WASHINGTON — Seeking to patch up relations with a longtime regional ally at a time of spreading war and instability in the Middle East, President Obama on Tuesday lifted an arms freeze against Egypt that he first imposed after the 2013 military overthrow of the country’s elected government.
Mr. Obama removed his holds on the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles and M1A1 tank kits and in a telephone call assured President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt that he would continue to support $1.3 billion in annual military assistance for the Cairo government, the White House announced.
Is this a good idea?
"Is this a good idea? "
ReplyDeleteYes and no, and that's the problem. Plenty of decisions honestly make tons of sense at the time they are made, but subsequently look horrible if not crushingly regrettable later. What is the goal? Protect our financial interests tied to the region, or protect some ideology? In my opinion, our only basis for dealing the middle east at all is oil. Perhaps we should just be open and honest about this and accept that in order to keep the flow of oil going, we will likely be both an ally and enemy of just about every nation state there.
I have been thinking about this for some hours, was not going to respond as it is "not my problem" and I give my friends plenty of gratuitous advice on this site already!.
ReplyDeleteBut then, a question having been asked, indicated that Mick has enough concern or interest to legitimately expect a response.
I tend to agree,at least superficially with Max.The US wants to keep the oil supply line open. This makes the question one of economics rather than politics I would turn the question back to the government and ask why they feel the need for dependence on oil from the middle east?. Reports I have read indicate there is sufficient oil in the US if the shale oil is factored into the equation. I believe recent developments have considerably reduced the extraction costs.
The question could perhaps the widened to ask if the US needs to continue to meddle in the affairs of other nations at all. Afghanistan. Iraq, Yemen, the area now involved in the Middle East with the ISIS problem. None of these wars and skirmishes directly affected the US but playing the role of the Policeman of the world has become part of the culture in North America. Australia also has been engaged in all the above and the cost in lives and material wealth have been huge for both countries.
Now that the threat of communism has been banished, is it not time to look to our own needs rather than attempt to change the nations of the Middle East into Western Clones.
Cheers from Aussie
King,
DeleteIt's not even a matter of playing policeman anymore, and it seems like this view is part of the problem. In the past, we were able to remove elected leaders and install puppets, give them military weapons, and they did our bidding. Once we removed Saddam, we took away one of the few balances against the religious war that is now unfolding there. We are not policing anything and more importantly, we are not having any meaningful influence in what, IMO, is a religious civil war. I guess my point is that the paradigm of policeman works if there is some level of stability between the individuals being policed. To me, we have no choice but to deal with whatever individuals are at the top of the heap at any given time provided that said individuals have the ability to keep the oil flowing. Sadly, we can't do a damn thing for the people who have to live in the middle of it everyday.
Kind of hypocritical for Obama not to be shipping weapons to this military dictator when he is promoting open relations with Cuba's communist military dictators.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think?
I get the snark William and I don't entirely begrudge you the opportunity to use any opportunity you can to take a swipe at Obama; it's what people like you do. That said, it would be nice if there could be at least one situation where the fringe puts the country ahead of their political Jihad to return us to the 1700's.
DeleteThe Tea Party or the "fringe" as you call us, has a 52 member caucus in the House.
DeleteYeah, but again, going back to a discussion we had before, what have they accomplished? Even you have admitted they haven't accomplished a whole lot. An ugly guy can sleep with an attractive woman if he's in a rock band, and if that's all he's interested in, well then BOO YA! I guess they can kind of grind the process to a halt, but when it comes to spending bills and keeping the government open, both of which they are opposed to, Boehnor will simply go around them and use Democrat votes to get things done.
DeleteYeah I admit Obama and Boehner are pretty good at end runs. Both progressives find the caucus a minor irritation. But I wouldn't call the movement as fringe any longer. Fringe is sorta like NOW, and PETA, and other small potatoes groups. TEA is more like a stone under your matress. No matter which way you toss and turn you can't get a good night's sleep.
DeleteI forgot to mention OWS as small potatoes. What did happen to those poor little rich boys and girls by the way?
DeleteFor sake of genuine discussion, I would not call PETA fringe and comparatively, I would argue they have probably brought more change than the TEAS have, and for good reason, namely that their protests cost mega corps money. Take a look at what has just happened with corporate owned McDonalds raising wages. Protests can work, but only when you can swing enough support your way to bring change. THIS, IMO, is where the teas fail.
DeleteFrom my perspective, the TEAS are a group who cannot be negotiated with. Either they get 100% of what they want, or they say no. Your point about them being a stone that never lets you get a good nights sleep is actually a very solid description. But how long will they keep getting support if they can't actually accomplish anything? I'll concede that perhaps they will continue to get support. On the other hand, with a POTUS election looming on the horizon that should bring better voter turnout, they might not do so well.
My take on OWS was that their lack of direction was both their asset and downfall. I read a lot of stuff from Alexis Goldstein, much of it very egghead stuff, but after working in the industry like I did, she highlighted precisely how uncompetitive our capital markets are. You will laugh of course at the idea that the OWS crowd and the Teas had some overlap that could have been well exploited. IMO, plenty of small business types in the Teas crowd could benefit from the government cracking down on uncompetitive practices employed by large businesses. That, however, would require some compromise.
There you go again. As soon as you recognize common elements between groups of people you start off again with exploitation, and government crack downs. More government with ever more regulation. What the TEAS are talking about is limiting not enhancing centralization. Big government enables big corporate cronyism because nobody else can compete except the big guys. Less is more Max. But you're starting to get it.
DeleteThe teas have always been a fringe group with minimal power. You see William, (wait a minute I am gonna rewrite history) even in 1775 the radicals, the thugs lead by Sam Adams were in the minority a fringe group. The majority of the representatives in Philadelphia didn't really want to leave the crown. They wanted a permanent end to parliament taxing the American Colonies, and making laws for the colonies that's it. They didn't want war nor did they want to not be British anymore.
DeleteMost voted yea on the Articles of Confederation only to form a central government for the conduct of the war which had started and the perpetual union of the thirteen colonies. Most of the delegates hated the Articles but it was the only way to achieve what was needed at the time.
Those who voted against the articles were the fringe supporters of Sam Adams.