Made in the USA
by Nicholas Posted on February 3, 2011 in Socials and tagged Egypt, MAD, tear gas, USA
This is a post in response to everybody who blogged about the tear-gas canisters that were “made in the USA”, specifically, Derek, Lexi and Clayton.
First of I’d like to say that, for the most part, I disagree with you. I really don’t see a problem with the Egyptian military/police using tear gas to control the crowds. My view is such because they really don’t have any other effective options for crowd control and from preventing things from getting out of hand. Would you rather they use hand grenades instead? Exactly. I’d also like to point out that, the police and military are only acting upon order from their superiors, and if they were to disagree with those orders, then they would be punished, severely and then all of a sudden their means of putting food on their families table has gone up in smoke. I’m not trying to say that the protesters deserve to have tear gas shot at them, after all, they only want control over their country, but it’s better that the military shoots tear gas than live ammunition at them.
On a much larger scale, I don’t think that the US is the bad buy for helping out Egypt with its military by exporting weapons and helping them out financially. I believe that, opposite to some views, the US is actually promoting peace by helping out Egypt (albeit in a round about way). The reason I think this is due to a concept called MAD or mutually assured destruction. I won’t go into detail, but basically MAD is the concept that, if you have I have a big gun, and you have a big gun, then neither of us will use our respective guns against each other because we’ll end up destroying ourselves. This hold true with Egypt. If Egypt had a extremely weak military, then other, less than friendly nations in the surrounding area would view it as easy and profitable to conquer. Thus, the US has potentially helped preserve peace by making sure that Egypt can defend itself and therefore, prevent an invasion and needless bloodshed.
P.S. I would like to thank Kelsey, David, Daniel, Andrew, Donya, Sepehr, Veronica, Derek, Lexi, Clayton Richard, Stephanie, Conrad and Johnathan for including a picture with their Egypt related post.
February 4th, 2011 12:51 AM
This is definitely the diplomatic reasoning behind the US support of Egypt – and to a larger extent Israel: that by supporting regimes in the Middle East that are ‘friendly’ to US interests, and willing to promote a relative peace in the region, America, and the world, will be safer.
The unintended (or infrequently mentioned) consequence of American and Western support of ‘peaceful’ (perhaps more appropriately: ‘stable’) dictators such as Mubarak, among others is the havoc often wreaked upon the civilian populations in these countries, inciting mass demonstrations, political violence and the brutal suppression of human rights.
Some argue that these conditions are the cause of extremists and terrorism – as it is difficult to separate American foreign policy from prolonged conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other countries.
One wonders which way American support will direct itself if the Egyptian, and other regimes around the Middle East and in other parts of the world, begin to demand fair and equal treatment beyond what the US has deemed them worthy for nearly a generation.
I don’t know the answer to the above, and I think even lifelong scholars would be hard pressed to make a prediction that won’t be made absurd by even tomorrow’s evening news. But it is somewhere in this blur of trying to discern right from wrong in a complex and quickly changing world that studying and discussing these sorts of events makes for a powerful realtime exploration of our better (and worse) natures.
Keep asking good questions, Nick.
Mr. J
February 4th, 2011 12:58 AM
Hey Nick,
Great post. I agree with a lot of the points you made. Your concept of MAD sounds a lot like the Cold War did. Since both the US and Russia kept on stockpiling nuclear weapons, neither of them fired because they were scared of the equally terrible retribution from the other side. Actually, it seems to me that this holds countries accountable. If there are other countries who are as big and as powerful as the US, the US will be less eager to throw their weight around in political and military arenas. I think that that’s also where the concept of communism comes from. By having everyone be equals, no one is any better or worse than the others (supposedly). I think that what most countries want isn’t superiority, it’s just equality.
Honestly though, amazing post. Totally agree with everything you said!!!
-Andrew
February 4th, 2011 3:05 PM
I totally agree with you Nick. Better to send people home with irritated eyes via teargas then to send them home in a coffin via live ammunition. Great post.
February 4th, 2011 6:51 PM
American aid to Egypt is the second largest amount of aid they give to any nation, an amount in excess of $1.4 billion dollars a year, not counting billions more in loans. The largest benefactor of their aid, is of course, Israel.
It may seem an odd thing, considering that Egypt and Israel have fought four wars since 1948, their people are generally opposed to each other, and until the Camp David Accords, Egypt did not recognize Israel’s right to exist. But the flow of American money is meant to stabilize Egypt and that it has – for thirty years Egypt has fought no war, and indeed has not even had a regime change. As Mubarak, a former military man, receives all this monetary aid, he has channeled the money into the military, which certainly contributed to stability. But how did it do this?
Money can create stability in two ways: through investment in the economy and social programs to keep the people happy and self-sufficient, or through investment in the military and other security forces to keep order for a discontented people. There are times when the second option is preferable – like, say, Israel in 1948 – but generally, the first option is the best thing to do. Egypt was not really particularly threatened by any of its neighbours, and even Israel, the most controversial power in the region, is very unlikely to attack a major Arab power, for obvious reasons. So the question then must be asked, should the American aid go to buy tear gas canisters, used only to suppress protesters, or should it go to create jobs and a livelihood for thousands of people? What do you think?
February 4th, 2011 6:56 PM
I thank you Nick for seconding my opinion on this tear gas dilemma. If you want to check out what I said go to Dereks blog up at your link
. I would also like to point out in Clatyon’s defense that he is on your side in this argument.
February 7th, 2011 10:50 PM
This looks like an interesting read along the lines of the question Liam is posing:
“In the first 11 months of its Iraq deployment, the Fourth Infantry Division’s Third Brigade Combat Team spent $72 million on public works projects in just one Baghdad suburb. That’s roughly equivalent to one year of U.S. foreign aid to the entire country of Botswana, but merely a rounding error in the U.S. military’s massive outlay of development dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Armed Humanitarians, freelance defense correspondent Nathan Hodge sets out to explain how and why the Pentagon embraced the once-dreaded business of nation-building, and the “tectonic shift” that this new mission portends for American foreign policy. Hint: It’s not good news.
“During the late 1990s, Pentagon theorists such as Thomas Barnett called for the military to develop its ability to cope with “gap” states—those that were not plugged into the world economy, and were therefore more prone to wars and humanitarian crises. The tremendous resources available to the military’s regional commanders had already given them de facto control over U.S. policy in many global hot spots. It took the exigencies of 21st-century conflict, however, to overcome the military’s reluctance to make school building, road fixing, and power generating a part of war fighting. Confronted in Afghanistan and Iraq by the absence or collapse of any functioning state, blooming insurgencies, and a State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) unable and unwilling to engage in nation-building under fire, the U.S. military stepped into the breach.”
http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/blog/index.cfm/Current_Books/2011/2/7/masters-of-peace
May 27th, 2011 7:42 AM
I agree with you. America’s constant support, using the citizens’ money to provide monetary funding is meant to stabilize these warring nations. By stabilizing these conflicting countries, world peace is somehow achieved. I cannot perceive what will happen if war breaks out again and Muslim countries will take sides! It will be the worst war in history.
June 26th, 2011 4:00 AM
Tear gas would definitely be much more acceptable than hand grenades! I’m just sad that that kind of trouble happened in Egypt, I just wish peace on Earth!