Syrian and Egyptian Interests – 11.7.2008

In this article from World Tribune, we learn a little bit about Barack Obama’s future plan (which we’re now seemingly stuck with) for diplomacy that involves the regimes of Damascus and Cairo. An excerpt below:

The aide said Obama plans to launch a U.S. diplomatic initiative toward Syria, regarded by the Bush administration as a leading supporter of the Al Qaida insurgency in Iraq. Obama, unlike President George Bush, has also supported Israeli peace negotiations with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests,” the aide said.

Now, diplomacy in and of itself is not a bad tool, and every President should see fit to utilize it. A politician skilled in the art of talking can accomplish great things, whether from a trade agreement to averting armed conflict. However, before getting carried away with the ideal of “diplomacy”, let us examine for a minute what basic conditions must be met for diplomacy to succeed. First and foremost, both sides must willing to come to the table, and converse honestly about the needs and wants of each side. Secondly, both sides must be willing to yield in some of their interests, for the goal of reaching a consensus and ratifying the their new pact. Thirdly, both sides must honestly recognize what the other side represents. In our historical  ”relationships” with the regimes of Cairo and Damascus, I rarely, if ever, see any of the above conditions being met. Rather, I see the United States giving advanced military hardware, and billions of dollars every year to Egypt, while getting fairly little in return. The way I understand things, and you may have to forgive my naivete, when an individual or nation engages in an exchange of any sort with another individual or country, one often expects goods or services in return of equal value.

Now, every year the United States sends $1.3 billion worth of military aid to Egypt, which already has $2.5 billion of its own money devoted to its military. Additionally, the United States has been a historical supplier of economic assistance to Egypt as well, though fortunately, there are signs pointing to the end of this. In 2009, about $200 million is earmarked for Egypt, and there is no guarantee there will be another payout. In my opinion, there probably will. So the question is, do we get enough return? Now:

“Mubarak gives the US military free passage through Egypt’s air space and ensures priority passage for American navy vessels through the Suez Canal. According to US figures, Egypt granted airspace access to 36,553 US military aircraft between 2001 and 2005.”

Without a doubt, such service is clearly valuable, and worthy of Egypt getting something in return. But, we have to balance the “now”, with the longer term plan. When push comes to shove, is Egypt rally on our side? And if the answer is no, then why are we arming them with advanced military hardware every year? Why are we bolstering Egypt to stand against and pose a conventional threat to Israel, our one true ally in the region? In short, is what we receive from Egypt worth $1.3 billion ever year, along with any other economic assistance we send them, worth it?

Now, the “realists” among us may cite Egyptian backing of United States attempts to deter Iran from developing nuclear technology. They may also cite Eyptian support of the Middle Eastern “Peace” Process. But lets get real here – Iran continues to develop nuclear technology, and has no problem ignoring Egyptian and United Nations wishes. Also, Egypt would most likely be against Iranian getting nuclear weapons anyway, due to the constant fear of Shia infilitrations in Sunni countries. Also, has the violence against Israel abated any because of Egyptian desires? In some cases, it seems Egypt turns a tremendous blind eyeto Hamas efforts to arm themselves. So, essentially we’re paying Egypt for no return in these two cases, which are supposed to be cornerstones of our relationship with Cairo. Does that really seem wise to anyone? Indeed, I regard the Egyptian “incompetence” regarding Hamas arms tunnel to be tacit (or rather overt) support for their agenda, which is the destruction of Israel. I find it interesting that academia, the Media, and the International Community are so willing to condemn proxy wars of the United States, but when it comes to the enemies of Israel, anything goes. So taking this into account, why should an Obama administration take Egyptian interests into greater account? I say the United States should start getting real return, or pull the plug on that $1.3 billion dollars. But, I fear I am in the minority.

Turning our eyes to Syria, we must ask again why we should bow to their interests? They were using North Korean technology to assemble a covert nuclear reactor. Their support of Hizballah and other Jihadist groups is well documented, their enmity to Israel beyond all doubt. It seems that Syrian interests, to put it crudely, consist of screwing us over, not helping us out. And Obama wants to “emphasize” those interests of Syria? Perhaps President-elect Barack Obama, soon to become the most powerful man of the world, needs to do some more homework, before he can muster a passing grade on foreign policy.

The ironic thing is I am not a genius. I don’t work for the CIA, NSA, or Department of Defense. All the information I see is available to the general public, no security clearance required. If I can see the writing on the wall, why can’t our elected leaders? And how long will they accept, proscribe, and enact the failed policies of the past, before true “reality” sets in? My guess, is never. Which is hardly a comforting thought for those of us forced to live with the failed policies of others.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator