Bentway, Obama supported the democratically elected leader, Morsi. Now, he's supporting the non-democratic public ouster of Morsi, and says he'll support whoever they put up next. What would you have him do? Reports are that Morsi quickly became unpopular, though the subsequent coup by the military isn't exactly something that can be supported in principle. Everyone knows, however, that Morsi helped usher in the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and they are well-known for supporting terrorism and Islamic extremism.
AFAIK, the only reason why we continue to give aid and support to whomever is in power there is because we need Egypt to keep its promises with regard to Israel. However, it isn't clear whose "side" we're on in this conflict. Before, we were on Morsi's side, and now we're on the military's side. (How that can even be considered an "achievement" by Obama defenders is beyond me, but that's beside the point now.)
By the way, the Obama administration reportedly is continuing as if nothing has changed. They even refuse to call the ouster of Morsi by the military a "coup." Acting as if nothing happened is the default choice in these matters but also shows a clear lack of leadership.
Priorities have to be made here. We can no longer rely on Egypt as a stabilizing force in the region, so I say let's cut off aid until they can get their act together. If whoever they put up next promises to uphold the conditions for aid, then we'll resume it. Until then, we cannot choose sides in this conflict because quite frankly neither side is advancing America's interests.
Tenchusatsu |
