Source: Voice of America
Andre de Nesnera
WASHINGTON — Two months after the military
ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, U.S. officials are still trying
to figure out just how much leverage they have to influence events in
the largest Arab nation.
The assessment comes as Egypt’s interim leaders say they are pressing
ahead to set up a transition to civilian rule and as Washington is
reviewing the level of its aid package to Cairo.
The army deposed Morsi, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, on
July 3, a year after he assumed the presidency in the nation’s first
democratic election. The ouster came three days after millions of
Egyptians took to the streets protesting the way he ran the country.
Robert Springborg, Middle East expert at the Naval Postgraduate School
in Monterey, California, says the Egyptian military is well regarded by
the population.
“It’s far and away the most popular institution in the country,”
Springborg said. “Public opinion polls have consistently revealed
approval of the Egyptian military in excess of 80 percent and
intermittently above 90 percent. No other institution comes close to
it.”
Springborg says Egypt’s military is the eleventh largest in the world
and the fourth largest customer of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets. It also
has more than 4,000 main battle tanks, mostly American made.
It is a huge military by developing world standards, but Springborg says its quality is not very good.
“It has crashed more F-16s than any other operator of them,” he
explains. “The training of its pilots is inadequate. Much of the armor
that is very expensive for it, including the M1-A1 tanks, has actually
never been used – it’s in storage.
Paper Tiger
“The training of tank crews is very poor. The Egyptian military
continues to depend on the United States for maintenance, logistics and
training,” Springborg said. “So it’s in some sense a paper tiger. It’s
large on paper but in reality, it doesn’t have a lot of punch.”
Each year, the United States provides $1.3 billion in military aid to
Egypt. But some U.S. lawmakers are now pressing for an end to that aid
because of Morsi’s ouster. The Obama administration says only that it is
reviewing its aid to Egypt.
Jeffrey Martini, an expert on
civil-military relations in Egypt with the RAND Corporation, says a
number of Arab Gulf states have offered to make up for any shortfall
that would come from the U.S. limiting the flow of aid.
“Those countries have already pledged $12 billion – so roughly about 10
times what we give in aid to Egypt,” Martini said. “Now there is a
nuance here, which is what the United States provides, cannot entirely
be compensated for – we are still the supplier of choice for the
Egyptian military.
“And Saudi Arabia can send plenty of petro-dollars to Egypt,” he
continued, “but it can’t supply them with the M1-A1 tanks, the Apache
helicopters and the F-16s, nor the spare parts and the maintenance that
they require.”
Preserving their power
Even so, many experts still say despite the strong ties between the U.S.
and Egyptian militaries, Washington really has little leverage to
influence events inside Egypt.
“Every state operates to advance what it sees as its strategic interest.
We should not apologize for that, just as Egypt shouldn’t apologize for
that,” Martini said. “At the next levels, leaders will make decisions
that preserve their power. And the military sees defanging the Muslim
Brotherhood as very much in its interest – and they are going to pursue
that with or without American aid.”
Springborg of the Naval Postgraduate School says Washington also has
another way to influence Cairo – through institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund, or IMF.
“Egypt is ultimately going to have to get an IMF loan to be sanctified
as credit worthy to access international credit markets and to become a
source of foreign direct investment from beyond the Arab Gulf,”
Springborg said. “And the United States really holds the trump card in
that area. If the United States deems Egypt not to be worth risking IMF
or other monies on, then Egypt has very serious problems indeed.”
But Springborg says U.S. leverage has to be used very carefully because “it would stimulate a backlash if it is done crudely.”