Federal government finally goes totally insane, bonkers, off the deep end.

[dogtowner]

The link I gave in the OP didn't get it wrong.
You think it's a good idea to arm Egypt? Really?

Why?

especially ehen they already have 200zf-16s ?

 

[Cruella]

The link I gave in the OP didn't get it wrong.
You think it's a good idea to arm Egypt? Really?

Why?

Some people don't realize what the Muslim Brotherhood is. They will find out.

 

[BigRob]

The link I gave in the OP didn't get it wrong.
You think it's a good idea to arm Egypt? Really?

Why?

From my previous post:

Next, Egypt is at a major crossroads. This is the time that will ultimately decide if they are pushed towards a relatively stable somewhat pro-western country, or an extremist dictatorship that promotes terrorism and destabilizes the region. Egypt is a huge player in the Middle East, and they hold a lot of sway. It is important that we make every effort to push them as much as possible towards at least some form of a stable, pro-western regime -- whatever form that takes. Politically speaking, it would be a huge win for the extremist elements in Egypt if America were to suddenly end foreign aid. They could use the issue to gain even more power, and further cast moderate elements in the country aside. It is imperative that we do not allow this to occur.

Certainly this is a gamble to an extent, and we should not focus solely on the military as a partner, or we will ultimately end up on the losing end. We need to continue to pursue partnerships with the military, but also make a big effort with the civilian leadership as well.

Not to mention, we should remember that Egypt is vitally important to the United States, because they control the Suez Canal -- the importance of which simply cannot be understated.

Further, yes the F-16 is a solid airplane, but simply giving a good plane to Egypt does not put them on par with someone like Israel for example. Pilot skill is very important, as well as training, the ability to get replacement parts for these aircraft, as well as conduct general maintence. I saw an argument from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in this regard that I think was spot on. It amounted to the concept that to maintain the software and munitions components you basically had to have access to US suppliers...something which further gives the United States a bargaining chip to help shape the future of Egypt.

I believe that a few F-16s are a small price to pay in an effort to push the Egyptian people and government (whatever form it ultimately ends up taking) towards a pro-western mind set. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood is horrible, but lets face it, they are basically in charge now, and Egypt is a major force in the Middle East.

Ultimately, if the choices come down to it, would you rather a US supplied (and therefore reliant on US suppliers to maintain equipment) regime, or a regime supplied elsewhere who is no longer bound by any worry of limited access to replacement parts, computer systems etc that they need to effectively run an F-16 program? I will pick the US supplied regime (regardless of their personal beliefs) everytime.

 

[BigRob]

Some people don't realize what the Muslim Brotherhood is. They will find out.

It has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood....and everything to do with trying to put ourselves in the best possible situation given realities on the ground.

 

[dogtowner]

From my previous post:


I believe that a few F-16s are a small price to pay in an effort to push the Egyptian people and government (whatever form it ultimately ends up taking) towards a pro-western mind set. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood is horrible, but lets face it, they are basically in charge now, and Egypt is a major force in the Middle East.

Ultimately, if the choices come down to it, would you rather a US supplied (and therefore reliant on US suppliers to maintain equipment) regime, or a regime supplied elsewhere who is no longer bound by any worry of limited access to replacement parts, computer systems etc that they need to effectively run an F-16 program? I will pick the US supplied regime (regardless of their personal beliefs) everytime.

how does this push egypt anywhere ? what has changed that they need a ten.percent bump ?

 

[BigRob]

how does this push egypt anywhere ? what has changed that they need a ten.percent bump ?

It doesnt alienate the moderates, and it doesn't give the fringe the ability to score a political victory over this. It also forces the military to keep a good relationship with the United States. They want replacement parts, and software packages, and everything else to make these planes actually worth anything -- and that is going to have to come from the United States. It keeps a communication line open and presents a friendly relationship with a more moderate (and extremely powerful and influencial) element in Egyptian society.

Also, in terms of a 10% bump. I am not entirely sure what you mean. This was approved in 2010. From 2001-2010, military aid to Egypt sat at a pretty steady $1.3 billion. Overall aid over that period to Egypt came down from about $2 billion in 2001 to $1.5 billion in 2010.

