I spent last year working as a Defense contractor in Baghdad in support of a Colonel in a planning shop. An anecdote that I heard on various occasions that was used to bolster the argument for Security Assistance and Security Cooperation between the United States and Iraqi militaries was that similar assistance was given to Egyptian forces for years. Many of the Egyptian generals had gone to American military schools, they had worked closely with American officers, and they understand the American military values. And, of course, they received a lot of cash to modernize their military equipment. This is why, so went the anecdote, that as President Mubarrak was being toppled, the military did not obey the flailing leader´s orders to crush the opposition. The Egyptian military, grounded in American military values and thinking, simply would not fire on its own civilians.
Fast foward a year later and that anecdote has been clearly put to rest. What is going on in Egypt is unjustifiable. This is one of the worst government-on-civlian massacres we have seen in modern times. I caught a glimpse of some of the footage of the crackdown on Moroccan TV, the kind of footage that doesn´t make it on American news programs, and needlessly to say it was horrifying. Yes, the United States has cancelled a join military excercise with Egypt, and, yes, those kinds of events do matter. But the tragedies that are taking place in Egypt warrant a cancellation of any kind of American assistance.
Which brings me to Rand Paul. Here are a few opinions that the conservative movement should grapple with.
1. The Kentucky Senator does not believe in Security Assistance in general, as far as I can tell. On this, he is wrong. Security Assistance is cheap and is often effective. Even in Egypt´s case, they are neighbors with Israel, a close ally of the United States. Spending $1.3 billion a year (a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things) on the Egyptian military buys the United States government influence. Cancelling that money will have consequences, many of which are not know to those of us in the broader public. These kinds of questions are not simple.
2. While Paul is wrong on foreign aid in general, he is right about Egpyt in particular, at least now he is right. When a government excercies terror on its own people, it ought to lose its right to American aid, period. Pragmatism goes out the window. Even Senator McCain, a long believer in foreign aid, agrees on this. I am not sure why the President does not.
3. Paul will certainly use Egpyt as a reason to push his libertarian foreign policy views on the rest of the United States. While the conservative movement ought to reject the excesses and simplistic worldview of Bush´s neoconservatism, it ought also to reject Paul´s call to retreat from world affairs. I have spent about one month since October 2011 inside the United States, but the more I live abroad, the more I believe in American values. Let´s not let the world run itself. We can´t afford to do that and we won´t like the result. We need a middle course, not neoconservatism, not libertarianism, but rather a realist foreign policy that is engaged but cautious and that promotes a world ordered on American power and influence. Rand Paul and the rest of the conservative movement should make no apology for having that kind of perspective.
4. What is at issue here is not Paul´s desire to cut the deficit by eliminating foreign aid. We all probably know that foriegn aid is about one percent of the entire budget. If Paul wanted to get the United States back to fiscal sanity, he would be leading the charge to deal with mandatory spending. He probably won´t since his own state is the ninth most dependent state on the federal government. It´s a lot easier to blast forieign aid, even though it is irrelevant to the national deficit. What is really at issue is crashing ideologies on how the United States should interact with the rest of the world. Those who disagree with the Senator ought to be able to counter Paul´s worldview without being called a neoconservative. The conservative movement needs an honest debate. We need to rethink our foreign policy views, but we don´t need to use Egypt as an excuse to retreat from all world affairs.
Fast foward a year later and that anecdote has been clearly put to rest. What is going on in Egypt is unjustifiable. This is one of the worst government-on-civlian massacres we have seen in modern times. I caught a glimpse of some of the footage of the crackdown on Moroccan TV, the kind of footage that doesn´t make it on American news programs, and needlessly to say it was horrifying. Yes, the United States has cancelled a join military excercise with Egypt, and, yes, those kinds of events do matter. But the tragedies that are taking place in Egypt warrant a cancellation of any kind of American assistance.
Which brings me to Rand Paul. Here are a few opinions that the conservative movement should grapple with.
1. The Kentucky Senator does not believe in Security Assistance in general, as far as I can tell. On this, he is wrong. Security Assistance is cheap and is often effective. Even in Egypt´s case, they are neighbors with Israel, a close ally of the United States. Spending $1.3 billion a year (a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things) on the Egyptian military buys the United States government influence. Cancelling that money will have consequences, many of which are not know to those of us in the broader public. These kinds of questions are not simple.
2. While Paul is wrong on foreign aid in general, he is right about Egpyt in particular, at least now he is right. When a government excercies terror on its own people, it ought to lose its right to American aid, period. Pragmatism goes out the window. Even Senator McCain, a long believer in foreign aid, agrees on this. I am not sure why the President does not.
3. Paul will certainly use Egpyt as a reason to push his libertarian foreign policy views on the rest of the United States. While the conservative movement ought to reject the excesses and simplistic worldview of Bush´s neoconservatism, it ought also to reject Paul´s call to retreat from world affairs. I have spent about one month since October 2011 inside the United States, but the more I live abroad, the more I believe in American values. Let´s not let the world run itself. We can´t afford to do that and we won´t like the result. We need a middle course, not neoconservatism, not libertarianism, but rather a realist foreign policy that is engaged but cautious and that promotes a world ordered on American power and influence. Rand Paul and the rest of the conservative movement should make no apology for having that kind of perspective.
4. What is at issue here is not Paul´s desire to cut the deficit by eliminating foreign aid. We all probably know that foriegn aid is about one percent of the entire budget. If Paul wanted to get the United States back to fiscal sanity, he would be leading the charge to deal with mandatory spending. He probably won´t since his own state is the ninth most dependent state on the federal government. It´s a lot easier to blast forieign aid, even though it is irrelevant to the national deficit. What is really at issue is crashing ideologies on how the United States should interact with the rest of the world. Those who disagree with the Senator ought to be able to counter Paul´s worldview without being called a neoconservative. The conservative movement needs an honest debate. We need to rethink our foreign policy views, but we don´t need to use Egypt as an excuse to retreat from all world affairs.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
1 comment:
American power needs to mean American power. That's the only thing that works. We do have a place in the world that no one else can or will fill. And it's a good thing, not bad. We should not apologize for it.
We are now reaping the whirlwind with Obama's lead from behind/no strategy at all policy. And so is the world.
I agree with everything you wrote, Pablo. And we definitely do need that debate before isolationism takes hold in the GOP.
-Martha
Post a Comment