I’m amazed that no one has brought this up. Yesterday, a $20 billion arms deal was announced between the US and 5 Middle East countries. This includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, fighter aircraft and new ships, and lord knows what else.

Reuters puts it at $43 billion.

In a disturbingly similar trend to the run-up to attacking Iraq, all focus now seems to be on Iran, and in the resulting tunnel vision, clear thought seems to be lost. Weren’t 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers Saudis? Wasn’t the leader Egyptian? Weren’t several more from the UAR? Saudi Arabia is currently supporting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq with money and bodies. Isn’t Saudi Arabia one of the most oppressive regimes in the world? Saudi Arabia is also one of the richest countries in the world; why on earth do they need arms money from the US? I tend to agree with the Germans, who think this is akin to throwing gasoline on a raging fire.

What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?

Will this move further destabilize an already volatile region?

Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?

It is only "stupidity fatigue" that prevented me from doing so. It just keeps happening...

What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?
Some will claim its to incentivize the war on terror in that country. In other words, a bribe to get them to do what we want.

I would say that self-interest is a fine incentive for them to do that and the real justification is the arms industry wanting more money.

People typically fail to understand that it's not even self interest that defines US aid policy. It's corporate interest.

Kenyan Farmers Fate Caught Up in U.S. Aid Rules

Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?
Better Idea. Let's make a list of the votes so we can know who's compromised.

Then a quick trip to the "escort service" list...

What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?

None whatsoever. Saudi Arabia is the single largest supporter of terrorism in the world. Our World: America's best friends Susan Click has pretty well spelled out just how much of an asset Saudi Arabia has been to the United State

Will this move further destabilize an already volatile region?
Yes because the Saudis are not a stable government. There is no justification for increasing the weapons in the region.

I would fully support the end of all military aid to the region. Egypt is currently spending 40% of the GNP on their military, which is higher percentage than the US did in World War II. Yet they face absolutely no external threats.

Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?
Congress can kill it. The real question will be will they? I think that there is a real possiblity that they might be able to. This President has very little support even in the Senate and there is a very good reason for that.

The House will vote against it, the Senate will as well. Do they have the 2/3rds they need to override a veto, I hope so. My only issue is that since Congress has to provide the funding, how can the President even propose it?

What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?

They may have a lot of money, but money does not translate into high tech weaponry unless your scientists invite them or you import them.

To me it seems Bush has accepted as a real possibility that US troops may be withdrawn from Iraq over the next 1-2 years because he will no longer be the president. This sale is a precaution to the also very real possibility that when US troops do leave on a large basis that there will be regional fighting in the middle east.

Will this move further destabilize an already volatile region?

No.

Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?

Yes im with loreng59 on this one, but you also have to remember what type of damage that would do to our own economy. We would probably end up losing money as well as lower our standard of living from cutting off aid.

If it were a "sale" I wouldn't really care.

This is aid it's a gift.

It it were a sale it wouldn't require government funding.

Presidents can submit their own budgets to Congress through the Office of Management and Budget. OMB was supposed to submit budget requests for executive agencies but its "responsibilities" have expanded to include the federal budget in general. I wish it was moved back under the Department of the Treasury and out of the hands of POTUS.

The arms sale to Egypt, S.A., Israel (I doubt Israel will pay for any or most of their $30 billion package) and others is less about instigating an arms race and more about maintaining the status quo. Israel doesn't publicly object to Riyadh's acquisition. At least, not very loudly. Why should they? We've insured their tactical superiority in the region once again.

What the White House is saying is, look guys; we got the instant democracy thing wrong in Iraq, but we're here to let you know that in spite of our rhetoric about democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, etc., we don't want to chance ten Iraqs, so here you go.

The thing is, the political situation in S.A. is as sustainable as our ability to keep paying for two wars. The royals, like Egypt's autocracy, are caught between extremists that always hankered for but never got to realize a wholly theocratic region after WWII, and their opposite: Muslims that want another shot at self-determination after periods of economic/social turmoil and the failure to create national identities based on a rational, civil model. S.A. is on borrowed time. Egypt is on borrowed time.

S.A.'s military is pitiful, too. I doubt there are enough trained personnel to operate the equipment. It wouldn't surprise me if everyone we sold/gave arms to will resell overstock and/or older equipment to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc. with consequences of their own.

