[Peace-discuss] at Daily Kos: If We Cut Aid to Egypt's Military, Would We Die?

Tue Aug 20 16:19:18 UTC 2013

But you've got to admit that Rogen's movies are funny. Did you see King Fu Panda?

On Aug 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:

> I've decided that the joint headline for these two articles should be:
> 
> "Confusingly, Admin Semi-Announces De Facto Suspension of U.S. Aid to Egypt"
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> In fact, the reports are contradictory:
> 
> The NYT said, "The Obama administration has taken preliminary steps to withhold financial aid to the Egyptian government ... it is curtailing economic assistance, *not the much larger military aid* on which Egypt’s generals depend."
> 
> Senator Leahy's spokesman was quoted as saying that it is the senator's understanding that "aid to the Egyptian military has been halted, as required by law.”
> 
> Of course it's typical of the "most transparent administration in history” [sic Obama] to multiply its lies. It's the great traditon: the best line Christopher Hitchens ever wrote (if he wrote it) was the title of his book on the Clintons: "No One Left to Lie To."
> 
> 
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> 
> > This report isn't exactly right. Josh Rogin, the reporter at Daily Beast, is often sloppy, sometimes very sloppy. Here he claims to exclusively report that it has cut off aid secretly, whereas the NYT basically reported largely this same information earlier, without the secrecy claim.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/middleeast/leaving-military-aid-intact-us-takes-steps-to-halt-economic-help-to-egypt.html
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> > http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.542414
> >
> > If the Obama administration, almost by accident, does the right thing, it has to do it secretly!
> >
> > Placing military aid to Egypt "on hold" doesn't make much difference.  US policy is consistent and consistently shameful.
> >
> >
> > On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I wish it were true about Gaza. But unfortunately it is not, I don't think - not that the behavior of the Israeli military wasn't as extreme in an objective sense, but that it was not widely perceived in the same way in the U.S. Many more Americans know and understand what has happened in Egypt than knew and understood what happened in Gaza, including the role of the U.S.
> >>
> >> I agree that the consequences of withdrawing the aid are unknown. But the actual dollar number is not, I don't think, the whole story. U.S. aid brings access to "prestige" U.S. weapons. U.S. military aid is widely perceived as a U.S. "seal of approval." The withdrawal of U.S. military aid is likely to have a knock-on effect in Europe and at the IMF and the World Bank. It might also have an impact on Egyptian elite opinion. We don't know; it's uncharted terrain. If nothing else, it would be a good learning experience. And if it's a jump ball, we should cancel it. There are certainly more productive uses for $1.3 billion.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> >> Of course, the behavior of the Israeli military in Gaza was "so extreme that it's pretty hard to explain (justify) the policy of supporting the [Israeli] military in any kind of public forum." Nevertheless, Obama et al. managed it.
> >>
> >> It's not even clear that the threat of withdrawing the $1.3 billion the US gives the Egyptian military annually would mean very much, except as propaganda. The US' other chief client in the region, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC give much more than that each year, and Saudi Arabia has already said that they will step in to "help Egypt" (i.e., fund the military) "if Western nations cut aid packages to Cairo over a crackdown on extremists."
> >>
> >> After all, what's a client for?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If nothing else, this precedent is going to be extremely useful the next time we are told we must bomb or invade country X because of human rights. So, it's in our long-term interest to make the current juncture as big a scandal as possible. And, I think the outcome is uncertain once it comes into the spotlight. The behavior of the Egyptian military is so extreme that it's pretty hard to explain (justify) the policy of supporting the Egyptian military in any kind of public forum. That will cause the Obama Administration to try to triangulate, and in a volatile situation, triangulation could have unpredictable consequences. For example, the Obama Administration has refused to call the coup a coup, but says it is going to implement the law as if it had made a determination that a coup had taken place. The consequences of that if the Egyptian military does not change course are not totally predictable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> >>> But it's not 'the Pentagon' as an independent actor that's setting policy. The policy of controlling the world's major energy producing region (including the governments that emerge from the Arab Spring) is set by - and for the benefit of - the American 1%, and enacted by its chief minion, the US president.
> >>>
> >>> They have no interest in "restoring democracy," except under the specialized definition where (1) democracy = doing want the US government demands, and (2) the appearance (but usually not the reality) of democracy is helpful in getting a population to acquiesce in USG policy rather than pursuing their own interests.
> >>>
> >>> But of course you're right that we should demand that the Obama administration stop paying for murder and terror in Egypt, as part of the demand that it stop committing murder and terror around the world.
> >>>
> >>> --CGE
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Suppose that the U.S. cut off aid to Egypt's military, as required by U.S. law, and suppose that in retaliation the Egyptian military said to the Pentagon, "OK, big boy, from now on you have to give us the same notice for overflights as you give everybody else, and your warships have to wait in line at Suez just like all the other ships." And suppose this continued until democracy was restored.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can certainly see how that would be sad for the Pentagon. But from the point of view of everyone else in America who isn't the Pentagon - everyone who has to stand in line all the time - would it be so terrible? Would we die? Could we somehow muddle through?
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/19/1232299/-If-We-Cut-Aid-to-Egypt-s-Military-Would-We-Die
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Robert Naiman
> >>>> Policy Director
> >>>> Just Foreign Policy
> >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Robert Naiman
> >>> Policy Director
> >>> Just Foreign Policy
> >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Naiman
> >> Policy Director
> >> Just Foreign Policy
> >> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Naiman
> > Policy Director
> > Just Foreign Policy
> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130820/9337e19a/attachment.html>