You certainly present a reasoned position, though I am not in full agreement with it.
/////////////
////////////
We need to do something better than sending money to untrustworthy “allies”.
/////////////////////
First, define “untrustworthy,” please. Second: Please show how the Egyptians have been untrustworthy since the days of Jimmy Carter. (Hint: They haven’t been, until Obama helped put MB thug Mursi in power a year or so ago. Obama thanked loyal US ally Mubarak by throwing him under the bus.)
Obama has been stirring these things up since he took office, going around the globe preaching his phoney narrative, proclaiming the end of a Christian America and supposedly promoting a new relationship with Islam while covertly smuggling arms to dangerous people, and doing so without Congressional authorization.
//////////////
True, but his support is for the MB, whom al-Sissi is trying to crush. Further, the case with Egypt is not one of covert arms smuggling, as far as anyone knows at this point.
Sending money and arms to these guys is complete idiocy.
////////////
Correction: Sending money and arms to Mursi and the MB thugs is complete idiocy. Sending arms and money to al-Sissi, who is intent on subduing the MB thugs makes sense for both short- and long-term US interests.
The same money and arms will be used not only to kill Coptics but also Americans.
////////////
Not tracking with you here at all: If MB thugs get money/arms, I agree that they would use them to kill Americans, but not if al-Sissi gets the arms/money.
Don’t trust that this administration isn’t arming both sides. Look what happened in Beghazi and in Mexico.
/////////////
Interesting thought, but not convinced this is true, as al-Sissi will not even take Obama’s calls at this point!
If the military-backed regime wants our help, it should take the form of us going in and decimating the enemy.
////////////
Could not disagree more. They Egyptian Army is large and well-trained and well-equipped (by Arab standards, anyway), and they do not need our troops on the ground. We just need to get out of the way and let them clean house.
And we should pay for our damage to the Coptics and other Christians there by offering protection, asylum, and financial aid for them to rebuild or relocate.
/////////////
Agree with the asylum part, but, if we do not send troops into Egypt, we will not damage the Copts.
Why not arm the Coptics rather than the military? Why not give aid directly to them?
//////////////
Not sure this idea comports with realities on the ground in Egypt. The minority Copts are not about to start organized armed resistance to the majority Muslims. The Copts are generally well educated and are not usually prone to violence (other than when directly attacked by Muslims).
And whatever action is taken needs to be done legally and constitutionally. It is bad enough when a Republican president pushes the boundraries of executive authority. It is much worse when a Democrat one aspires to operate like a dictator.
/////////
Not sure what you are talking about: Egypt has been a major recipient of duly Congressionally-authorized US foreign aid since at least the Jimmy Carter Administration, from what I can gather. Is Ted Cruz just now discovering this point? (I doubt it.) If he were criticizing it only on Constitutional grounds, he should have been doing so since the day he was sworn in, as the issue considerably predates his Senate tenure. Moreover, to be logically and morally consistent (from a strictly Constitutional perspective), he should be calling for an end to all foreign aid, not merely aid to Egypt.
I do agree though that bringing the persecution of Christians to light is an important part of fixing the problem. Liberals don’t want this to come out because it will end something they support. They just don’t want it to be known they support it.
/////////////
Your last paragraph is, in my view, your best. No disagreement there. Excellent points! We can agree on this much, at least.
The laws which allow funds to go to Egypt, as I understand it, are the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (amended in 2004) and the Arms Export Acts. I believe the most current summary is here:
http://transition.usaid.gov/policy/ads/faa.pdf
My understanding is that around the beginning of the year Obama gave Egypt over a billion dollars worth of sophisticated weapons tech. I am not thoroughly familiar with the law but think that even though Egypt is defined as an ally, due to the military coup the president is required to suspend aid because it could be used to fight a war rather than being spent for general aid and defense. Further, I do not think this tech was legal to even sell (let alone give) to Egypt without Congressional approval. And finally I think it is required to be demilitarized when transferred.
You made some good points and I think I am out of my depth on the legalities here, but when you consider the covert gun smuggling that this administration got caught red-handed with, I have little doubt that the flow of illegal arms is going on all over the world with this administration’s support and blessing.
I think he instigated the coup to destabilize the region, promoting Arab Spring and similar uprisings, and then dumped the latest weapon technology and billions of resources we cannot afford into the hands of very dangerous people.
Even if I am wrong on this I think it is wrongheaded for some around here to be quick to throw Cruz under the bus. He is human and will make mistakes. That is my biggest reason for interjecting. Given the respective track records of Obama and Cruz, I would defer to Cruz every time.
If a true conservative had been elected president in the past two elections I suspect the turmoil in Egypt may have been avoided.
Prayers for the Egyptian Christians.