Written by John Glassco   

Morsi is taken out by the Egyptian Army. Good. . . or is it?

An elected leader, no matter how well or poorly he led the country, has been eliminated by a military coup. So much for civilian rule.

The Egyptian economy is still in turmoil. Tourism and international trade are the cornerstones of the Egyptian economy. Until international tourists feel safe visiting the pyramids, and until international business leaders feel safe doing business across the country, the revolution is moving backward, not forward. The great problems of youth unemployment and political unrest must be solved before peace and progress return to Egypt.

A military coup is a step backwards, even though a somewhat partisan and unpopular leader is removed. The Muslim Brotherhood overplayed its hand. But as any American student of democracy would explain, the next election is the remedy, not another intervention by the army.

When Morsi came to power a year ago, he was never able to take full command of their military. This has resulted in his being removed. Is any elected leader subject to removal by the military in Egypt? Is the country comfortable giving the army ultimate control over the leadership of Egypt regardless of a proper and fair election?

If the elected government in Egypt, or in America for that matter, is unable to command the army, then the elected ruler is only a figurehead. Perhaps the Obama administration is suffering from the same problem. Obama seems unable to create the transparency he wants when the military wants secrecy. Why has our Commander in Chief been powerless to close Guantanamo? The embarrassing answer is that Obama is not fully in command of the military. The American military also seems to want the right to spy on ordinary citizens against all of the apparently flimsy Constitutional guarantees. The drone program which can apparently target Americans without due process is also a military program. A reasonable person could ask who is really in control, there and here?