While, as a conservative-libertarian, I am no fan of Foreign Aid, I believe in this case that suspending it would be a grave error. Denying the Egyptian military as much as 20% of their annual budget may well be the difference between seeing the country fall to Islamist rule and seeing Egypt continue as an integral, democratic partner in the Middle East. We CANNOT afford to cede another country to Islamist rule.
While this might seem to be a political flip-flop on the part of myself (and many other conservatives), I believe it actually shows the importance of governing on a situation-by-situation basis. Adhering to blanket ideologies has no place in the real world, whether you’re running a business or a country.
Where most real world conservatives have a problem with foreign aid is in its year-after-year dole out. Personally I hate the idea of sending billions to countries all over the planet regardless of whether or not there is anything going on there that is important to either the US Economy or National Security. But I have a lot less of a problem with sending money temporarily to a country that is clearly dealing with a threat that DOES effect our national security. Strategic alliances have a long tradition in the world. France, Spain and the Netherlands all supported us during the American Revolution and America may never have been without those alliances.
Islamists have the potential to start World War III, and if we continue to placate them and even help to put them in power, we are going to be dealing with an unparalleled global crisis and we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Here’s more on this from THE DAILY CALLER.
“A military coup in Egypt yesterday resulted in the removal and imprisonment of the elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a closure of media outlets sympathetic to him, the house arrest of his advisors, and the suspension of the constitution. The military that overthrew Morsi is the main recipient of the $1.3 billion yearly US aid package to Egypt. You could say that the US ‘owns’ the Egyptian military that just overthrew its democratically-elected leader. ” – Ron Paul
This is one reason that I diverge from Ron Paul (and his son, Rand) and have a hard time supporting him. I love his fiscal policies and his attitude on government transparency, but his foreign policy throws me for a loop. The Egyptian people (and the military) just ousted a dangerous Islamist ideologue who was quickly consolidating power and threatening the destruction of Egyptian society. Under his rule, Christians, who have existed peacefully in Egypt for generations, were being murdered in the streets in horrific ways, political opponents and critical journalists were being charged with crimes and jailed, and repressive laws like those of other Islamist states were being introduced, but all Mr. Paul can do is criticize the fact that a democratically elected president was overthrown. So what if that elected leader’s policies were looking more and more like that of the dictatorship he was elected to replace, so what if his allies were a cult of death-obsessed radicals and the sworn enemies of humanity, he was democratically elected. That’s all that matters. Under Ron Paul’s leadership the forces of Radical Islam would be left unchecked and the world would be facing an extremely grave situation (WWIII?) within a generation.
That is all. For now. Happy Independence Day.