Coalition Partner?

According to an interview in a Paris newspaper, President Mubarak of Egypt, ostensibly our chief Arab ally and ruler of a “moderate Arab state,” is refusing military cooperation with the United States against Osama Bin Laden. Claiming to have seen no evidence that Bin Ladin is responsible for the WTC attack, Mubarak joined a growing list of Arab nations that want nothing to do with the American-led war on terrorists and their supporters.

According to an interview in a Paris newspaper, President Mubarak of Egypt, ostensibly our chief Arab ally and ruler of a “moderate Arab state,” is refusing military cooperation with the United States against Osama Bin Laden. Claiming to have seen no evidence that Bin Ladin is responsible for the WTC attack, Mubarak joined a growing list of Arab nations that want nothing to do with the American-led war on terrorists and their supporters. To underscore a largely unspoken point, Arab League secretary-general Amr Mussa said Arab countries cannot join a coalition that has Israel as a participant.

So what should the U.S. do? Whatever it thinks best for the security interests of the United States, of course. Allies who don’t behave like allies be damned.

What should the U.S. NOT do? Offer Egypt or anyone else bribes in the form of increased military assistance to join the coalition.

Unfortunately, according to a report in the Arms Trade Newswire not only is Washington preparing to sell Egypt new weapons, it is including the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) – which has absolutely no applicability to any mission Egypt might undertake in the coalition if in fact Egypt had agreed to undertake any mission at all. Which it hasn’t.

MLRS, according to Arms Trade Newswire, is designed for the tactical battlefield. “Primary missions … include the suppression, neutralization and destruction of threat, fire support and forward area air defense targets… (It) supplements traditional cannon artillery fire by delivering large volumes of firepower in a short time against critical, time-sensitive targets… (including) enemy artillery, air defense systems, mechanized units, and personnel. MLRS units can use their system’s ‘shoot and scoot’ capability to survive while providing fire support for attacking maneuver elements.”

Last we heard, Bin Laden doesn’t have air defenses or mechanized units, and we don’t expect Egypt on a tactical battlefield against the Taliban. But MLRS is a weapon that could be used to great advantage by Egypt in an attack on Israel, and that – we believe – is what Egypt wants it for.

There are two issues here. First is that, in fact, violent fundamentalists threaten Mubarak’s dictatorship in Egypt and he needs our success as much as we do. But if he feels so shaky in his position at home that he can’t join the coalition lest he fall to his domestic opposition, he is too shaky to be taking ownership of American weapons.

Second, the United States should not try to solve one problem by creating another. Israel is the only country in the region that not only shares our view, but has a democratically elected government with the capability and the will to assist. If politics require Israel to keep a low profile these days, fine. But the U.S. would be ill-advised to allow Egypt – in the name of coalition building – to increase the threat it poses to Israel for the long-term.