It’s Hard Out There For An Empire

Posted by Bob Lord

Maintaining an empire becomes damn complicated. 

A case in point: The dilemma over the American Empire's aid to Egypt. 

When Obama danced around describing the Egyptian military's actions as a coup, the effect of which would to cut off the flow of aid, I figured his motivation was to preserve the profits of military contractors whose weapons would be purchased with Egypt's aid dollars. But the contractors may just be incidental beneficiaries. Egypt's military actually has real leverage here. Egypt is one of the few countries that grants the US fly over permission immediately upon request for military aircraft and also allows us access to the Suez Canal. 

Fly over rights and access to strategic waterways are invaluable tools when you're minding an empire. 

So Obama faces a Hobson's choice. If he identifies the actions of the Egyptian military as the coup that it is, thereby cutting off aid, he could lose critical empire maintenance tools. But if he continues the aid, he creates both long-term and short-term problems. In the short-term, he makes enemies in the Muslim world, who don't appreciate much him continuing to support the murderous Egyptian military. In the long-term, if a group opposed to the Egyptian military rises to power, the current continuation of aid will prove to be a disaster.  

The thing about Hobson's choices is that you're guaranteed a bad result. With empires, that just comes with the territory, so to speak.

4 responses to “It’s Hard Out There For An Empire

  1. Bruce Freiberg

    It certainly makes much more plausible the premise that “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” led W. Bush and the US directly into the Iraqi war.

  2. Bruce Freiberg

    I guess I must have missed that memo.

  3. Bruce, you’re looking at this through the lens of Israel as a separate country. If you view Israel as our 51st state, it will all make more sense.

  4. Bruce Freiberg

    Three weeks ago, Senator Rand Paul moved on the Senate floor to cut aid to Egypt, a motion that was defeated after Senators Graham and McCain spoke out against the cut. Graham read aloud a letter from AIPAC outlining Israel’s opposition to the cuts. McCain stated on the Senate floor: “Again, isn’t the question whether the Senator from Kentucky knows what is best for Israel, or does Israel now what is best for Israel?” So, there you have it – it doesn’t matter what is in the best interest of the US. What matters is what Israel wants. Israel/AIPAC is the ultimate authority on US foreign policy in the Middle East, and it’s almost astonishing to hear that fact so openly admitted on the Senate floor. We pay Israel more than $9 million a day for the privilege of having Israel dictate our foreign policy. Many have known this for years, but is now openly admitted in Washington. The sad thing is there is ample support on every level in Washington to ensure that Israel’s directives are followed. The President, no matter the party, and Congress have danced to Israel’s tune for years and they have been willing to throw everything overboard for the sake of bowing to Israel’s commands. If this latest evidence of Israel’s control of US foreign policy doesn’t upset you, then you are either a fool or you care more about Israel than you do the best interests of the US.