Thanks for posting this.

For a possibly correct and chilling analysis of today's development, see the FP (Foreign Policy) Middle East News blog for a post by a guy named Springbrock, or something like that. He thinks the Mubarak plan has been this:

A) let the protests create fear of anarchy and economic (food) hardship

B) have the army present itself as sympathetic to the protesters, and everyone' s guarantor of personal safety

C) get the protesters threatened/attacked by pro-Mubarak goons (many rented, but quite a few sincere), but keep the army aside.

Result: everyone looks to the army--the goons, the poor, President Obama, even the protesters themselves.

Conclusion: a "transition" that concentrates/maintains power with the army, perhaps with M. stepping down(I say this, not Springbrock), but getting the transition he wants. For M., second-best scenario compared to his son inheriting, but still good. For protesters, little way to oppose the army's power, and shocked realization that it is not really with them.

It's plausible...Martin Kramer agrees, for one.

The correct name is Robert Springborg. And 20 minutes after I hipped you to it...Instapundit links it. G. Reynolds still has it, that's for sure.

Everyone I'm reading who is there (including folks you pointed me to, Carl) is appalled that the army is doing nothing; watching grandmothers get knocked down in the street. That creates sympathy?

Mubarak is letting everyone know what chaos there is in Egypt without him. El Baradei calls for his ouster. Big deal. El Baradei cannot ensure anyone's safety. He's nor the Muslim Brotherhood is keeping anyone from being knocked on the head, either. Mubarak is waiting until everyone is tired of being knocked on the head, then he will step in and create order out of chaos and the people will be grateful. It's not a bad strategy.