The Arms Deals No One Is Talking About
Happy Petraeus Day! On the theory that plenty of my colleagues in the print media and blogosphere will be writing about Iraq today, I will address another Mideast security conundrum: the role of the United States as the region's top arms supplier.
In late July the Bush administration proposed a ten-year, $63 billion arms package for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel (see my recent piece in The Nation). Billed as part of a new "Gulf Security Dialogue," it provided yet another example of team Bush deciding to let the guns do the talking.
Thankfully, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has raised the profile of the deal by recruiting 114 of his House colleagues to oppose it. This won't be enough to stop it, but at least it will generate some serious debate.
By contrast, the Saudis entered into preliminary agreements for $10 billion in arms transfers from the U.S. in 2006 alone, with virtually no discussion. How is this possible? Is it just because the earlier deals weren't attached to a catchy name like "Gulf Security Dialogue?"
To be fair, the current deal -- $20 billion of which is slated for Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states -- comes at a particulary bad time. With saber-rattling against Iran, sources within Saudi Arabia financing Sunni groups in Iraq, and the danger of fueling the very regional conflict the Bush administration claims it is trying to avoid -- there is good reason for Congress to stand up and take notice for a change.
But the 2006 offers -- for modernizing the Saudi National Guard, upgrading Riyadh's U.S.-supplied tanks, and providing new engines for its F-15 and F-16 combat aircraft -- are in many ways as or more troubling than the current deal.
What is needed is a better system of Congressional oversight. Under current law it takes a two-thirds vote on a "resolution of disapproval" in both houses of Congress to block a deal -- a nearly impossible task. There should at least be required hearings on major deals (perhaps $1 billion or more) or proposed transfers to undemocratic regimes and countries at war. Compared to some of the other issues Congress holds hearings on, it would be well worth the time.
i mentioned this briefly on my blog as well a couple weeks ago... david-sullivan.blogspot.com.
i mentioned in the context of how ultimately that money will be going exclusively to U.S. arms manufacturers and only serves to further destabilize the region.
and who benefits from these types of massive arms sales? why carlyle group and W's father, thus, W himself in the form of the family forture, pun intended.
not to mention the lucrative speaking circuit bush will use to "replenish the coffers" as he so eloquently put it at the same companies he is currently doing all he can to favor with legislation, lax regulation and settlement of outstanding lawsuits...
September 10, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in full agreement here.
I think that what the Bush/Cheney years have thoroughly confirmed is that our government is not functioning properly at all. One man (the President) and his small hand picked team should not be allowed to make any large scale international decisions without a thorough and complete debate before the Congress. None. I say we don't even need to attach a price limit to this. Let's make these people in our nation's capital actually work a little for all the money they're paid. And they can shelve any arguments they might have for this "slowing down the process". If you think this will slow things down, plan ahead. If it's important you'll move faster and be more forthcoming with ALL the facts and your intentions to move things forward at a faster pace.
This is how you are supposed to do things in our government (at least that's what I thought). You're not supposed to just let one man or his like-minded team make the call on their own. Certainly not in matters of international import (not to mention involving weapons systems and munitions). This is why we have no oversight. This is why we are further from a Democratic Republic than we've probably ever been. This is why we have fraud scandals and complete diplomatic disasters. We've allowed the system to be circumvented. And whether it was through neglect, laziness or devious intent it needs to be stopped and fixed.
We need more open debate in this country. We need a lot of it. This is diplomacy and politics and correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't that what politicians are supposed to do for a living? It's not supposed to happen in a day with a wink and a nod between a few men. It's supposed to include serious thought, debate, disclosure and support from the Congress and the American people. Why is our government so lazy and incompetent? And why are we all sitting around letting this ridiculous behavior continue?!
Demand more.
September 10, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
This but one more dismal example of the fact that George W. Bush and the gang of crooks who make up his administration, particularly in dealing with foreign policies, have NEVER (since the purloined election of 2000) thought of foreign policy in any way other than how the bottom-lines of various 'friendly' corporations could be enhanced by American foreign policy 'initiatives'.
The Iraq war for the Oil Corporations and for various and sundry newly-formed 'corporations' dealing in military services and supplies..the CIA fiasco in Venezuela to depose Chavez which back-fired (another foreign-policy move to benefit 'Big Oil'), which resulted in a tin-horn dictator gaining stature as a leader of 'freedom' in the Western Hemisphere...And, yes, now the Saudi Arabian-Egyptian-Israeli arms deal that adds fuel to the smouldering fires in the Middle-East, so Carlyle, et alia, can benefit even more.
Some sorry, anti-human, greedy foreign policy 'leadership' on the part of Bush/Cheney, eh?
September 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are other aspects to the US military arms sales programs than the promotion of "all war all the time."
These programs put large numbers of US military-industrial types in these countries, and they influence the foreign policy of those countries to support US military adventures. Thus Poland and El Salvador are represented in Iraq.
