| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |
| The Case For Ending US Military Aid To The Mideast | |
| 2013-01-11 | |
With President Barack Obama On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today... preparing for a second term and in the midst of a seeming continual swarm of uncertainty sweeping the Middle East, now more than ever is the prudent time to reexamine the decades-old policies surrounding US military aid to the Middle East. Many abroad might be shocked to hear that we write these words from here in Jerusalem where security remains the preeminent concern on the mind of most Israelis and where only weeks ago we completed an eight-day campaign defending our citizens against missile attacks. The immediate assumption by most is that Israel is in desperate need of continued military aid from our most powerful ally. Yet the facts contradict that assumption. THE REALITY is that the continuation of this policy does more to harm Israel's security than protect it. And even beyond Israeli borders, the policy is a major factor in perpetuating further regional instability in an area of the world where there are no shortages of sparks that recent events have proven can at any time burst into flames. In fiscal year 2011, the B.O. regime requested from Congress $7.1 billion in foreign aid for distribution in the Middle East. Approximately $3b. was designated as military financing for Israel, while over $4b. was earmarked as economic and military financing for Arab countries -- countries whose military programs are in large part designed to prepare for potential hostilities with Israel. Egypt, now under the authority of an Islamic government whose assurances it will maintain the peace with Israel are viewed as highly suspect, is the single largest beneficiary among Arab countries, having been allocated $1.58b. last year alone. The conventional wisdom in US foreign policy circles is that these massive financial gifts are beneficial to both the United States and the recipient countries. In fact, the policy is deemed so important that advocates contend it must be maintained even in the face of a $16 trillion national debt, a $1t. yearly budget deficit and a fast-approaching fiscal cliff. But as is often the case with government funding programs, US financial aid to the Middle East has good intentions with bad results. Most fundamentally, US military aid to the Middle East harms Israeli and regional interests by fueling an arms race that threatens to spiral out of control. Recent Israeli-produced estimates reveal that for every dollar in US aid received by Egypt, Israel must spend between $1.60 and $2.10 to maintain its qualitative military edge. Since Israel is usually granted $1.50 for every $1 in aid to Egypt, each American dollar given to Egypt costs Israel between 10 and 64 cents out of its own pocket. Of course, the net cost to Israel of US aid increases further when one takes into account the additional $1.5b. in economic and military aid transferred each year to Jordan, Leb and the Paleostinians. Since aid is well known to be fungible, it makes little difference if US assistance is packaged as economic or military aid in the congressional accounting books but only what recipients end up doing with the money -- something far more difficult to regulate. The implications of these sobering estimates are clear. EGYPT, JORDAN, Leb and the Paleostinians would clearly find it difficult to maintain the same level of military might without US aid. Without such funding, therefore, Israel would be able to significantly downsize its military capabilities and invest less of its own money defending against military threats which are remarkably financed by her closest ally. An oft-heard counter-argument is that China or Russia would step in to fill the void if the US ceased providing funds to Arab countries in the region. However, a clean conscience makes a soft pillow... China and Russia were always free to top up US aid to Egypt so that it reached parity with the higher amount provided to Israel. Yet, these countries never found it in their interest to do so. An additional argument now heard is what about the Iron Dome, the missile defense system which successfully protected millions during the recent violence with Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,. Wasn't this largely funded by US military aid? While indeed significant funds came from the US for this project, it was far more of a mutually beneficial business collaboration/investment between America and Israel than a handout. For Israel it defended our homes and our families. And for the United States it introduced a now proven defense system that will be installed in other hostility-prone zones and promote greater global security. WHILE MANY well-meaning American Jewish leaders find it difficult to reconcile with the idea that the US should no longer shower Israel (or its neighbors) with financial gifts, it is instructive to examine how Israelis themselves view the US aid policy. In August 2012, the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies conducted the first-ever Israeli national opinion poll on US aid to the Middle East. A representative sample of the Israeli Jewish population was asked, "With the emergence of the new government and leadership in Egypt, do you think that weapons purchased with US military aid are more likely or less likely to be used against Israel than in the past?" Nearly half of the respondents (49 percent) think it is more likely. There is now reliable evidence that US foreign aid to the Middle East is a costly experiment with dubious benefits. By fueling a regional arms race, the security of its residents, both Israeli and non, is threatened and the prospects for further regional economic development are hindered. There's no dismissing the irony that Israel's greatest ally is