Open Email to Sen. McCain (AZ):
Dear Sen. McCain,
Thank you for your recent form letter on Egypt, in response to my email of 9/11.
Congratulations on your decision that the United States must suspend assistance to Egypt and that you have also urged President Obama to suspend U.S. assistance.
Although we agree on an excellent conclusion, we strongly differ on the reasons, and I will review these one at a time from your form letter.
You want to withhold giving Egypt money because of the undemocratic practices of the Morsi government.
Poor reason! I say we should never have been giving Egypt money in the first place , and secondly, what right do you have to tell the Egyptian people or government that they must have Democratic practices?
You also want to withhold money, because there has been a coup to unseat Pres. Morsi. Poor reason!
I say you have no responsibility or authority to determine whether the Egyptian military is justified in a coup or not. It is not any of your business.
You want to withhold money, because civilians are being massacred in Egypt.
I say you likely don't understand what all the issues are and have no reason to take sides. Again, it is none of your business. Do you believe it is your responsibility to spend US taxpayer money on every situation of injustice or contrivance that you come across in the world? Presumably, this has been true in the past, which is part of why we are facing a US government of insolvency.
You say you want to restore our relationship and assistance role [to Egypt], which has historically served U.S. national security interests.
Baloney! I say the US has almost no national security interests in Egypt. If you believe it has, please specify what those national security interests are? In the absence of your comments, I will speculate a bit on what you might believe. We need to stabilize Middle East politics. It can't be done, and it's none of our business. The Egyptians will invade the United States or use an atomic bomb on us. No way!. The Egyptians help us to defend Israel. How? We need access to the Suez Canal to maintain international traffic. Here, you are right on! But, we don't do that by buying Egyptian goodwill. We do it by threat of the use of force through seizing the Canal with our Navy and Marines. With that threat, which involves no payment to Egypt other than standard fees for use of the canal, the Egyptians will be well satisfied to let canal traffic continue. In addition, they will be happy for the external promise of indirect support in the event that one of their neighbors might have designs on canal control.
Lastly you say that whether in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, or the wider region, the failure of the Obama Administration to use our influence to shape events in this critical part of the world has only diminished our credibility, limited our influence, and constrained our policy options. The events now unfolding in the Middle East will directly impact the national security interests of the United States, and we should not remain disengaged.
I say it is not up to the Obama administration or to you to shape events in the Middle East. Our credibility, influence, and policy options are not increased by meddling. These items are increased by showing bystanding strength with military and naval forces ready to engage when some specific event actually occurs affects our our national security interests. Keep in mind that your definition of our national security interests is likely much broader than mine. I would consider military action would only be necessary to maintain access to the Suez Canal, support Israel in the event of an attack, eliminate terrorist headquarters and training camps and eliminate the ability to produce a nuclear weapon and/or rockets for deliverance.
Dear Sen. McCain,
Thank you for your recent form letter on Egypt, in response to my email of 9/11.
Congratulations on your decision that the United States must suspend assistance to Egypt and that you have also urged President Obama to suspend U.S. assistance.
Although we agree on an excellent conclusion, we strongly differ on the reasons, and I will review these one at a time from your form letter.
You want to withhold giving Egypt money because of the undemocratic practices of the Morsi government.
Poor reason! I say we should never have been giving Egypt money in the first place , and secondly, what right do you have to tell the Egyptian people or government that they must have Democratic practices?
You also want to withhold money, because there has been a coup to unseat Pres. Morsi. Poor reason!
I say you have no responsibility or authority to determine whether the Egyptian military is justified in a coup or not. It is not any of your business.
You want to withhold money, because civilians are being massacred in Egypt.
I say you likely don't understand what all the issues are and have no reason to take sides. Again, it is none of your business. Do you believe it is your responsibility to spend US taxpayer money on every situation of injustice or contrivance that you come across in the world? Presumably, this has been true in the past, which is part of why we are facing a US government of insolvency.
You say you want to restore our relationship and assistance role [to Egypt], which has historically served U.S. national security interests.
Baloney! I say the US has almost no national security interests in Egypt. If you believe it has, please specify what those national security interests are? In the absence of your comments, I will speculate a bit on what you might believe. We need to stabilize Middle East politics. It can't be done, and it's none of our business. The Egyptians will invade the United States or use an atomic bomb on us. No way!. The Egyptians help us to defend Israel. How? We need access to the Suez Canal to maintain international traffic. Here, you are right on! But, we don't do that by buying Egyptian goodwill. We do it by threat of the use of force through seizing the Canal with our Navy and Marines. With that threat, which involves no payment to Egypt other than standard fees for use of the canal, the Egyptians will be well satisfied to let canal traffic continue. In addition, they will be happy for the external promise of indirect support in the event that one of their neighbors might have designs on canal control.
Lastly you say that whether in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, or the wider region, the failure of the Obama Administration to use our influence to shape events in this critical part of the world has only diminished our credibility, limited our influence, and constrained our policy options. The events now unfolding in the Middle East will directly impact the national security interests of the United States, and we should not remain disengaged.
I say it is not up to the Obama administration or to you to shape events in the Middle East. Our credibility, influence, and policy options are not increased by meddling. These items are increased by showing bystanding strength with military and naval forces ready to engage when some specific event actually occurs affects our our national security interests. Keep in mind that your definition of our national security interests is likely much broader than mine. I would consider military action would only be necessary to maintain access to the Suez Canal, support Israel in the event of an attack, eliminate terrorist headquarters and training camps and eliminate the ability to produce a nuclear weapon and/or rockets for deliverance.
I fear that because of your experience
as a Vietnam prisoner of war, you look at the world and US national
interests from a distorted view point I respectfully suggest that you get off
the tendency to advocate use of military force on every little item in the world
that displeases you.
No comments:
Post a Comment