(Washington, DC) - Congressman Gary L. Ackerman, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, made the following statement today at the hearing he convened on “U.S. Assistance to the Middle East: Old Tools for New Tasks?”

 If the next President–presumably in a fit of madness–was to ask me what should be done about the Middle East as a whole; as a region that is vital to the national security interests of the United States; that is wracked by numerous conflicts, crises and power struggles; and is in the midst of profound transformations in its cultural, economic, religious and political norms; I would cite the wisdom of that great American sage and musician, Warren Zevon, who said:

 “Send Lawyers, Guns and Money, the [you know what] has hit the fan.”

 It’s hard to provide a more succinct description of the problem, or the prescription for fixing it. The problems in the region are diverse and complex, but our tools for dealing with them are, in truth, limited really to sending Lawyers, Guns and Money, though I’d suggest we not think of these things literally, but rather as categories for our assistance. And in this light we do have some good tools to work with if there is a will to apply them.

 At the top of the list of problems in the Middle East is the question of governance and freedom, from which many of the region’s troubling phenomena flow. The UN’s Arab Human Development reports, which describe in painful detail the extent to which the Middle East has fallen behind other regions in terms of education, health, technology and other significant measures of quality of life, has cited the lack of freedom as the key factor in these deficits. Over the long-term, it is hard to see how the Middle East can thrive without a substantial evolution in governance.

 It is neither the right, nor the duty, of the United States to pick the form of government for any people but ourselves. But that does not mean that we have to watch impassively as people in the region struggle for their liberty, and demand respect for their civil and human rights. Neither are we bound to watch in silence as governments with which we cooperate endanger themselves–and by extension our common policy goals–by alienating their own populations.

 We don’t actually have to send Lawyers, but we can support the growth of civil society and help build the capacity of others to pursue the rule of law. Some of our friends might not like it when we support their critics. But if we do not help those trying to build a vital, liberal center in some of the countries on which we depend, we may find a region being led by those who came to power by deploring us, and their previous government’s partnership with us.

 Some of our partners in the region face challenges that are more direct and brutal. Some states, like Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel are, everyday, struggling against Iranian-supported terrorists groups. These states need more than just our good wishes and sympathy for their dead citizens. Put bluntly, they need Guns. They need arms and, often, the proper training to deploy them. But they are ready and willing to defend themselves. Helping them to do so is not only morally right, it is prudent policy.

 Others states, especially those without oil-resources, but with predominantly young and growing  populations, have significant economic needs that if unmet, will fuel the growth of Islamic radicalization at best, and at worst could destabilize those countries, and even others around them. They need Money; ours, and that of our partners in the international community with an interest in a stable, peaceful Middle East. Wise investments by ourselves and increased access to the U.S. economy can make a big difference in helping our friends in the region to grow and to thrive.

 Very simply, we need to send more Lawyers Guns and Money, and we need to know which to send where. And here is where the problems begin. In some places, I think the United States is deploying its resources wisely. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in these places we have a clear sense of what our money is buying, and there is a clear objective which can be achieved by the application of resources.

 For example, since the Camp David Accords the United States has provided tens of billions of dollars in economic and military assistance to Israel and Egypt. Our tangible support for the peace made at Camp David has linked the two most important militaries in the region to the goodwill of the United States; we have prevented any further Arab-Israeli state-to-state conflicts, though the problem of non-state proxies has grown; and we have shifted the political center of gravity in the region toward peace with Israel versus the prior consensus for war.

 The total cost of the 29 years of peace forged at Camp David is about $150 billion. That’s a lot of money. But, by comparison, that same $150 billion buys us just 1  years of war in Iraq.

 If we want to avoid sending our young men and women to the region, where they often come home in body bags, or without their arms, legs or mental health, then we need to start sending more Lawyers, Guns and Money, because the problems in the Middle East are not going away on their own, and they may not be resolved to our liking if we just stand back and watch.

 More than 6 and a half years after 9/11 supposedly changed everything, we still have critical embassies in the Middle East that lack sufficient security personnel and vehicles to allow our diplomats to leave the embassy and do their jobs. We have shortages of both Arabic-speaking diplomats and translators. We have regional partners that are watching Iran fund subversion within their borders to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and we are debating whether spending $26.1 billion on foreign aid and $11.4 billion on the State Department–that is, a combined 1.2 percent of our $3 trillion budget–is too much.

 In FY-2000, we spent $6.6 billion on assistance to the Middle East. This year–this year of crisis and war and looming disaster–the Bush Administration has asked for $5.5 billion dollars–a 17 percent reduction over the past decade. Should we assume the Bush Administration believes that everything in the Middle East has gotten 17 percent better? Just for comparison, in FY-08, New York City will spend $7.5 billion just for its police department, that’s $2 billion more for peace and security on the streets of the Big Apple, than the United States is going to spend on bringing peace and stability to the entire Middle East.

 This kind of budget folly reflects a level of ignorance and pettiness and frivolousness which can not continue if we are going to protect our nation’s security. Our enemies in the region and in al-Qaeda, are disciplined and focused, and their goals are inimical to our vital national interests and the security of our country. We, on the other hand, are spending $2.4 billion a WEEK on the President’s misbegotten, unending, purposeless war in Iraq, and can’t find $1.1 billion just to keep level funding for the most critical and chaotic region of the world. That’s some legacy.
 

###

Return to Gary's Homepage