I don't know why we bother. Our secondary audience is the majority Sunni population in the Middle East, but they're not listening and they have nothing to feel assured about. Whether our foreign policy maintains the status quo, "liberates" a country through brute force, or is a combination of both, we do more harm than good because or main objective has been, and always will be, access to a vital commodity.

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but when is the last time Congress rejected a proposal like this? It even rejected a proposed measure that would have issued penalties on overseas firms selling weapons technology to China because business groups would be hurt. The defense industry stands to gain a lot from this, and they are positioned, pragmatically, in nearly every state. Politics are local and (IMO) will be the bottom line here. Congressmen will vote in favor of measures that will increase revenue in their states.

There isn't a veto issue here at all. Congress would have to first pass a bill before it could be vetoed, and Congress controls the purse strings. If, as you say the house votes against this aid package, even by one vote, it won't happen. So, the President can propose the package until the cows come home, but that's all he can do. Congress has to approve the funds and if they don't, no deal.


What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?

None whatsoever. Absolutely none. Not only should we not be providing money for arms for them, but we shouldn't be providing arms for them at all. I am sick and tired of the US government bending over and spreading them every time some Saudi prince wants something from us. We need a real energy policy in this country to get us off our Saudi crack addiction.


Will this move further destabilize an already volatile region?

I'm not really sure how much worse it can get there now. Iran just bought a bunch of airplanes from Russia and if they want to go at it with the Saudis, I say fine. Let 'em do it and blow each other up.


Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?


Yes, they can. They have to approve it and allocate the funds. And, yes they should.

Aquilla

What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?

Well thats easy enough to answer. Giving weapons to certain party's in the ME, or any where else is classic 'divide and conquer' doctrine.
As for Saudi Arabia's wealth, its a non issue. power in this world is not measured in how much money you've got, its about how much money you control. The Saudi Arabians are like teenagers in a shopping mall. All they seem capable of is spending money they've eseentially been given by 'Daddy'. These weapons may seem like a gift, but they're not. Satelite guided bombs for example require access to satelites. Sophisticated aircraft need servicing, spare parts and a complex military infrastructure to use the like of which Saudi Arabia is completey incapable of providing by itself. And the Saudi royal family and their pet politician's know this. They know full well that accepting US military aid means a further dependency on the USA.

Its a plan thats been working more or less for fifteen or twenty decades, for as far back as you care to look, ever since Nobel gave us decent explosives, the western world has been buying global power with weaponry. Look at who controls the world, the G8 and those who are knocking at the door and you'll find a family of arms dealers.


Will this move further destabilize an already volatile region?

No, it will make no difference in the long run. Peple who resent western/American influence in the Middle East do not need real examples of injustice to fuel their cause. They'll just make up injustices if they can't find any, or latch on to ambiguitiy's like this one and label them as 'immoral'.


Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?

No they shouldn't. The primary purpose of the US Congress must be to maintain the interests of the people of the USA. It is in the interests of thepeople of the USA that the USA can bring pressure to bear on the Saudi Arabia. Also, the USA will benefit in the long run from this deal as it always has from such deals in the past.

Terrorist actions do not change that. Terrorism is a bug biting the hide on a rhino. As tragic as it was, 9/11 made no difference to the global status quo.

Yes... but why are we paying for it?

That is my point here. If Israel or Saudi Arabia wants anything from us... they can foot the bill.

The facts is, they won't because they don't need it.

When was the last time Saudi Arabia bombed itself?

Terrorism is best fought on the ground in one's own country.

This is a gift alright, to private arms manufacturers.

This is a very good point. As every lawyer would ask: Cui bono? And that may very well be a major driver in this bizarre deal. The big 3 defense contractors are all beholden to the Bush administration and vice versa. This may be the last big arms spending spree.

Still a really, really bad idea.

A few of the major players are detailed here (report is from 2004): Arms Projects

Because you pay for something when you buy it.


But if that were the case turnea, then the Saudi's would buy Russian or Chinese (far cheaper) and the USA would lose its influence in the region. Plain and simple.


