States manage their international risks by way of economics, diplomacy, and armed force. Sometimes, two or even all three can get intertwined.
Why do I say this? Well, I've seen recent events causing a lot of consternation among some of my more politically aware friends on Facebook. This consternation stems from an apparent contradiction on the part of the Obama Administration. On the one hand, the Obama Administration is making a concerted effort to enact sweeping gun restrictions in the wake of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. On the other hand, the Administration is providing the Muslim Brotherhood with cutting edge weapons, including F-16 fighter aircraft and M1 Abrams main battle tanks. The consternation is understandable, but the situation requires some context.
I'm personally critical of the Obama Administration's gun control efforts. As a subject matter expert in physical security and anti-terrorism, I can say with some confidence that it's entirely counterintuitive and demonstrably inaccurate that disarming law-abiding citizens makes nations safer. It also seems obvious that such efforts are directly contrary to the Constitution, the will of the Founders, and the essence of American politics, all of which have rendered political violence virtually absent from the history of the Republic. However, that's another matter. What's important to understand in this situation is the reason why the Muslim Brotherhood is getting these sophisticated weapon systems.
First, we should dispense with the notion that the Obama Administration is sending weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the Obama Administration is providing weapons to the Egyptian military. Given that the Muslim Brotherhood holds power in Egypt, this would seem like a contradiction; in point of fact, however, following the Free Officers Coup of 1952, the Egyptian military has existed as an entity unto itself. Since 1952, Egypt has been ruled by in turn by Gamal Abdel Nasser, then Anwar Sadat, and finally Hosni Mubarak, the latter of whom was deposed in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution in conjunction with the Arab Spring. All were actually military officers who wore the title of "president" despite ruling as de facto military autocrats. There have been some fundamental changes to the structure and legal character of the Egyptian government since the 2011 revolution, but the revolution - in essence - replaced the disgraced Mubarak with a Muslim Brotherhood figurehead, while leaving the military domination of the country battered but mostly intact. This has emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood, but as the protests over President Mohammed Morsi's attempts to grant himself sweeping powers, and the current ongoing protests throughout Egypt demonstrate, the Brothers' hold on power in Egypt is tenuous at best. At least for the time being, the Egyptian military remain Egypt's potential kingmakers.
Formerly allied with the Soviet Union, the Egyptian military has maintained close relations with the United States since the late 1970's. This results in part from the Camp David Accords, which settled the longstanding dispute between Egypt and Israel that followed the various Arab-Israeli wars, and especially the 1967 Six Days War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. These relations are important because, although military in nature, they serve American interests by allowing American equipment and training to influence not only the Egyptian military itself, but also the military regime. In the grand scheme, the latter may be more important, but both are important nonetheless.
One other key element informs the relationship between the Egyptian Army and the American military, and that's the concept of "military aid". The terms of the Camp David Accords required the United States to provide both Egypt and Israel with military funding, and for both nations to spend those funds on arms imports from the United States. This situation is critical, because it means that the Obama Administration is required by law to provide things like F-16 fighter aircraft and M1 Abrams main battle tanks to both Egypt and Israel - it's not something the President is doing in a bubble because of some ad hoc support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
This, of course, raises a number of questions and criticisms. For various reasons ranging from anti-Semitism, to disapproval of Israeli security policies, to the impression that Israel may not even need the aid in question, many in the States have suggested for years that America stop sending military aid to Israel. Similar criticisms, though less frequent or vocal, have been directed at Egypt's aid package; in fact, journalist Michael J. Totten has suggested that Egypt's aid money be given to Libya instead. The situation is complex, and in the wake of the Arab Spring, it may well be that a treaty signed in 1978 no longer reflects the national interests of America, Israel, Egypt, or all three. A reevaluation of the Accords may very well be in order, though the evaluators would have to tread lightly to avoid inflaming an already tense situation between the three countries. And, indeed, one could also question the manner with which President Obama has utilized the potential influence of the relationship between the United States and the Egyptian military.
There are no easy answers, but context is important. The Obama Administration, like any administration, is due plenty of criticism for its various policies. However, those in the commentariat should be careful, and above all precise, should they elect to criticize the President and his subordinates for continuing a policy that was upheld by five prior administrations. In fact, with President Obama's stated goal of sweeping regulations on firearms ownership and his national defense policies, one might even conjecture that President Obama would discontinue military aid to Egypt if he thought he could do so. Regardless, for all of the criticism leveled at President Obama for allegedly violating American laws, it seems hypocritical to level accusations at him for upholding one.
No comments:
Post a Comment