jazeera. "the stream" is next. you can log on to aljazeera.com for the latest headlines. >> hi, i'm lisa fletcher, and you are in the stream. historically the u.s. gave aid to friends who sometimes become its foes. the unrest in egypt - we'll discuss u.s. policy, billions of your tax dollars and the potential tax loss. >> our digital producer in tonight. he is bringing in all your live comments. you know, when we tweeted out today the numbers, hundreds of

billions. a question from the community is why. what do we get out of this? >> we have been doing it for decades, what's in it for me and the united states. i got a tweet from the chairman emeritus of california, ron naring and this is what he says. he says: also on facebook james said: >> finally a tweet: >> you, the community can keep

tweeting us. >> it's hard to believe the 3-year anniversary of the egyptian process to pave the way to democracy is upon us. with the military in power and introducing reforms to roll back freedoms egyptians hoped for, is it a return to the hosni mubarak era? the world watched deadly clashes between the regime and mohamed morsi, who was ousted in a coup last summer. the u.s. congress is paving the way to resume financial support despite opposition and a law. 49% of americans say they are against further aid to egypt. 43% believe transingses in egypt is bad for -- transitions in egypt have been bad for the u.s. as u.s.-egyptian relations are put to the test, should americans worry that if the past is an indicator, washington may

regret its friends. >> we talk to steven cock, an author and fellow. david rhode is a 2-time pulitzer prize-winning journalist held by the taliban for eight months. and david pollock is a fellow of new age policy. >> it's the second anniversary of the longest serving president hosni mubarak being ousted. the regime took over and in many ways it seems to be a return to that era, right. i mean we have got all these reports of oppression before the vote. we see violence clashes. one has to ask themselves, is egypt better off today than it was when he was in office. >> it's a good question, a fair question. there has been a lot of twists

and turns since hosni mubarak fell three years ago. we had a long period of military rule under the supreme council of armed forces ceding control to mohamed morsi, and then the coup of july 2013. there's every indication that some semblance of the old order that was supposed to have been done away with result of the uprising is coming back the new constitution upon which people were voting lays out important personal and political freedoms and institutionalized the autonomous role of the military, and egyptian constitution lays out personal and political freedoms only to have them undermined by laws and actions of the government. it doesn't look good three years hence is the bottom line. >> david rhode, alongside what

many claim are oppressive actions by the current regime we have the u.s. congress looking at a way to give the obama administration a waiver to a law that says the u.s. cannot give money to a regime taking power from a democratically-elected government. the regime is looking to give $1.55 billion in support to the egyptian military. is this something americans should be worried about? >> this is a return to a long-running u.s. policy of backing military regimes in the middle east. i have not spent much time in egypt, but i spent a great deal of time in pakistan. we are following the same strategy in egypt. we are backing the army and thinking we can by security and stability. since 2001 we have given the pakistani military $17 billion in assistance, but the pakistan

military were unable to find osama bin laden who was living in the town with the equivalent of their west point and they have not confronted taliban and militants living in the tribal areas. personally i think it's a mistake. i don't think this will by stability. i don't think military creates economic growth that egypt and the region needs, given the large young population they have. we asked the question about aid, u.s. aid, whether when it comes back what does it mean, and the community weighed in. we got a tweet from a tweeter saying: >> at the same time there's talk about how the aid will be used or maybe it should be reconsidered. mark says:

dump dump >> we don't need it a lot in egypt. alexander says: >> i have a question for david polak. when we talk about aid to these countries, are putting conditions and requirements and saying what our community is talking about, is that realistically viable? >> no. actually, i don't think it's very realistic. and i think that first of all most of the money that we provide to the egyptian military comes back to the united states, to buy american weapons. and the other part of the aid, a small minority of it, but several hundred million a year goes to support the egyptian

people, and projects in egypt in terms of public health and education and functioning of the enormous metropolis of cairo, which i know from years of personnel experience was dysfunctional until american assistance rebuilt the sewers, telephones, roadways and bridges, and everything else that makes cairo a liveable city. >> we are talking about, you know, $1.3 billion to support egyptian military, and $250 million going through the u sa idea. it's an imbalance. >> yes, but it serves american interest. the united states has great strategic and security common interests with egypt. and that's what the money protects. egypt is not pakistan. egyptian security cooperation

with the united states has been terrific over many, many years. and that was true for the most part, whether it was hosni mubarak, mohamed morsi or abdul fatah al-sisi in charge of egypt. i think we are getting our money's worth and then some. >> david, does supporting a military regime bring stability in your perspective. >> i don't think it does. people in the region are in tune with what the u.s. is saying. we talk about supporting democracy, but we are supporting egyptian military. there's a crackdown killing many in egypt as the iranian's crushing of iran. we are saying to islamists we support democracy except for when you win elections. >> i think there's two underlying issues here.

