Okay, dismiss this as the U.S. simply propping up Mideast governments -- something Ron Paul and others have been pointing to all along -- but I, for one, am a little surprised at the news behind the news as we read of a hold being put on military aid to Lebanon.
Whatever are we doing, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars toward Lebanon's military might to begin with? Why would we give money to a nation that might be considered somewhat of an enemy? If not our own enemy, Lebanon certainly is an enemy of Israel, our ally. Now, we are not talking of humanitarian aid. We are speaking of us giving them money to fulfill military objectives.
We donated to Lebanon's military for 2009 (how much, I do not know), we have allocated $100 million for 2010, and the Obama Administration has asked for another $100 million for 2011.
I can tell you what the reasoning seems to be. It is that if we give Lebanon some money, it will help wean that country from tying itself to influences in the Arab world that we don't want it to have -- primarily meaning Hezbollah.
I'm afraid that is dangerous logic. Would we give money to a drug dealer to help him become independent of the drug cartel? Yes, we would love Lebanon to be independent of Hezbollah, but it takes only a cursory look at the landscape to see we simply should not go about it this way.
(Note: The lead on this post was rewritten Aug. 11.)
No comments:
Post a Comment