Two words: Suez Canal.
Here's a quotation from Anthony Cordesman giving the viewpoint on why the previously planned pre-revolution aid package is going through (and I get that this is something reasonable people can disagree over -- just want to try to highlight that foreign aid can be a pretty complex calculation):
But Anthony H. Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the administration is right to send the planes.
"If you were to suddenly end this partnership with Egypt -- if you were to make Egypt feel that somehow it were not trusted or second-best, what would the security implications be? It certainly would justify or encourage all of the extremist elements that are trying to push Egypt away from both the peace process and the security partnership with the U.S.," he told FoxNews.com.
He said that the cost of providing the weapons is worth it.
"We need to remember that Egypt isn't just important to Israel. It is critical to us, because it controls the Suez Canal. It has been a vital staging point for U.S. operations in the gulf."
Cordesman argued that the F-16 fighter jets are unlikely to be turned against us or our allies, as they are too complex to be used effectively without U.S. maintenance.
"These weapons systems are certainly extremely effective, but no one can sustain them unless that partnership with the United States continues," he said. "The modern software, the computer systems, the munitions that make this weapons system so lethal -- other than us, there are no alternative suppliers. There are European states who can provide parts of the aircraft, but F-16s and most modern systems are basically dependent on U.S. manufacturers."
"In some ways, the more sophisticated the system, the safer it is to transfer," Cordesman said, while noting that there are still risks.
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...-route-to-egypt-amid-criticism/#ixzz2MXINbQN3