Letters: Getting the most from foreign aid

Re “Egypt in the rearview mirror,” opinion, Aug. 20

Thank you, Andrew J. Bacevich, for your concise and insightful article on U.S. aid to the Middle East.

Such a true statement when Bacevich writes: “Rather than furthering the cause of mutual understanding — funding education programs or cultural exchanges, for example — most of that money has gone to the purchase of advanced weaponry.”

One has to ask our leaders, what were you thinking?

Carole Jentink

Bacevich speciously posits the false options that the U.S. can either spend money on bad foreign military aid programs abroad or on good economic programs here at home.

The logic doesn't follow. Not all military aid programs are bad, and likewise, not all economic programs here are good.

Bacevich also myopically and falsely asserts that by disengaging militarily from the region, America will be safer in the long run.

The U.S. disengaged from Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from the former. Some years later, Pakistan developed and produced nuclear weapons, making the region more unstable.

How many of the families of the victims of 9/11 would have preferred spending $1 billion a year in U.S. military aid and involvement to have prevented the deaths of their loved ones?

Van Warren
Columbus, Ga.

I completely agree with Bacevich. However, he left something out at the end.

Terminating assistance to the Egyptian military makes sense, but was this assistance not part of a bigger deal?

He conveniently forgets that Israel gets a balanced assistance. Why not terminate that as well? And aid to Pakistan?

If what Bacevich says is true, we should stop all of these and other useless giveaways. I would hope we could.

W.R. Frederick

More letters to the editor ...

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World