Cash flow in military assitance to Egypt
This is a very detailed and interesting piece describing how U.S. military aid is much more complicated than is currently being described. While I certainly agree that American foreign aid is critical to maintaining security in parts of the world as well as being good and compassionate policy, it is troubling that we are providing very few avenues of cutting off aid and military assistance when it could be argued that we should. I do not like how we are essentially forced to honoring military and defense contracts with countries whose stability and security is not always guaranteed. This article points out that numerous high ranking officials have expressed concerns that the government can’t force the suspension or cancellation of military orders. We can’t put American weapons at risk of going to nations that become repressive in their policies towards certain citizens in their respective countries.
We should have a policy which states that even if the U.S. government does not declare a situation in which a military takes over a country as a coup, as in Egypt, we should still be able to at the very least review and possibly suspend parts or all aid and military assistance to nations that take an undemocratic turn and only resume normal operations once situations on the ground improve to a level of confidence in a democratic and transparent government.
This story also highlights a disturbing trend that shows the influence that big defense firms and contractors have on American policy. The cash flow financing could be dealt with much easier if we did not have to be concerned with the massive profits that are to be had by major companies and instead just worry about whether providing weapons to unstable countries was a good idea or not. We should reduce the role of these companies as much as possible.