:strip_icc(1)/https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fpolicymic-images%2Faab82beff16dc83a53c14a5e44d3cd6bb45f9eb802ef3f2cbc93f20d023ce646.jpg)
Cutting Aid to Egypt Signals a Big Strategic Shift For ObamaThe decision to withdraw military aid to Egypt should be hailed as a victory for a more conscientious and appropriate American grand strategy. For too long, the U.S. has been policing the world with a puffed-up chest. This move is more than a slight, calibrated adjustment, but a signal that President Obama intends to change course entirely. It shifts the emphasis of American foreign policy away from “Do as I say, not as I do” at the point of a gun and towards a more honest, morally defensible, and humble posture.
Indeed, the symbolic power of this move outweighs the on-the-ground Realpolitik results. Some may argue that we cannot afford to lose our leverage with a country’s military as important as Egypt’s. Indeed, this is an unfortunate side effect of cancelling this deal. However, going through with arms shipments is a mere band-aid solution to the greater crisis of legitimacy in the country and other countries in the region. If the U.S. gets too comfortable with a government that owes its existence to a military coup, we will continue our unfortunate tradition of trampling our own name in the mud.
Obama, for his part, is absolutely right to stay out of the affairs of the Egyptians and take a wait-and-see approach to the situation. The cancelling of the trade of these arms should be seen not as an active move in opposition to the standing government of Egypt but as a sort of “reset” in which all matters are on the table for renegotiation. It is a recognition of the fact that immense political shock has just occurred in Egypt and it is time to tread lightly, rather than blindly assume that the status quo is still the way. It would be hypocritical for the U.S. to ignore the outcome of a fair and free election as being the ultimate legitimating device.
This path that Obama has started down is consonant with the rest of his stated and implied grand strategic approach to international affairs. Ultimately, he is signalling that the U.S. is no longer in the business of international security and that our allies can no longer count on us to blindly deliver security regardless of the particular circumstances. This adjustment, a large step back, sets us on a sustainable path toward the future and allows us more flexibility to ignore crises in which we don’t have a stake and intervene where we do. If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove nothing else, it is that the U.S. is bad at judging its own best interests abroad with a “maximalist” approach.
It’s time for a “minimalist” approach in which we focus on our strengths, export our culture, and support legitimate democracies everywhere. This isn’t to say that military threats have no role in foreign policy. Rather, we should be in complete control of those threats. Giving weapons to others is tantamount to turning over our hard power to others and letting them do what they will, whether we approve or not. This is reckless and counter productive.
Image Credit: AP
Source: WSWS
Obama for the first time in his Wednesday press conference went on record in supporting a short-term increase in the debt ceiling, saying, “If they can’t do it for a long time, do it for the period of time in which these negotiations are taking place.”
As the October 17 deadline for raising the US government’s borrowing limit approaches, both sides are zeroing in on their real goals: a “Grand Bargain” to make sweeping cuts to social programs, while lowering corporate taxes.
Obama reiterated that the Democrat-controlled Senate has already passed a budget at funding levels demanded by Republicans, and that “we’re willing to have conversations about anything.” He added, “I will sit down and work with anyone of any party, not only to talk about the budget; I’ll talk about ways to improve the health care system … I’ll talk about ways that we can shrink our long-term deficits.” This is Washington-speak for cutting social programs.
Obama added, “If anybody doubts my sincerity about that, I’ve put forward proposals in my budget to reform entitlement programs for the long haul and reform our tax code in a way that would … lower rates for corporations.”
Leaders of both parties had been angling for such a deal during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, but such a sweeping agreement proved elusive. Instead, the White House and Congressional Republicans approved a more limited series of cuts that largely left Social Security and Medicare intact.
Obama made a stark admission of his broader goals in the debt negotiations during the press conference, when, in response to a reporter’s question, he said, “Whenever I see John Boehner to this day, I still say, you should have taken the deal that I offered you back then, which would have dealt with our long-term deficit problems, would not have impeded growth as much, would have really boosted confidence.”