actually harming Israel's interests by funding our military but the fact is that this "generosity" is very negatively impacting on our security. A sizable percentage of the foreign policy discourse in the recent campaign was dedicated to which candidate more strongly supports the Jewish state. President Barack Obama vociferously contended that the US-Israel relationship was as tight as ever. The administration would therefore be wise to seriously consider the prospect of finally ending US military aid to our region -- an action that would bravely set a new course for foreign policy but best defend America's allies and promote the stability which the Middle East so needs at this time. | |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #11 Sorry, #9, but the DemoLeft + aligned aren't going to go for that - despite all their rants oer the decades complaining about unilateral US "imperialism" + interference in other Nations' affairs, in reality what the DemoLeft really cares about is someone else = third-parties being held accountable or responsible for same. LACK OF PERVASIVE OR PERENNIAL ANARCHY/CHAOS EITHER DOMESTICALLY ANDOR OVERSEAS = NO JUSTIFICATION FOR EVER-INCREASING DEFICIT SPENDING [aka "FREE MONEY"] + REGULATORY BIG GOVT. + ULTIMATELY THE WELFARE-NANNY STATE WHICH IS ANATHEMA TO THE DEMOLEFTIES. We see it once again now vee the new minted "Fiscal Cliff Deal" between the Bammer + Boehner - GOP-DEM FEARS AS PER SEEMING US GOVT. "DEFAULT" + BEING HELD ELECTORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME = BETTER + POLITICALLY "SAFER" TO KEEP RAISING THE DEBT CEILING + DEFICIT SPENDING + CUT LITTLE-OR-NOTHING THAN DO ANY OF THE ALTERNATIVES. As per desired OWG + OWG NAU, the Fedcritters can now add to the above hope that their fellow OWG GFU Member-States [NAU = Mexico, Canada, Greenland] will contribute enuff $$$ to the NAU to offset the US Debt Burden. IFF THE MSM-NET IS ANY MEASURE, UNFORTUNATELY FOR US FEDCRITTERS MEXICO, CANADA, GREENLAND, + THE FUTURE OWG-NWO ARE COUNTING ON THE DEBT-RIDDEN US TO BE BE THE PRIMARY PRINCIPAL IN FUNDING AS SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT PRE-OWG UNO. IOW, the US Debt Burden under OWG + OWG NAU will be much much worse, WHICH IS HOW THE PRO-ANARCHY/CHAOS DEMOLEFT LIKE IT - WHY WOULD PRO-OWG LEFTIST-GLOBALISTS OR EVEN LEFTIST-NATIONALISTS? BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THEIR COLD WAR ANTIGENY??? * 1990'S NET TO PRESENT = ALL THINGS EQUAL, "LEFTISM" IS ABOUT POWER [Power Politics/Whoring]+ WHOM GETS THE BLAME, PURE-N-SIMPLE. ANYONE + ANYTHING IS EXPENDABLE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-01-11 18:41 |
| #10 Dittos to tipper |
| Posted by: AlanC 2013-01-11 13:45 |
| #9 As a Libertarian with conservative values I'd go along with most of what he said, maybe 70-80%. Where I'd draw the line is his trying to wriggle out of aid to Israel. Israel is the point of the spear in the war against Islam. They are the Spartans in the war against Persia. Also I would encourage Israel to to get very cosy with Cyprus. Between their two countries there are massive oil fields. Then watch the Turks get their nickers in a knot. Give nothing to anyone else in the Middle East or any Muslim country. With fracking their oil is no longer needed. Any purchases would be in the nature of charity, which they can spread around the Umma to finance their eternal wars between Sunnies and Shias. |
| Posted by: tipper 2013-01-11 11:47 |
| #8 But once Israel took all the sand out of Sinai that ceased to be an option. On the other hand, a massed onslaught by elite Egyptian tank divisions would have fallen into the enormous hole left by removing the sand, so maybe it was an act of strategic genius. |
| Posted by: Fred 2013-01-11 11:20 |
| #7 The more I think about Camp David the more I think the treaty was a bad idea. The treaty provided a lull in the conflict that allowed the muslims toincrease their power demographically; time for the Pals to irritate and convince world opinion they were the wronged part and not genocidal psychos. Better to have not signed and let Egypt attack again with Israel owning the Sanai as a buffer. Carters one achievement was a set back. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2013-01-11 11:13 |
| #6 Excellent point NS. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-11 09:54 |
| #5 You may not have cared for Paul the Elder, but he built an ideological base that will be the foundation for the run of Paul the Younger who appears so much more mainstream mainly by comparison and temperament. He's going to push the GOP in a libertarian direction. Part of that will be bringing all the boys home. And if the rest of the world wants to descend into WWIII why should we pay forever to stop them? Being the last to the party can pay. Our forebearers left the rest of the world for a reason. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-01-11 09:41 |
| #4 I would add; Education Department, Department of Agriculture, IRS (employers simply send 15% of earnings to US Treasury), DHS, BATF, Social Security Administration (outsource it to Vanguard or Edward Jones), USPS (sell real estate and split evening between FedEx, DHL, and UPS). |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-11 07:44 |
| #3 Bring ALL the Military home, and watch the Budget Miracously "Balance That was done during the twenties and the thirties then came the forties. I have a better solution: disband the EPA and similar parasites and you will balance the budget without WWIII. |
| Posted by: JFM 2013-01-11 04:32 |
| #2 Never cared much for Paul the elder, but this young buck makes a lot of sense. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-01-11 02:38 |
| #1 Bring ALL the Military home, and watch the Budget Miracously "Balance". |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2013-01-11 00:42 |