 

[PLC1]

From my previous post:


I believe that a few F-16s are a small price to pay in an effort to push the Egyptian people and government (whatever form it ultimately ends up taking) towards a pro-western mind set. Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood is horrible, but lets face it, they are basically in charge now, and Egypt is a major force in the Middle East.

Ultimately, if the choices come down to it, would you rather a US supplied (and therefore reliant on US suppliers to maintain equipment) regime, or a regime supplied elsewhere who is no longer bound by any worry of limited access to replacement parts, computer systems etc that they need to effectively run an F-16 program? I will pick the US supplied regime (regardless of their personal beliefs) everytime.

If the alternative is that Egypt get its fighter jets from China or Russia, then you have a good point.
If the alternative is that they don't have modern fighter jets, then that would still be the best option, IMO.

 

[dogtowner]

It doesnt alienate the moderates, and it doesn't give the fringe the ability to score a political victory over this. It also forces the military to keep a good relationship with the United States. They want replacement parts, and software packages, and everything else to make these planes actually worth anything -- and that is going to have to come from the United States. It keeps a communication line open and presents a friendly relationship with a more moderate (and extremely powerful and influencial) element in Egyptian society.

Also, in terms of a 10% bump. I am not entirely sure what you mean. This was approved in 2010. From 2001-2010, military aid to Egypt sat at a pretty steady $1.3 billion. Overall aid over that period to Egypt came down from about $2 billion in 2001 to $1.5 billion in 2010.

they have 200 f16s that they need parts etc for so that angle isnt working for me. this representd a substancial increase and you need to ask why they want them. why not require that they demonstrste worth instead of hoping they might ?

 

[BigRob]

they have 200 f16s that they need parts etc for so that angle isnt working for me. this representd a substancial increase and you need to ask why they want them. why not require that they demonstrste worth instead of hoping they might ?

Egypt has 200 F-16's that continue to require US parts...that is simply a fact. Adding 4 more (and 16 more later) does not change that in any manner, and doesn't allow the hardliners to score a political victory by saying "look, the US has abandoned us."

As for Egypt before the revolution, they continued to demonstrate their worth in many big ways, and at the time the additional F-16's was a no brainer in my book. Since the revolution, I am willing to give away a few F-16's if it means that it pushes an Egyptian government (even a hardline one) into a more moderate stance vis-a-vis the United States.

 

[Cruella]

It has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood....and everything to do with trying to put ourselves in the best possible situation given realities on the ground.

Yes it does. The only reason we gave military support to Egypt before Morsi was to reward them with keeping peace with Israel. Since Morsi has been elected, he's made it clear that he hates Israel and wants to see them destroyed.

You do know that Hammas is the military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood don't you? And they both are enemies of the United States.

 

[BigRob]

Yes it does. The only reason we gave military support to Egypt before Morsi was to reward them with keeping peace with Israel. Since Morsi has been elected, he's made it clear that he hates Israel and wants to see them destroyed.

You do know that Hammas is the military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood don't you? And they both are enemies of the United States.

The Middle East is far more nuanced than you seem to want to accept -- and more often that not operates under the same assumption I have advocated for many times on this board.

"There are no enemies, only opposing interests....there are no friends, only aligned interests."

 

[Cruella]

The Middle East is far more nuanced than you seem to want to accept -- and more often that not operates under the same assumption I have advocated for many times on this board.

"There are no enemies, only opposing interests....there are no friends, only aligned interests."

You remember that the next time we have another 9/11.

 

[BigRob]

You remember that the next time we have another 9/11.

9/11 in general kind of proves my point. A group that we once had some common ground with (ie killing Soviets), turned on us when interests changed. Such is the nature of all international relations.

 

[Cruella]

9/11 in general kind of proves my point. A group that we once had some common ground with (ie killing Soviets), turned on us when interests changed. Such is the nature of all international relations.

Oh I get it now. I don't know where you get your information, but reading about Osama's life and where he developed his radicalism might help.

 

[PLC1]

9/11 in general kind of proves my point. A group that we once had some common ground with (ie killing Soviets), turned on us when interests changed. Such is the nature of all international relations.

Yes, that's so. Isn't that more of an argument against arming people who might turn against us than it is one to keep giving away military hardware in the hopes that the recipient will be more on our side in the future?