In reply to the excellent post by my respected brother Amro Buhairi; I won’t discuss point by point, as we are not generally in disagreement.
There are actually several instances where guerilla targeting of major multinationals caused them to abandon their operations. Exxon-Mobile in Aceh, Indonesia, Royal Dutch Shell in the Niger delta, Bechtel in Iraq, and many other smaller companies in less lucrative industries, offers numerous examples.
It is also worth noting that in these examples, yes, attacks caused them to increase security at their facilities and, in some cases, to provide body guards for their employees. These expenses, however, were born by the companies themselves, not by the host governments. Indeed, the extra cost of these security measures cut deeply into the profitability of their operations, and this was itself one of the reasons they eventually withdrew. It is part of our strategy to raise their expenses and increase the general difficulty for them to operate.
Extra security is part of that equation; the cost of protecting their facilities, employees, and supply chain from disruption will be an intolerably heavy tax on their revenues. Extra security also means less efficiency, and it means higher salaries and greater difficulty replacing staff who choose to leave the company. Increased security is not a solution for them, it exacerbates the problem.
Now, the tactics in Aceh and Nigeria and Iraq, of course, were primarily armed tactics; however they also included many instances of sabotage and non-violent disruption.
In Iraq, and in Pakistan, and elsewhere, rebels have done things as simple as stealing paperwork, slashing tires, flooding warehouses, announcing threats (which are never carried out), destroying delivery vehicles, and so on.
If multiple industries are targeted, particularly those under the umbrella of a single shareholding investment firm (such as Vanguard, or any number of others), and this disruption is explicitly accompanied by specific demands, there is no obvious reason why the government will not be pressured by investors to comply.
This is not unusual, companies pressure governments all the time to accommodate their interests; they pressure governments all the time to implement policies that ensure their profitability. They will not be doing anything they do not do already; the only difference is that we will be controlling the process.
If you can build solidarity across borders, to widen the scope of this type of disruption to impact a company’s operations in more than one country; to impact its supply chain even beyond Egypt; obviously, you will have an even greater advantage.
The question of what should come first, economic change or political change, as I have stated, is not really open to discussion. Political institutions are controlled by institutions of private economic power; political change cannot be sought through any method other than economic confrontation with those institutions.
Everyone knows and has experienced in their own lives, and certainly any of us involved in Islamic organizations over the years have experienced it; the one who has the funds controls the agenda. That is just as true in society as it is true in any party or group as it is true even when you and your friends meet for lunch.
This has always been the case, regardless of any political theories anyone may imagine. Therefore, the only recourse we have is to confront the people who have the funds, the ones who control the agenda, and impose accountability upon them through the disruption of their interests. I do not see another viable option