Of course they need it. The House of Saud can't maintain power against the radicals if they don't have the fire power to do so. Why do you think Iran is so desperate to build a nuclear weapon? They know full well that they have to up the stakes if they want to end US supremacy in the Middle East. Simply killing US marines in Fallujah by proxy is not going to change anything. They're doinga ll they can to muscle in on the action and the Saudi's, if they wish to survive, need to counter this threat with something substantial. You can rest assured the Saudi's need military aid like a fish needs water.

Furthermore, the western nations need the Saudi's. The global economy is dependent on the US economy and both are dependent on the free flow of oil, not just to the USA. If the US goes belly up, so do we all.

Israel is the gambit the US uses/needs to maintain the dependency of the House of Saud and the other Arab Muslim countries. For so long as Israel exists then it acts as a lightning conductor. The terrorists might have seen through this game, but al qaeda sans WMD's doesn't add up to a credible threat to the status quo.


Define Saudi Arabia? When was the last time Saudi Arabia bombed the USA....? The Saudi's are bombing each other all the time!


Did you just make that up? No conflict is best fought on your own ground. Thats blunt stupidity, All war is best fought on the enemies ground where his family's can get slaughtered, his lands get ploughed into mud and his infrastructure collapse into anarchy. Terrorism is no different. Do you suppose the British put their army into Northern Ireland to stop terrorism?

No. The British government knew full well from long experience (check your own history) that you can't fight terrorism... or 'freedom fighters' You have to control them until they've lost their fire. The best and easiest way to do that is to put your army in a place where the terrorists fight them instead of the soft targets of the civilians back home. Fighting terrorism on your own ground is ridiculous. Its an invitation to be attacked.


Of course. The last thing a modern power needs is to lose its ability to manufacture and control arms proliferation. The US arms industry is the largest and most potent industry in the world. Any notion of forcing it to 'play fair' is absurd. Do that, and you'll lose your economy and then its go straight to jail, Do not pass go, do not collect £200.

The USA has previously experienced what it is to lose control of its economy and the effect then was a global melt down. Try imagining what a 'Wall Street Crash' would be like today turnea.

Its all tied together. The global status quo cannot simply be overturned by a few terrorists or by forcing the Saudi's to stand on their own two feet. Your whole country and its economy is dependent on the global market maintaining a strict equilibrium. The USA gives weapons to other countries, to control them!

A risk I'm certainly willing to take. All we want is the oil and OPEC sets that price anyway.


Then they are already willing to buy their own weapons.


The point was all those satellite-guided bombs won't fight terrorism in Saudi hands. Who will they bomb?


I was unclear I meant, it is unwise to use satellite-guided bombs on your own country.


Worked great with Saddam...

And just how long do you think OPEC would survive a global economic melt down? I doubt your fellow country men would thank you for taking the risk once their cars stopped running, their jobs disapeared and their money become worthless.


You still don't get it, or are you being deliberately obtuse to tease me?

The weapons are the means by which the USA is buying. When you go into a store, the store keeper doesn't pay you money, you pay him.


Well hopefully, no one! No one wants a war. Its bad for business, even for the arms industry. Poor people can't afford expensive weapons.

Wars are going to happen though so its good business sense to make sure that, if you can, be the one selling the weapons that way you make money and your chances of survival are greater.


Yes, you were very unclear. Why would Saudi Arabia want to use satelite guided bombs to fight terrorists inside its own borders? That doesn't make sense. They are also receiving other weapon systems which would be more appropriate and far less destructive to the side walk...


Are you claiming politics is an exact science?

Seen with hindsight, there is much to ponder upon with regards to Saddam Hussein. He was a good asset against Iran for a while and then they lost control of him. It happens. You can't control every one all the time.

It really isn't that "bizarre" of a deal (by that I mean it isn't unprecedented). It has been going on for a long while. Here is a record of arms transfers to the middle east from 1992 through 2006. Here are just the sales to Saudi during that timeframe.

First let get the story straight – we are selling NOT giving SA weapons. And if anyone would rather they went to Russia to buy them I would disagree until we are free of ME oil – witch we seem incapable of doing.
We do give Israel money and they use much of nit to buy US weapons.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the package has not yet been announced, said it would include selling Saudi Arabia advanced weapons known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions. JDAMs convert simple gravity bombs into accurate "smart" weapons.
Israel protested the proposed sale when word of it first leaked in April.

If we want to be afraid of any country it should be Iran – and then perhaps China which is busily building nuclear subs with ICBS aboard and who has stolen out best nuke designs.