it's important to recognise that despite all the money that we give the egyptian government and military. in particular it's not the money, all that much money, it's $1.3 million. the same that we have been giving the armed forces. if you do the maths it's worth less than what $1.3 billion sounds like. the other thing is it's important to recognise that with this money, and we have aided egypt since the 1970s to the town of $77 billion, it doesn't buy us much in terms of influence and leverage. >> does it buy us maintaining the israeli egyptian accord? >> that's part of the underlying object. this is not written in the peace koord, but it's informal. the national security interest a aligns with ours on that issue. they agree it's important for us

and them. they have access to the suez canal. we do have benefitted a bit. in a way egyptians have us over a barrel. we haven't been able to test this. we give them so much money, because we are afraid we might lose the one organization that kind of sort of shares our interest. 1.7 million buys us what, but doesn't buy us an ability to pursue democracy in the way that some will like. stakes are too high. they are making decisions based on what they perceive to be vocal conditions. what the president of the united states and the secretary of state says is secondary. it's important to point out egape shans don't care about the usa. they don't want it or are imbev

lant. >> i want you to talk about this, david. u.s. national security advisor susan rice and secretary of state john kerry clashed on the issue much when powerful players don't agree, how does that complicate policy issues. >> there was fairly public indications that secretary kerry and national security advisor susan rice had a different perspective on whether egypt was for wasn't moving towards democracy under what effect that should have. it's the job on the president to resolve those issues among senior staff. it seems to me that the white house in this case at least has made the right decision, which is to work with congress, to change the law and make american policy consistent with our own laws and consistent with our own

national security interests in continuing to support the egyptian government. >> could the change of policy create unintended consequences. we'll look how policy has done that in the past. we'll talk about it all when we come back.

welcome back. we are talking about the future of u.s. policy in egypt, and how aiding the military-appointed government could influence policy down the road. >> here is a comment who was

asked if he regretted supporting the regime and he replied: >> the u.s. has a long history of supporting powerful leaders to curry flavour, creating blow-back as a result. how can the u.s. be sure that the money is used in its best interests. >> david polak, no guarantees. >> i agree on this point, the u.s. track record is actually quite good. there are some examples of unintended consequences. a backlash or a back fire. there are many other examples when american support for governments or for gurr illas,

as the case may be had a long-term positive effect. not only for the united states, but the people of those countries. in egypt that's been the case and i think it will continue to be the case. >> i think what david is talking about here is a dilemma that american policy makers face. the long run is made up of a lot of short runs. until they figure out how to secure american interest over that short run, until we get to the longer run where we believe democratic countries are more stable and more in line with american interest, until we figure out how to do that and during transitions to democracy or one government to another, countries are unstable. until they answer that question, we are going to default to supporting the groups within the countries that we believe align with our interests and provide

stability as best as possible. >> our community has been talking about blow back all day. we have a tweet from irish eyes saying more often than not we give military aid to countries using it against us. and also we got a tweet history: anchamp -- an example of the u.s. 2003:

>> my question to david rhode - there seems to be a lot of bad examples of u.s. policy in the middle east and recently, and so where do you go next? it seems is egypt going be a good example. why the blowback, and that's the question about it seems like it's a track record that hasn't been working. >> i don't think egypt is some great - it's a security success for the united states or a success for average egyptians. you don't know, there's economic challenges, educational issues. i agree that some aid has helped. i don't see it as a success. a positive story is what happens in tunisia. they are passing right now at the same time as egypt a constitution that has taken long and created a political process.

