The US should suspend foreign aid to Egypt.

CONCLUSIONIn spite of all the rhetoric, Pro's argument is simple: killing people is bad, Egypt has killed people, therefore U.S. Aid to Egypt should be withdrawn as punishment. Would that the world were so straightforward that such laudable sentiments were the beginning and end of U.S. foreign policy. Regrettably, the world is complex and dangerous and good foreign policy requires consideration of consequences.Above all other considerations, U.S. foreign policy must weigh the benefits and consequences to the people of the United States. However contemptible the deaths of Egyptian citizens, those lives are the responsibility of Egypt and must weigh lightly in the balance against U.S. interests. U.S. policy does and of a right ought to make U.S. interests in the region our priority. Our primary interests are *The security of U.S. citizens in the Middle East*The security of U.S. defense and corporate infrastructure in the Middle East*Peace between Egypt and Israel as the foundation of Israeli security*Privileged access through the Suez Canal, especially for the Navy and the transportation of oilOf secondary importance, (but still important) is U.S. support for emergent democracies in the region. Far down the list is the preservation of the lives of political factions who despise U.S. interests and work against the above goals. President Obama has condemned the violence against the Muslim Brotherhood, and the U.S. would do well to leave our response at condemnation only. Cutting off U.S. aid to Egypt would work against all of the above priorities and would have little impact on the actions of the Egyptian military, who feel they must suppress the MB in order to maintain any hope for democracy.Con has asked for, and Pro has failed to provide, any evidence that the removal of aid might promote U.S. interests in the region. Nor did Pro make any defense of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood or explain why he insists on action against this coup while ignoring Morsi's coup of November 2012. Instead, Pro has worked at countering Con's evidence without maintaining any consistent line of argument against aid.When Con asserted that U.S. Aid was best seen as a bribe for peace, Pro demanded "qualified sources" in Round3. Con provided those sources in Round3, which Pro now rejects with a wave of his hand: "so a lot of other people agree with [Con]."Pro goes on to note that the Egyptian military is close to Israel, which supports Cons argument that U.S. aid is working to maintain peace.Pro states that he is "not arguing the army should give up power," but he is arguing that we should remove a third of that military's funding. Pro apparently sees no connection between money and power, but Con thinks the majority would argue otherwise.Pro argues the U.S. must not consider Egypt a viable threat to peace in the region because we give them aid. Giving aid to a potential enemy, he argued, would be as unthinkable as giving bombs to al Qaeda. When Con pointed out the U.S. already gives bombs to al Qaeda, Pro lost his train of thought and returned to "killing people is bad." The truth is that peace between Israel and Egypt is fragile. In August 2011, Palestinians attacked Israel across Egypt's border attempting to provoke a conflict.[1] In August 2012, Jihadis invaded an Egyptian base then attacked Israel using Egyptian equipment. In both cases, the Egyptian military coordinated with Israel to put down the invaders. If the Egyptian military's position was weakened or undermined by the removal of aid, the risk of war increases substantially.Pro seems to believe that U.S. can unilaterally remove one portion of the Camp David Accords (U.S. Aid) without doing damage to rest of the accord, since aid is only a small part of the treaty. The aid, however, is what the Egyptian military gets out of the deal. Why, for example, would Egypt continue to provide expedited passage through the Suez for U.S. Naval and U.S. oil barges if they're not getting anything in return? Why should the Egyptian military lose lives protecting the Israeli border from incursion if there's nothing in it for them? Pro may be fuzzy on the "bribe for peace" concept, but the Egyptian military is not. Furthermore, why would the Egyptians continue to remain in contact with U.S. counterparts if the U.S. removes motive? Does Pro really believe the Secretary of Defense and General el-Sissi are simply hanging out together? No, they are discussing shared interests that disappear when the money goes away. Pro seems to believe that it is possible to remove the base of a pyramid without eroding the structure above. U.S. Aid to Egypt is the base of U.S. influence in the Middle East, it cannot be removed without damaging that influence.In round2, Pro agreed that preventing Russian & Chinese influence was "a good argument for aid" but that he did not think "Egypt would run back to Russian because of the U.S. cutting off its aid." By round4, Pro has decided that Russian & Chinese "is not necessarily a bad thing" and anyway, why bother. The answer to why bother is that the Russians and the Chinese are less interested in the preservation of Israel. Also, were those countries to inherit U.S. privileged shipping rights, American oil companies and American Navies would be at significant strategic disadvantage. Further, all of that military aid money essentially commits Egypt to buying from American manufacturers. When the money is cut, American jobs are lost. When Obama first floated the notion of suspending aid in the spring of 2012, the State Dept. objected that suspending $1.3 billion in foreign aid would actually cost the U.S. $2billion in cancelled contracts with companies like Lockheed-Martin and General Dynamics [3]Pro further promotes Con's argument by offering additional priorities that should supersede the killing of Muslim Brotherhood protesters as valid causes for the suspension of aid. Pro admits these are "better reasons" but argues that this one (killing Brotherhood members) is not less valid. Yes, con argues, yes it less valid because those killings do not significantly impact U.S. interests. Again, let's hold off on suspension until U.S. interests are at stake.In his conclusion, Con returns to the over-simple moral argument: "right side of history." Con argues that cutting off aid would "lessen the horrors," but fails to demonstrate how. Con states that cutting aid is a "win-win" but has not identified one winner, much less two winners, much less what has been won. The Egyptian military loses money, the U.S. loses influence, who are these winners Pro speaks of? Russia and China? Con's argument is small picture and small focus. Violence equals reprisal. Just as Con forgot about the Yom Kippur War, Con forgets about Morsi's coup in November 2012, forgets which faction has a proven record of supporting democracy and which wants war with Syria, war with Israel, eventual war with the United States. U.S. foreign policy requires big picture thinking with clarity of purpose. The purpose of U.S. policy is to promote U.S. interests, not to punish governments for injustices (especially since the U.S. foreign policy track record is not particularly just and we'd only seem like hypocrites). Egypt has the largest army in Africa and the greatest influence on Arab thought in the Middle East. Even if the Egyptian people do not embrace U.S. policies, maintaining peace and a rational dialogue with Egyptian leaders is clearly in the best interest of U.S. as well as those Egyptians striving for a free, secular Egypt. The U.S. has no compelling motive to risk or damage a peaceful and profitable 35 year contract. Thanks to Pro for a good debate. VOTE CON![1]http://www.jpost.com...[2]http://www.aljazeera.com...[3]http://www.nytimes.com...