US planning 20-billion-dollar arms package for Saudi Arabia: report

This news is incompleteJul 28th, 2007 - 06:47:24

There's also an increase in weapons for Israel involved - just in case the Shia were not sufficiently upset with us providing for the Saudis. Note paragraph 2, and also para. 3, which notes that the Saudis have given us no assurance of support for our Iraq policies in return:

www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnn lx=1185590446-8VwVQ8Ta/an8A9716Bvw0w

'WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to total $20 billion over the next decade at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall. In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.'

Report this comment

The program expanded againJul 28th, 2007 - 13:42:23

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

'WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has decided to supply billions of dollars in advanced new weapons to Saudi Arabia, other Arab allies of the United States and to Israel, senior State Department officials and congressional aides said Friday. The arms and aid package, which the officials said is to be announced Monday, is part of a U.S. initiative to reassure worried allies in the Middle East that despite its troubles in Iraq, the United States remains committed to the region. It also is meant to send a signal of resolve to Iran's increasingly confident leaders.'

---

It appears that we have resorted to buying support via delivering advanced technology selectively, and the more countries involved, the greater the longer-term risk of that technology making its way to unfriendly hands. The list is undefined, but I would guess that some of those states have purchased weapons from China, Russia, and perhaps even North Korea. Now rather than the 'Democratic alternative' in terms of political systems, we appear to be the 'arms merchant of choice'. The Mideast is Sunni in the majority, and aside from Israel, I am assuming that the recipient (some unnamed) states are all Sunni - in a large sense, if we cannot control how those weapons are deployed, it could exacerbate the Sunni-Shia schism. One of the benchmarks in Iraq is to DISARM the militias.

Israel got included to offset concern in Congress, and now there will be a bidding war ('Include me!'), which may be what Bush is after. The problem will be controlling the spread of technology to 'unfriendly' parties, and making sure that the Governments involved remain friendly over time to U.S. interests. Is there some kind of string attached whereby we can rescind?

I would recommend going back in history and checking 'Atoms for Peace' and Eisenhower, and seeing how that turned out. Arming allies is a great idea, if you're speaking of a standing alliance like NATO. Are we putting together such a Sunni alliance, in a Mideast racked by sectarian strife for centuries? (That leaves the discussion of Israel aside, for the sake of this point, as they've only existed since 1948). The technology available today includes far more powerful weapons, which can cause more damage, thereby serving as a catalyst for even broader conflicts.

Anyone who opposes this will be labeled 'coward' or worse by the GOP, who prey on everyone's fears (some justified in terms of Iran and al Qaeda; and some not justified, such as WMD in Iraq), so it will be interesting to see how this plays. In a pre-election period, it gives the GOP another reason to beat their chests in public, and that may be part of the reason for it.

I also want to see what Putin has to see about the selective spread of American weaponry, as he was none too thrilled with the missile deal.

Report this comment