If this report from the Daily Beast is true, aid may be on hold already:
In the latest example of its poorly understood Egypt policy, the Obama administration has decided to temporarily suspend the disbursement of most direct military aid, the delivery of weapons to the Egyptian military, and some forms of economic aid to the Egyptian government while it conducts a broad review of the relationship. The administration won’t publicly acknowledge all aspects of the aid suspension and maintains its rhetorical line that no official coup determination has been made, but behind the scenes, extensive measures to treat the military takeover of Egypt last month as a coup are being implemented on a temporary basis.There's a thin line between "poorly understood" and incoherent, but if this reporting is true, it's difficult to see a problem with it. We're talking about nearly $600 million in aid for a nation that is primarily using the money for the care and feeding of its military, which seems well-fortified enough.
From what I can tell, there aren't any good guys on the field. The Muslim Brotherhood was clearly committed to the idea of one man, one vote, one time and was busily installing the apparatus of a tyranny. The military is operating in tyrannical ways right now. Operationally, it doesn't matter much whether the bullet that kills you comes from the muzzle of an army rifle or an MB rifle. I'm not sure that any additional "influence" on our part is going to make any difference in the outcome.
12 comments:
You misunderstand what they mean by "influence". They aren't talking about ending bloodshed, they mean having access to the Suez Canal.
Our policy in the Middle East has never been about preventing bloodshed. Ever.
You misunderstand what they mean by "influence". They aren't talking about ending bloodshed, they mean having access to the Suez Canal.
Yeah, mebbe. But if the Egyptians were to cut off access to the Suez at this point, they'd be cutting their own throats.
Our policy in the Middle East has never been about preventing bloodshed. Ever.
Never said it was. We can't prevent bloodshed anywhere.
As Victor Davis Hanson says these days of the Middle East - all of our possible choices are bad ones. Cutting off aid now, as Egypt slides into civil war, would be among the worst choices we could make.
I understand the political kabuki of the aid question - you don't want to look like you're supporting an unelected government that's shooting civilians (even if those civilians are far from peaceful protesters). But pulling aid suggests we side with the Muslim Brotherhood (which we don't, or at least shouldn't), and/or suggests that there's this magical third option on the table. There isn't.
But pulling aid suggests we side with the Muslim Brotherhood (which we don't, or at least shouldn't)
That's the rub, of course. At this point, we probably can’t cut things off completely. But we need to start ramping down our commitments, for a wide variety of reasons. Eventually we need to ask if we really want to subsidize the Egyptian military in perpetuity.
Eventually we need to ask if we really want to subsidize the Egyptian military in perpetuity.
Fair point, but is now the time to start having a serious debate on the question? Especially after we've bungled Egypt's post-Mubarak transition and managed to look like we're supporting everyone and no one?
Ending/reducing our financial support now is the political equivalent of trying to dig ourselves out of a hole. I can guarantee you the Russians or the Chinese will have few qualms about giving the Egyptians all the arms they could want.
Fair point, but is now the time to start having a serious debate on the question?
We aren't going to have a serious debate as long as the current administration is in office. And we'll be cutting the check eventually, I'm sure.
Suez is a better answer than I've heard before about why we provide military aid for Egypt. The only other answer I've been able to come up with is that if we don't provide the aid, the Russians or Chinese will, and then it comes back again to .....Suez. And perhaps the status of Egypt's neighbors, but let's face it; it's just a touch easier to get to Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya via the sea than it is to cross the Sahara.
And what Mark says about Suez. OK, so we don't provide them F-16s, so Egypt will close one of its few sources of income.....and risk war with those nations that rely on Suez.....
Fairly certain a large part of that aid was payoff in exchange for making peace eith israel in thecamp david accord.
Fairly certain a large part of that aid was payoff in exchange for making peace eith israel in thecamp david accord.
Well, yeah.
well, yeah.. we have to pay it in accordance with the accord.
There is then the question of whether those provisions are still binding after a few coups d'etat. My thought is "no."
bubba: only if the accord contains those provisions.
Post a Comment