Congress should not and will not kill the deal.


http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/296293.html

1 What justification is there for the US to provide money for arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world?

2 Will this move further destabilize an already volatile region?

3 Will/can Congress kill this deal? Should they?

1 Saudi Arabia and Iran have never exactly been the best of friends. This looks like the US is making sure that, push comes to shove, the Arab countries will be able to assist the US in a military conflict against Iran. It's not exactly the most comforting plan, but it is an old one.....(the British Empire in India springs to mind)

2 The Middle East is volatile because it is (with the exception of Israel) largely controlled by autocrats who are perfectly happy to exploit ethnic tensions and supress their populations in order to maintain their own positions and maybe increase the area under their control at the expense of their autocratic neighbours. Arguably the US is maintaining the current balance of power by preventing Iran from gaining further military supremacy over the Arab states. Of course this could destabilise the region, but then, the Middle East can destabilise at the drop of a pin, so its hard to know.

3 Congress - killing a further government subsidy to the US arms industry? They'll probably kill it round about the same time they stop subsidising the energy industry and US agriculture....

I reject the assumption that our oil prices would change if SA bought weapons from Russia, seeing as even the Saudi government has no direct control over pricing. No more than the Iranians in any case.

Furthermore the word "aid" does not indicate a sale in the pure sense of the word. They aren't footing the bill, we are.

Unfortunately the details on this "deal" seem to be few and far between. As Mrs. Pigpen already noted, this package is hardly unprecedented. We supply arms to foreign countries all the time. China, Russia and France were hardly pioneers in this endeavour, though I think the French might have been back in 1776 . The US unquestionably made an art of the practice in the 20th century. In this scenario, it appears that these are arms sales and not direct aid (I'm willing to admit its hard to divine this 100% from the news wires and there is nothing on Whitehouse.Gov yet). This is American Capitalism at its finest. All of these countries want weapons, and they will buy them, why not sell them ours?

If this is truly an arms sale package, Congress has only one recourse. It is allowed to review the deal and could pass a resolution opposing it. POTUS can veto it and we know Congress is incapable of an override at this time.

If we look to past events we see that these sales are never actual sales

Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy(PDF)

Read the article – they are PAYING for what they get and you should know that when any country limits or reduces oil output we call SA and they make up the difference. Having them as an ally of OURS rather than say Russia is invaluable.

Sure they have people there who hate us but so does France – and SA is actively fighting Al Qaeda

I read all three articles and just to make sure I wasn't crazy, read them again just now.

Do not let the word "sale" fool you. It's only a sale in the sense that Lockheed-Martin and the like are private contractors... the U.S. Taxpayer is the buyer on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

The Saudis will cough up some funds of their own, but the balance will be ours to pay... and the government gets not one red cent.

That 30 billion will be coming out of our budget, I posted a link which describes how these "sales" work.

If they call it aid.. it's our money.

S.A. is not our ally. We criticize S.A. for not cooperating enough. S.A. subjects criticize the crown for cooperating with us at all.

How would Russia "selling" arms to S.A. make a whit of difference? Is Putin going to inflame Wahhabists within the royal family and within the population, not to mention non-Wahhabis within the royal family that more than anything want to increase their own monthly stipend?

Oil revenue is 80% of S.A.'s economy. As the price per barrel goes up, the more money S.A. makes, the happier corrupt members of the royal family are, the more money they can transfer to AQ. As S.A.'s population continues to grow and the state fails to provide the same services by selling oil on the cheap, the more discontent the population, the more pressure the crown is under to ignore the West's demand for cheap oil.

S.A. would no more be Russia's ally than it's ever been our ally. The crown keeps trying to appease the West with "cheap" oil by OPEC standards, continues lavishing millions on hundreds of family members, and spends billions on a security apparatus designed to protect it from its own population and keep the oil flowing. This is about them. We're just the delivery man providing the means with which to maintain the status quo. Any delivery man will do. The crown can't afford the luxury of being the ally of any Western state.

There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. This is even truer when a democratic regime deals with an authoritarian regime, and vice versa.

You are only correct for Israel. As noted below the Congress eliminated the (small) aid we give to SA. With Israel they are required by law to spend most of the aid we give them by buying US products including weapons.

SA is BUYING the weapons and we are NOT paying for it as taxpayers but rather getting the revenues, jobs etc.

Congress eliminates aid to Saudi Arabia Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 9, 2006
The House of Representatives voted Friday to forbid US aid to Saudi Arabia, a statement of far more symbolic importance than economic.
The 312-97 vote was to eliminate $420,000 from the $21.3 billion Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The money has financed $20,000 in military training and education and a $400,000 anti-terrorism program.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646460/posts

The article above is old news. Military aid (of an amount that's basically a rounding error on the budget it's so small) for training was canceled last year. The new proposal (the new news, just announced a few days ago and linked to in Daffy's opening post above) is comparitively big and it includes hardware.

The "package" announced is a military aid package. Of course this will mean they have to come to us for replacement parts in the future so you're likely partially right.

Well we will have to see. Everything I read says SALE as below. We have never ever given SA 2 billion a year and I see no reason we would do so now.

The weapons are “aid” even if they buy them since it takes WH and Congressional approval.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates leave for the Middle East on Monday on a rare joint mission to deliver those messages in person to the region's leaders.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the package has not yet been announced, said it would include selling Saudi Arabia advanced weapons known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs. JDAMs convert simple gravity bombs into accurate "smart" weapons.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18457.html

Now that you mention it (and I read through it again), you might be right. It seems to say we are selling the weapons and giving an undisclosed amout of aid, but it's written in such a way as to make the reader assume that the whole thing is an aid package. Journalistic tricks got me. I'm slow today.

Here's a BBC article that seems to back the idea that this is military aid coming from the US.

Link
Clearly the Israelis aren't paying.

Again, if they call it aid we're stuck with the check.

Well we were primarily discussing Saudi Arabia. And they are buying.

With Israel it is different – we give then 3-7 billion a year in “aid” (one of the major reason the Arab world hates the US) and they are required to spend most of it buying things from US companies.

Think of it as a kind of store credit.

The language every source uses to describe the Saudi deal is the same as Israel. Aid means us.

they may be required to spend most of it in the US, but it is still taxpayer money.

I'm torn on this. I like the idea of having a well armed and trained ally... and Israel has proven time and again to be able to handle much larger nations with bigger and better funded militaries.

Israel has proven itself trustworthy, and considering the climate in the Mid-east, it's beneficial to have a first responder, or a front-line of sorts. They are our biggest fans (if not our only fans) in the region.

However, why should we fund it? Why should it be a US paid for deal? Is Isreal that poor? Consider this- how much does it cost for us to have all those troops on the S Korean border? What kind of cash (over time) does that cost Americans? Is it different?

I really don't know enough to make an educated statement. If it's a matter of finances, then maybe it's logical. If not, maybe it's a stupid decision.

One thing I'll say is that the way Israel handled Egypt, I'd put them against a nation (if not even just temporarily) like Iran. I'd also expect that if it came down to actual war, that they'd aid in the fight. They have planes, armor, and infantry within hours.... that's worth something.

How is it that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't mentioned?

I think because basically it won't be used until it's a last resort. Israel needs the nukes... as Pakistan, etc has them and its a deterrent. I don't have ANY qualms about that.

The problem is you don’t know what you are talking about. I do. Aid is different by country. And Israel is special and not at all like Saudi Arabia.

In addition how would you think a “gift” of taxpayer money to one on the richest countries in the world would go over in Congress?

Military aid to Israel is special. Unlike every other country lucky enough to enjoy the scraps of our aid they don't have to spend all our military aid on U.S. weapons systems.


If your heart is bleeding, Ted, why not scrap the arms deal and divert the billions we're going to give Middle East countries to Africa?

That must be it!

I'm mean me and my silly evidence.

Showing a Congressional Report on past aid spending and the current reality of arms "sales" to Israel are nothing compared to your vast...

ermm...

Once again
Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy

Now when this bill is finally trotted out in September we'll know for sure, but the fact is we give billions to Israel and Egypt every year and Saudi Arabia is not lining up for their slice.

Thanks for the 2004 data that is not to the point here.

Yes when the bill is as you say “trotted out” in Sept we will see it is a sale and not a gift.

In either case your Dem buddies are in charge and will make the decision.





Why give more billions to corrupt governments in Africa? We already give too much and get squat in return. Lets let the UN deal with Africa. They are doing such a great job now!