A number of issues are exposing divides in the Republican Party. Often, both sides of the divide claim to be the conservative side. Too often we look to a popular political figure as some sort of weather vane to point us in the conservative direction. For some this political figure is Rand Paul.
In truth, I have not yet found a reliable politician in the current national line-up who consistently leads in this direction. Most recently, I question Rand Paul’s stand on aid to Egypt. Some have taken his stand as the obvious conservative position based on nothing more than the fact that it is Rand Paul taking this stand. Also taking this stand are other paragons of conservatism: conservative Lindsey Graham, conservative Pat Leahy and arch conservative Dennis Kucinich. In fact, in listening to Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich in back-to-back interviews, claiming we should immediately suspend all aid to Egypt, I would have sworn they were talking from the same talking points memo.
Not just to be a contrarian, I take a different view. I think we should support policy which has American interests as its primary focus. I think it is obvious why supporting groups which have vowed to kill us at work, in our places of worship, in our homes, overseas and well, anywhere we might be found, is not in the American interest. I am not suggesting the Egyptian military has, as its sole objective, the furthering of American interests. I think it unreasonable to expect this. On the other hand, however, they are not dedicated to the destruction of all things American either. This alone makes them preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood. To pull support from the Egyptian military at this time invites the Muslim Brotherhood’s international contingent into the fray and creates an environment in which the Brotherhood could be victorious . For reasons stated earlier in this paragraph, this does not forward American interests.
I would take this stand even if I had to take it alone. But as I look at others who, even if reluctantly, have come to support the notion of continuing aid to Egypt’s military, I realize I am in good company. Glen Beck, Dennis Prager, and Mark Levin have all come to this same conclusion. Of course none of these are politicians, but somehow, to me, that makes them a more credible source.
I hope that in considering this important issue, Americans can take a more thoughtful approach. Many decry the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, the elected president of Egypt, was deposed in a military coup. But using the clear lens of hindsight, who would not have welcomed the intrusion of the Reichswehr or even the old Kaiser’s army into Hitler’s power grab as he converted his elected position into the dictatorship of the Third Reich. Morsi was indeed democratically elected, but, like Herr Hitler, he immediately began seizing powers not granted to his office. Many believe the election of Morsi would have been the last election in Egypt for a long time; “one man, one vote, one time.”
Coups are unpleasant, but so too is an Islamic dictatorship. Ask any Coptic Christian. The Coptic’s trace their founding back to the Apostle Mark. “All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Are we now saying that we are comfortable sitting to one side and allowing this to happen? I am not so arrogant as to claim to know what Jesus would do, but who would argue that He would do this?
Withdrawing American influence from the Middle East, as President Obama has done and some contingent of isolationist Republicans favor, has resulted in suppression of the Iranian people, a now failing Iraq, street riots in Egypt, a blood bath in Syria and an obviously unstable Middle East. The resulting carnage and persecution of all sects of Christians in the area would not be possible without the acquiescence of America. Americans need to realize this. Republicans should not be divided by this cause; we should be united by it.
As the Syrian situation heats up, Egypt risks the same obscurity in news rooms as the Fukushima reactor. Syria is important, but few good options remain. If we had been leading from the front, we might have been able to direct parties interested in true freedom to a more republican form of government early in the Syrian uprising. But now, our choices are limited to a ruthless dictator who acted out mainly at home and a group who may be more interested in taking their barbaric circus on the road.
Whatever America does, and we are almost certain to do something, it must have a clear objective and the objective must be achieved in a way which is obvious to all. Ideally, we should deprive all parties in this festering Islamic hell hole of any chemical weapons. I do not know if this is technically feasible without boots on the ground. It would be hard to find any American support for this and you won’t get any from me. A better option, if feasible, might be to destroy Assad’s capability to deliver chemical weapons. This would offer a measure of protection not just to combatants and civilians on the ground, but also to our allies in the area. Any other option considered should have as its goal not to tip the balance in favor of either side. With their particular mind set, it is best for America that they remain busy making each other’s life a living hell so they will not be able to direct their attentions on us.
These are the type of difficult problems US Presidents have had to resolve for over two hundred years. To date, and on balance, we have been blessed in this area. However, now, with our first affirmative action President, we have little evidence that we should expect a good result from Mr. Obama’s actions regarding Syria. Both Syria and Iran have threatened to attack Israel if the US attacks Syria. It is hard to conceive of any plan derived from leading from behind which will address this situation.
If the Republican Party has any serious contenders for the Presidency, he/she should step forward now and offer a plan which would obviously handle this mess. It is not sufficient to claim that our candidate would not have gotten us into this mess. Whoever takes the rains from Obama will have to deal with all his messes. All Republicans should vocally support any obviously workable plan and the likely candidate who offers it. If we do not have such a candidate and the common support of all major Republican office holders, we should retire from the field embarrassed and ashamed.
