions," because he and his constituency believe that only the liberal elite is qualified to lead the masses; that the great unwashed is not able to elect a government which can properly represent them.  Liberals and Secularists always imagine that the masses will just naturally recognize the inherent superiority of Liberalism, and will come and fall down before them, begging for their leadership.  It isn't happening; the people choosing to form a government which is not composed of or led by the liberal elite is giving ElBaradei and his Secularists a rude awakening.

The Islamists were always the majority in Egypt, and there was never any doubt of the outcomes of the elections; the Secularists served only as useful fronts for revolutionaries to present to the Western media, the Western Leaders to pin false hopes on, and cannon fodder and meat shields to throw in front of Mubarak's troops.