Another aspect: Jobs leave the US along with the sales via "offsets". --According to the Pentagon, the defense industry laid off 795,000 American workers between 1992 and 1997. At the same time, many of these corporations were sweetening their arms deals to other countries by offering "offsets" -- incentives provided to foreign countries in exchange for the purchase of military goods and services. The programs often include agreements to manufacture some or all of the products in the purchasing country.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/
Indeed, sometimes the offset agreements are worth more than the actual value of the weapons sale: The $2.3 billion sale of F/A-18 fighter-bombers to Canada In 1982, for example, Included offsets which could total 150 percent of the contract value, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/sun1993.htm
The 150% F-16 jet fighter offset program in Poland, sucking up US jobs and capital investment, included investment in the automotive sector as well as in aviation and electronics. Billions of dollars were invested in this sector. These include GM with its $1 billion investment in Gliwice, Delphi, Goodyear, Eaton, Federal Mogul, Fiat-GM Powertrain, Lear, TRW, Visteon, Gates and Wabco. The Poland offsets program was actively promoted by the US ambassador: "While some in the media enjoy trying to poke holes in projects in the offset program, in reality, this has been a very successful stimulus to the overall growth in the U.S.-Polish commercial relationship. The American and Polish companies who have been involved have every reason to be proud of their efforts."--Ambassador Victor Ashe, September 13, 2005
http://poland.usembassy.gov/poland/ashe_amcham.html
September 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
These programs put large numbers of US military-industrial types in these countries, and they influence the foreign policy of those countries to support US military adventures. Thus Poland and El Salvador are represented in Iraq.
That's an interesting point that I did not initially think about. We all remember how much arm-twisting went on (much of it behind closed doors) to build that Carmen Sandiego list of the willing. Holding current or future "defense" contracts and programs over countries is certainly one means of getting what you want. I wonder how many of the willing found themselves looking down this particular barrel.
September 10, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
These arms deals aren't about policy or regional alliances or strategic partnerships. They're a way to repatriate oil money and American foreign aid in such a way as to funnel it into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex. Yes, Virginia, it really IS that simple.
September 10, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
JimmyBobby got there before me. Yes, that's a large part, but, besides the preznit believing that what is good for the corporates is good for him and the US (in that order), there are those behind the curtain who have a wider hegemonic agenda who, no matter how wrong they have been proved so far, will push ahead with policies that will undermine their objectives.
They already forgot the lesson of Iran and the shah and think they can control the genie. Idiots indeed but they believe themselves genii.
We will reap what they sow. They will be secure behind their millions.
September 10, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The consensus of many observers, including those from the Gulf states whose governments are being "allowed" to purchase the well-vetted arms, is that it's a waste of money and intended for use by the lucky governments in an attack on Iran.
One of the reasons the legislation is gaining little traction is that the Israeli government is not objectiing to it at all. The details of who gets what were worked out months ago during a visit of some IDF generals to their counterparts in the Pentagon. The JPost reported that those tasked with the negotiations came home "satisfied" with the results.
Here's a link to the reliably selective Memri's collection of Arab commentators (except the Saudi) objections to the whole enterprise:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA38607
September 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you get $63B without it being appropriated by Congress? Who has the majority in Congress? Put the blame where it belongs.
This is what you get when you recruit Benedict Arnolds into your "big tent". They surrender the tent to the other side.
As to all the 60+ votes talk on this issue and others, it's the all purpose excuse for a party that seems to have no purpose for existing. Since the DINOs will sabotage any vote, 60 votes will never be possible until we kick them out of the tent and recruit people willing to fight to take our country back.
September 10, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Anthony Weiner opposing the deal? Does he feel that the Arab countries are getting too much and Israel too little?
September 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
notthere: yes, there are other actors trying to turn this flow to their own hegemonic or globo-political or whatever advantage. But I do not believe that if these arms sales failed to benefit the people (corporations) they do, any amount of heated rhetoric in defense of Israel or our buddies in Saudi Arabia or wherever would make them happen.
September 10, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is such a non-issue. Sixty-three billion dollars worth of military hardware? That's reason of and for itself only. Sixty three billion dollars is its own, only reason, the only reason it needs.
Most of this is just going to end up as junk, in the hands of countries without the resources or technical infrastructure to keep it going, without the spare parts, the reloads, the refills, the stockpiles that will keep the war machine going.
Saudi Arabia is buying twenty billion dollars worth of chinese firecrackers. Partly because they've got illusions. Partly because those who don't have illusions are stupid. Partly because those who don't have illusions and aren't stupid are cynical politicians who are making the purchases for their own purposes.
Israel's got a big ass military industrial complex that's as or more important to it than America's is to it.
Egypt is along for the ride, taking what they can get. Their only agenda is keeping that horn of plenty greased up and going strong, they don't care what comes out of it.
So what's the result? Money that could be used to better purpose and it'll go to lots of high tech junk that will rust in the desert.
Maybe in two hundred years it'll make for some funky ruins in the desert.
September 10, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
More likely ruins than rust---it's desert, hey?
A colleague was working for International Harvester in the 60s, and had to cover for his supervisor for a few days, in the ordering office. Tires for trucks were ordered, and when they arriived, were found to be too small. His supervisor had to cover it up, since he shouldn't have handed off responsibility. He said, "Fuck it, they're going to Egypt. Force the tires on the rims."
Later that year, he saw photos of Egyptian soldiers surrendering to Israelis, trucks broken down with blown tires.
September 11, 2007 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets not forget all the lovely, lovely kickbacks that will be involved in this for the Saudi Royals as in the BAE scandal in the UK. The Blair Gov't put the kaybosh on the investigation there for "national interest" grounds.
And selling this arms deal as a way to counter Iran is laughable. Iran isn't about to invade Saudi Arabia. The saudi insecurity arises from its own domestic discontents due to exactly these sorts of deals.
September 11, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Abdul Hass has it right. The arms deals and off sets are institutionalized, "legal" means for the US to route funds to regime loyalists and clients. And we get what we pay for.
September 11, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink