BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

US $60 billion strategy to provide arms for peace? or something

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
sTe
04:02 / 05.08.07
So Congress approves unimaginable amounts of cash to buy some more murderous weapons for the middle eastern nations because they could be doing more to help with the terror war...

US giving loads of cash for more death/defence

Is it just me, or does is not only some kind of badly placed colonialism from distance but also a demonstration of complete hypocrisy for all the war on "terror" talk (Saudi Arabia being the home country of the majority of the people who took it upon themselves to murder loads of American people in the plane attack suicide bombing)

Did not the war against Sadam come about due to arming him to fight the percieved worse threats in the region? Does anyone ever learn from past mistakes?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:30 / 05.08.07
Why should Bush care? In a few years time he's out of office and going back to the ranch. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that he's in the White House to make the world, or at least the U.S. 'better'. But whose definition is he going to use, yours, or Rupert Murdoch's, who he can give your money to so that Murdoch will get Fox News and the WSJ to tell millions of people that he's making your life better.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:31 / 05.08.07
And there is the question of whether throwing money at a problem sorts it out. By that logic the Allies should have won the war in Iraq and everyone there should be peaceful and happy now.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:41 / 06.08.07
There was an article about this on Comment is Free, although I can't find it now. It pointed out that roughly speaking worse human rights abuses occur in Saudi Arabia alone than in Iran, and this money is going not only to Saudi Arabia but to Egypt as well. There are also much more tangible links to terrorism in those countries. There's also the issue that (if I remember correctly) the countries getting this funding are largely Sunni, whereas Iran is largely Shia, and that much of the abuse that goes on in the Sunni countries is directed at Shiite minorities. Which in turn explains a lot of Iran's millitarism and drive to develop nuclear power (they are surrounded by enemies; certainly they are in a much more dangerous position than Israel).

It's complete hypocrisy, basically.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:56 / 06.08.07
Another garmaine point:

So all those balloons, celebrations, smiley press conferences and declarations of a new start for Africa, were about the entire western world donating to an entire impoverished continent less than half of what one country has quietly coughed up in weapons for the Saudis, Egypt and Israel.
 
 
---
04:18 / 07.08.07
"And half this generous gift, $30bn-worth of arms, is being given to Israel."

I wonder how much of a part the AIPAC played in getting that figure so ridiculously fucking huge. There's no wonder so many people shut this stuff out, it's hard to stomach.
 
 
sTe
20:35 / 07.08.07
I can understand, although I do not condone, how the 50% or $30 billion in military aid to Israel is consistent with the medium to long term US policy of backing Israel to prevent it's destruction by neighbouring countries. This is not to say I do not abhor the treatment of the Arabic citizens of Israel by successive Israeli governments, but it generally ties in with the stated or unspoken policy of protecting the existence of a Jewish homeland in the middle east. (I am unsure whether this is an officially stated US government policy or just the unwritten rule both the parties abide by?)

However I have been pondering for some days as to the reasoning behind the decision to assist with the arming of some of the richer and more powerful, predominantly Sunni Muslim nations (although I believe that the Sunni are a large majority of Muslim people throughout most of the Middle East). Working on the assumption that Bush and co are not either completely stupid or deliberately trying to bring about the apocalypse I have several potential theories, although all seem to have obvious flaws.

- They are planning to withdraw from Iraq in the near future and are hoping the neighbouring countries will take up some manner of peacekeeping role and have realised that pouring billions into the new Iraqi security forces without the proper infrastructure is not working

- There is a panic over the security of the oil in these countries

- There is soon to be an invasion of some description of Iran and they are looking for countries to allow US military bases in the region

- There is concern over the US defence industry post Iraq withdrawal and so this will provide another $60 billion worth of orders

- They are hoping to scare the pants off Iran the largest Shia populated country in the Middle East and prevent their influence spreading by arming countries to suppress any of their Shia minority who may support the Iranian government/religious leaders in Iraq and elsewhere

or maybe parts of all and more...?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:51 / 08.08.07
I can understand, although I do not condone, how the 50% or $30 billion in military aid to Israel is consistent with the medium to long term US policy of backing Israel to prevent it's destruction by neighbouring countries.

You also understand that Israel's having all of this weaponry, and the treatment of the Arabic citizens of Israel (and also vast numbers of citizens in the neighbouring countries, including but not limited to those lost in wars against Egypt, Lebanon, and others) by successive Israeli governments is the main reason why anti-Israeli sentiment exists in the first place - and that, if things carry on as they are, once America becomes eclipsed by China, they will have to scale down this aid to Israel, leaving Israel in a position just as antagonistic but now even more vulnerable?

However I have been pondering for some days as to the reasoning behind the decision to assist with the arming of some of the richer and more powerful, predominantly Sunni Muslim nations (although I believe that the Sunni are a large majority of Muslim people throughout most of the Middle East).

What's obvious is that any talk by Bush about the need to stamp out Islamic extremism, and atrocious treatment of women, and abuses of human rights in the Middle East is purely opportunistic.

They are hoping to scare the pants off Iran the largest Shia populated country in the Middle East and prevent their influence spreading by arming countries to suppress any of their Shia minority who may support the Iranian government/religious leaders in Iraq and elsewhere

and

- There is soon to be an invasion of some description of Iran and they are looking for countries to allow US military bases in the region

These two, probably. The US have certainly drawn up plans to attack Iran, that's known, although I can't find the report right now. Again, there is probably little "reasoning" going on at all. This act on America's part is most likely a lunge rather than a specific pin-prick.
 
 
whothehell@where?
23:53 / 08.08.07
is the article from the original post representative of british opinion pieces? if so, you all have got some interesting stuff in your newspapers, maureen dowd has nothing on the catty bitch that wrote that piece

we're the US, if we give away weapons of war you can rest assured there'll be some backflow of revenue over the long run, parts and training, etc

we want everyone to kill each other with US made warfare devices, we've got a brand name to protect here, i don't see any threads complaining about britain or france selling their wares to warring african - former colonies - nations

and dropping 60 billion of food over africa would kill more people than these weapons ever would, ever caught a gallon of water after a thousand foot drop?

i dare you to try
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:41 / 09.08.07
Could you give us a breakdown of British and French arms sales, WTW@W? There may indeed be an awful double standard operating here.
 
 
whothehell@where?
01:06 / 09.08.07
Wikipedia entry on BAE Systems.

do your own reading, please
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:30 / 09.08.07
That's nice. So, can you point to where BAE Systems, a listed company, provided $60 billion in military aid to Britain's former colonies in Africa while those former colonies were at war?

The answer to that, in case you were wondering, is "no, I can't, because I am trolling the thread".

The arms industry in general is certainly worthy of concern, and the role of states in supporting the arms industry through heavy subsidies and the involvement of the arms lobby with government is in need of careful management. However, what we are discussiing here is quite different. When you're caught up and not trolling, feel free to share your thoughts.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:53 / 09.08.07
W@: Why (though I sense this question may be falling on tightly coiled ears) would you assume that we are Britishers and French trying to "do down" the Americans? By all means feel free to start a thread about the thoroughly nasty British arms trade. We don't like any of them.
 
 
whothehell@where?
21:52 / 09.08.07
you're accusing me of not reading all 7 posts before commenting? c'mon

and i didn't accuse anyone of being french or english, i don't wish to offend anyone, after all

but if you'll read an essay or two from foreign affairs contributors describing the troubles associated with throwing money at africa you'd realize they've reached saturation point in most of aid receptive areas

at some point you have to come to the unhappy realization that human beings are violent, greedy and covetous of resources and riches, making armaments a national neccessity

why can't we both feed and arm the world? a well fed, well armed, well trained soldier is a happy soldier

we're bringing happiness to north africa and the middle east, why don't you want them to be happy?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:29 / 10.08.07
Don't feed the troll, chaps.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:37 / 12.08.07
So, back on topic - this $60 billion figure seems to be a mix of military aid over the next ten years and approved arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. So, one way or another a lot of this is money going from the US government to the Middle East, and then funnelling back to the US arms industry. USGov itself is still paying out, though, and perhaps as significantly as the arms themselves is supplying trained men to operate the equipment and train the armies to use them.

It seems like the main goal here is to give a show of faith and support to the Sunni states in the Gulf. That means, logically, that Egypt has to be supported also, since Egypt has supported US foreign policy than some of the gulf states, and is almost certainly unhappy at the thought of Israel and other states having their armaments being ramped up. Meanwhile, Israel has to get more military support than any of the others, to maintain Israel as the best-armed nation in the region, which is key to Israeli-American diplomacy in the region. So, that's all fairly predictable. The interesting part is the military support to the Gulf states, and in particular to states which might be susceptible already to counsels hostile to the goals of the US - like Saudi Arabia. It's a bit of a gamble, certainly.

So, what's the aim? Iran, pretty clearly. Almost everyone around Iran, except Syria, is getting arms. The first aim might be to hope that the Sunni states might be encouraged to move to prevent a Shi'ite takeover of Iraq, assuming that the US withdraws and the government collapses. Failing that, this show of support might help to maintain US allies in the region should Iran successfully set up direct or indirect control over Iraq - making Iran appear the greater evil. As a containment strategy, this leaves a bit to be desired, but without direct engagement with Iran, diplomatic or military, it may be time for counsels of desperation. By supplying the weaponry, the US helps to create a bar to Iran's ambitions, but also helps to secure staging posts outside Iraq for subsequent action against Iran - most obviously, airstrikes against possible nuclear installations, or infiltration by special forces.

This feels like a trade of future stability in the region for an attempt to limit Iran's influence. However, it delays direct military action against Iran, which is interesting - is this because it doesn't appear strategically credible, or politically feasible?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:27 / 13.08.07
On your ending question, that's probably because

a) a lot of US troops are tied up in Iraq

or

b) America, courageously, would like to use the Arab populations as cannon-fodder, instead of Americans, and so is arranging a situation where this can be done.
 
 
bacon
00:15 / 14.08.07
the comic book hypothesis of foreign affairs is engaging, but it's not about iran, it's just about secured resources, capitalism
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:53 / 14.08.07
Could you go into a little more detail about what you mean by "the comic book hypothesis of foreign affairs", bacon? Is it something you see demonstrated in this thread?
 
 
bacon
15:50 / 14.08.07
"the US is selling old beat up f-16s to the sunni arab states so they can go to war with iran to secure the oilfields of iraq! meanwhile, across town, the iranian nuclear facility is nuked by the israelis! and then, in an epiphany, we realize it was all just a plot to ensure the global supremacy of the evil fiat currency, THE DOLLAR!"

its an edge of your seat thrill ride
 
 
sTe
21:26 / 14.08.07
I think there's more to it than just Iran, probably oil based although other than Israel this seems to be the main factor leading US strategy in the region.

Or is it just as Condi says, "Further modernizing the Egyptian and Saudi Armed Forces and increasing interoperability will bolster our partners' resolve in confronting the threat of radicalism and cement their respective roles as regional leaders in the quest for Middle East peace and in ensuring Lebanon's freedom and independence,"

Which I personally interpret to mean bolster our partners' resolve in confronting the threat of radicalism - more inclined to target areas (probably by bomb or missile) that US intelligence suggests to them may be harbouring a "terrorist" organisation as they've got lots of new high tech weapons to test out prior to any actual war.

cement their respective roles as regional leaders - ensure the respective US friendly ruler/government cannot be overthrown either through legitimate elections or otherwise and are seen to be considerably more powerful than the designated 'evil' nations of Iran and Syria. (See also ensuring Lebanon's freedom although that's a lot more complex)

The use of the phrase "the quest for Middle East peace" is interesting in that by far the biggest disruption to Middle East peace in recent years has been the invasion of a sovereign country, other throw of it's government and disbanding of it's army and infrastructure. Followed by the actions of the Israeli government against it's own citizens and the reactions of some of these citizens against the injustice they feel. It's almost like admitting that we've messed up big time, can't seem to sort it out and we'll be off soon. Here's a load of weapons to you countries that have leaders who will deal with us (oil), you sort it out, only leave the Israel thing, we're giving them even more weapons to stop you getting carried away with it all.

Does anyone think arming selected Middle Eastern will make the Iranian government less likely to develop nuclear weapons?

I wonder to what extent the possibility has been considered that any of the "friendly" Arab rulers may be overthrown by their own people or even, shock horror, use their military superiority over their neighbours to attempt to increase their land and natural resources by invading? A la Sadam, in which case these same weapons would be used against the US soldiers sent to intervene and return the oil supplies back to their rightful dollar friendly owners.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:19 / 14.08.07
Once again, thanks all for not feeding the troll. If bacon doesn't get a response to his eager but inept baiting, he'll probably go away.

Meanwhile, Saudi is perpetually in danger of revolution... which is why this seems a bit of a strategic risk, although one which presumably Rice feels is worth it, wheras Cheney seems more hawkish on Iran.

Does anyone think arming selected Middle Eastern will make the Iranian government less likely to develop nuclear weapons?

Well, in the "better-armed Sunni states around them" way, no. However, states with political and military connections to the United States would be more likely to allow American or Israeli strikes to go through or over their territory to neutralise Iranian development sites, which is more important if you don't have a strategic base in Iraq...
 
 
bacon
23:18 / 14.08.07
we have bases all over iraq, no matter what happens in iraq, we'll have bases in iraq, we're building the deathstar of bases there, its bigger than the frickin vatican, okay?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:52 / 14.08.07
You already did that one, bacon, here.
 
 
bacon
00:30 / 15.08.07
true then, true now

am i wrong?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:41 / 15.08.07
*Takes own advice.*
 
 
GarbageGnome
14:34 / 16.08.07
Speaking as an American, I can't stomach the idea of giving weapons to the Saudi government. Its not that I'm of the opinion that the Saudi government is corrupt and/or tyrannical, I haven't done the research to formulate such an opinion. What I do know, is that when two jetliners flew into the towers? Yeah, a Saudi Arabian was behind the stick. I'm not going to judge the entire country based on this, but it does lead me to believe that lower class Saudi's are prone to joining radical Islam.

Now, lets assume for even a moment the Saudi government is on the up and up, which is the argument anyone supporting this idea would say. Even if the government is okay, you have to remember that the common rank and file soldier may not be as loyal. A shipment of such a vast quantity of weapons means that any supply sergeant who wants to make some extra money, can funnell a crate of M-16's here, or a bundle of C4 there, and equip terrorist forces with the US's own weapons. Which would just be the height of irony.

That reason alone makes me unwilling to share our weapons with such a foreign nation.

And yes, equipping the nations around it with weapons will do nothing but encourage Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If your trying to intimidate Iran into halting nuclear programs, weapons deals are not the way to go. This would only make Iran want a nuke even more to "Keep up with the Jones'" so to speak.

The idea of using these nations as a launching point for further strikes would seem to be the only reason. But again, that doesn't make sense to me. Most of our aircraft have an operational range that would enable them to fly from US soil to Iran. Remember, our B-52's were built to fly all the way to Russia. So, this just doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:21 / 16.08.07
Speaking as an American, I can't stomach the idea of giving weapons to the Saudi government. Its not that I'm of the opinion that the Saudi government is corrupt and/or tyrannical, I haven't done the research to formulate such an opinion. What I do know, is that when two jetliners flew into the towers? Yeah, a Saudi Arabian was behind the stick. I'm not going to judge the entire country based on this, but it does lead me to believe that lower class Saudi's are prone to joining radical Islam.

I think it's great that the actions of one individual (who somehow flew two planes into the towers with one stick - impressive!) mean that you won't judge an entire country, just the lower classes. Welcome to Barbelith!
 
 
GarbageGnome
16:43 / 16.08.07
I don't know if that was sarcasm or not, but I should clarify that it was not the actions of one individual Saudi Arabian that I base this judgement on. 15 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians, the overwhelming majority.

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said Saudi Arabia committs uncivil acts against its citizens routinely, and this is backed up by reports filed by the UN Human Rights Committee.

Saudi Arabia is a oil fueled nation, with oil revenue making up 75% or more of the nation's GDP, with the country run as a welfare state based on those revenues.

So the government dominates the lower class through the welfare system and strict Islamic laws that routinely include amputation and flagellation. All these factors would help disillusioned young lower class Arabic men to be perfect recruits for radical Islam groups. I see no reason why thinking that lower class Saudi Arabians are a group of people who are at risk for joining radical Islam groups is a silly idea lol. I'm not saying they all do, or even that a majority do, but the enviroment they are brought up in and the factors against them all seem to make them more prone to joining radical Islam.

So, again, I wouldn't want to be giving weapons to such a nation. Just seems like a really bad plan.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:11 / 18.08.07
I think your last sentence is broadly correct, if your main aim is to keep weapons technology out of the hands of states that may experience the overthrow of their monarchy and the establishment of an anti-American Islamic state.

However. This "lower classes" stuff is in danger of missing the point quite badly. Poor Saudis tend not to get to go to Europe, or to America, or learn how to fly planes. Osama bin Laden? Saudi, yes. Poor, definitely not. You probably need to work out what you mean by "welfare state", as well - this sounds like you've been uncritically accepting right-wing opinion pieces. The Saudi state is a vast bureaucracy, in which the many, many relatives of the royal family can generally expect to get jobs for life in the civil service.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:16 / 18.08.07
Oh, and:

But again, that doesn't make sense to me. Most of our aircraft have an operational range that would enable them to fly from US soil to Iran. Remember, our B-52's were built to fly all the way to Russia. So, this just doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all.

Airspace is one issue, here. Flying planes over the airspace of another country without permission is potentially an act of war, and would invalidate, among other things, United Nations mandates. Also, the supply lines involved in trying to fly bombing run. A B-52 has an unrefuelled range of about 8,800 miles, but if it needs a repair to its engine over Kuwait and the nearest supply base is in Bonn, that's likely to be a problem.

Another issue is that there's not a lot of profit in randomly bombing areas if your aim is the targetted destruction of, say, nuclear emplacements. Someone has to go and check the damage afterwards, and satellite photogrpaphy will generally not provide sufficient detail. Whether in intelligence-gathering beforehand, or surveillance afterwards, at some point somebody has to get their boots dirty.
 
 
Chew On Fat
10:42 / 21.08.07
And its not just nearby wealthy human rights abusers who are benefitting from US tax-dollars. The Occupation in Iraq has started paying the terrorists themselves not be terrorists.

See this story

Some of them are being paid $350 a month per head to stop wreaking bloody havok within the country.

It does seem to tie into the 'withdrawing from Iraq' scenario outlined above.

Still, wasn't this how the Roman Empire ended up; paying a tribute to their former colonies not to attack them?

Interestingly, you don't have to go all the way to the Middle East to find an example of paying terrorists not to be terrorists. This BBC story relates how the UVF are receiving funding from the British tax-payer to make less of a bloody nuisance of themselves.

See this link
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:45 / 21.08.07
How are people fighting occupying forces in their own country terrorists?
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:38 / 21.08.07
The same way these guys are I'd think. For note, £350/month is above the average iraqi income (I'm unable to find the average for Babil).
 
 
Chew On Fat
13:46 / 21.08.07
Oops! Did I say 'Terrorists'?

I meant 'Enemies of Freedom'
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply