Three Justifications for US Military Aid to Egypt (and Why They're All Wrong)

An Egyptian Humvee passes through a blockade in Cairo

Following the repressive measures taken by the Egyptian military toward the Muslim Brotherhood, I argued that it was time for President Obama to at least put a hold on military aid to that country. But why does Egypt receive that kind of support in the first place? Below is a quick overview of the primary justifications for the program.

First, some numbers. Since 1978, Egypt has received a regular sum of $1.3 billion in military aid annually. This puts it as the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel. The Congressional Research Service estimates that total aid to Egypt--military and other--totals $71 billion since 1948.

There are three primary aims for the aid provided: stability, influence, and domestic support.

1) Stability -- The aid is explicitly targeted at maintaining the peace accords between Egypt and Israel concluded under President Jimmy Carter at Camp David. Successive administrations have concluded that continuation of the aid has been useful in keeping the generals quiescent and Israel free from attacks from state actors.

2) Influence -- The aid supplied, in addition to deep engagement between the two militaries in the form of war games and officer exchanges, is thought to not only keep the military from pursuing belligerent policy, but to instill in it a degree of American values and professionalism.

3) Domestic Support -- The aid is structured in such a way that the vast majority of expenditures wind up back in the U.S. The reason you’ll see M1 Abrams tanks sitting in the streets of Cairo these days is because the aid makes up almost 80% of Egypt’s weapons procurement, and they are obligated to turn to American suppliers. Keynesian though such stimulus may be, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have embraced the spending as promoting American manufacturing.

Do these justifications pan out? The events of the past months suggest otherwise.

The strongest of the three, the assertion that the aid brings Egyptian power-brokers into line with American interests and values, has been utterly trashed in the bloody wake of the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. While Army forces did not appear to lead the charge, it was entirely the will of the generals that Egyptian security forces commit the slaughter. The counter-revolution has begun and woe to those who stand against it. But is this reason enough to end the aid? What about Israel’s security?

Honestly, I've always seen the first justification as ridiculous on its face. In order to protect an ally from aggression, we bribe the potential aggressor with high-end military hardware? What a sensible policy that couldn't possibly create the very problem it ostensibly aims to prevent. Fortunately for Israel, the truth is that an Egypt dominated by the military is unlikely to pursue belligerence in any case. Like most armies in military states, the Egyptian armed forces have their fingers in many pies. Essentially an elaborate patronage network with guns, it owns a vast array of manufactures that go beyond the basic needs of a military. The “security” it provides from states that would never conceivably attack it and guerrillas in the Sinai who oddly persist despite the army’s overwhelming superiority. The generals have zero reason to promote a conflict that would devastate their assets.

As for the stimulus to the American economy the aid provides, it would be more efficiently spent elsewhere and in a way far more in line with stated American values.

It’s time to wash our hands of the mess.