there's islamist that elections in indonesia backed down. tunisia is a positive story in what is a dark post sort of early arab spring period. i didn't want to be idealistic about democracy. >> i was going to bring up, has there been clear and considerate policy in the middle east. >> of course not. consistency is difficult. take the example david rhode brought up. tunisia is the possible success story in the middle east. united states supported this. tunisia is a country the size of florida. and has left international influence. egypt is the largest country in the world. sits on the suez canal, is the

means to a variety of american interests and beyond. that's where the calculations are different. in a perfect world everyone would want egyptians to live in a democracy. egypt is not a success for many, many egyptians. there has been good that the united states has done, but, of course, the deterioration of the economy and the political system post hosni mubarak suggests although we have invested in egypt we have not invested in durable things, durable areas that can help the country develop and ultimately become a more open and democratic society. we have not been able to resolve the dilemma between short-term security and longer term. until we do, we'll default to those issues of security. >> as i hear you rattle off all

the leverage that europe has and $1.6 billion is a drop in the bucket. why are they allied to us, they have all the cards? >> they don't have all the cards. >> they have all the cards. >> they want american weaponry, and there's something about being aligned with the world's superpower. they benefit from the relationship as well. the fact remains they have a number of assets important to the united states. now, the question is how do we go about securing those assets for our own benefit without nurturing another authoritarian regime in the region. and, i again, there may be leaks as a result of the support for authoritarian. look at what is happening in si

peninsula. there's long been problems. since the coup this radical dynamic occurred where there's an uptake in violence. egypt is in for a long slog against terrorists. >> something we want to talk about, there's no question that there's potential for backlash when you deal with unstable governments. what is the right course forward. think about that. we are back in 2 minutes.

>> i'm john, i'm a fellow at governance studies, and i'm in the stream. >> we are talking about whether the u.s. should continue a decades-long history of $2 billion a year in aid to the egypt. and how it could bite them down the road. you were held by the taliban for eight months. are you concerned that marginalizing the muslim brotherhood could lead to violence and force radicalization of the group. >> i am worried about that. we are looking at a scenario of where the civil war was. that killed hundreds of thousands. there are some radicals that you

have to deal with with force. i am concerned about the message that we are sending where democracy works for others. i'm war ied that, you know, as we talked about in an earlier segment, this group in the sinai, they are urging physical support, they are urging the muslim brotherhood to take up arms and join them in an armed insurgency. that's a worse-case scenario. it would have been better to, you know, it couldn't have happened but better for mohamed morsi, who was losing popularity to lose in an election than a coup. >> we have a video from egypt. >> there may be new evidence of the support of the u.s. in the coup, showing that they fully endorse and support its

consequences in spite the massacres and human rights violations of the junta. make they'll have evidence like what happened in the "50s. >> we do have a lot of community about egypt and we are getting voices from egypt. here we are on the other side of the world and we have our laptops and everything, you can see what we've been covering. what do americans tell, you know, egyptians on the ground, you know, as americans, you know. what is the message that should be given. >> i think that it's clear that the message that we should be sending is one that president obama said when he gave a people in 2007 about the uprising. he said, "we should look upon the changes in the region without abdickating our value", the president and others have

not been as vocal about principles. >> that's not suggesting that it would fundamentally change the situation on the ground. egypt would have unfolded as it has, had the president said those things. we would not be in as difficult a position with egyptian public opinion, had we stuck to the principles. i want to respond to the video. he's giving too much credit to the united states. the president obama administration has been surfing the news cycles, accommodating to outcomes that egyptians have been producing. my message is, "it's in your hands. we effect things at the margin. we don't have the influence we believe we do. this is about your country, you need to pave the way forward. >> what do you think the u.s.

role should be moving forward. >> i agree with that steven said. we should step back and look at local actors and see where there's countries with local countries that we can work with. were there isn't, we should step back. there's a broader public in the region. i think most people want accountable governments in some form. they wants security and be part of the global economy. they want to be part of the international community. we should be humble and use economic tools and work through and with local partners and stand by the principals. people see our hypocrisy when we are not substantiate. >> thank you for all of our guests for your discussion. we'll see you online next time.

>> the pledges begin an international conference is underway in kuwait to raise money for syrians affected by the war. hello and welcome to al jazeera live from headquarters in doha. todaday two of egypt's referend, the final day of voting and what it's saying about military.