Arms of August
posted at 5:05 pm on August 8, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Like many Americans, I was perplexed when I first heard that the Bush administration had approved a $20 billion arms sale to the Saudis with related sales approved to the Gulf States. I wasn’t outraged, and I certainly didn’t go looking for someone to exchange any high-fives with. I was perplexed. Ambivalent. Not really sure what I thought.
Saudi Arabia, like most of the Middle East, is a conundrum to which I don’t have the answer. On the one hand, as a wealthy and sometimes useful old ally (or maybe “ally” would be more appropriate) that might have to defend itself against Iran, which is currently an enemy that we share with the Saudis, it makes sense to sell them arms with which they may defend themselves if they have to. But on the other hand, Saudi Arabia is one of the founts of one of the Islamic reformations (Wahhabism) which has led to the war that we’re currently waging. And if I had a third hand, I’d point out that if we were to cut the Saudis off, they could just go buy arms from the Russians and the Chinese, both of which would be more than happy to arm both sides in any Saudi-Iranian war, and that such a move would end up drawing Saudi Arabia away from us and toward our geostrategic competitors. And, in the event that any Saudi-Iranian war went badly for the Saudis, there’s always the chance that the House of Saud could get overthrown and replaced with something even worse. 15 of 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi, most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi, and so forth. If we arm them against Iran, they have a better chance of actually winning. Of course, a Saudi win might well make them every bit as dangerous as the Iranian mullahs.
So with all of that in mind, I come to the conclusion that if the Saudis are looking to buy up conventional arms, we ought to be the ones to sell them to them. But that doesn’t mean that I have to like it, and I don’t.
I was discussing this issue with a friend, who posited this question: If the Iranians go nuclear, wouldn’t that make the weaponry that we’re selling to the Saudis moot?
I don’t think so. Detonating a test nuke isn’t the same thing as developing a deliverable weapon, and even if Iran is able to successfully test a nuclear weapon, we probably still have a short window between that moment and the moment that Iran deploys a functioning nuclear weapon that can be launched on a missile or dropped from a plane. In fact, in a perverse sort of way, the arms we sell to the Saudis might become more relevant than they currently are, albeit for a short time, after Iran test fires a nuke. The Saudis might well do the work after an Iranian test fire that we’re all hoping that the Israelis do before one: They might launch a bombardment to destroy enough Iranian sites to set their miniaturization program back a few years and buy the world some time. We would help them as much as Islamic sensitivity would allow, but it would be in our interests to put a Saudi stamp in that mission. Once Iran test fires a nuclear weapon, literally anything is possible, and most of what’s possible is not good.
So what’s the point of all this? I think it’s easy for everyone from bloggers to journalists to the average person on the street to come up with snap answers that really don’t answer the question at hand. Everyone wants to sound compassionate about the situation in Darfur, for instance, but hardly anyone wants to address the Chinese elephant in the middle of that room. It’s easy to slam the Bush administration for selling arms to the Saudis, and it’s just as easy for someone else to come along and praise the administration for doing the exact same thing, and part of me would agree with both sides, but both easy reactions really miss the point. Iraq seems to be genuinely turning around lately, but there were no good options for dealing with Saddam prior to 2003, and outside Iraq there don’t seem to be any really good options on the table for dealing with any of the other crises at hand. You can arm the country that gave us Osama bin Laden, or you can not arm them, and neither choice is particularly appealing. You can try to get China to care about human rights outside its borders when it doesn’t even care about human rights inside its borders, or you can get the UN involved (knowing that China will use its seat on the UNSC to keep anything meaningful from happening), or you can insert the US military in in some way (knowing that the liberals who support it today will denounce it tomorrow), or you can shrug and watch genocide commence. You can stay in Iraq though it might turn out to be costly and futile, or you can leave too early and watch Iraq morph into a bloodbath. Or you can partition it and watch it turn into another India-Pakistan fault line, only with neighbors Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia all using proxies to jockey for position in whatever remains of the country’s people.
We seem to be moving toward a point in time that is not unlike the situation faced by President Truman in August 1945: No good options on the table, lots of wrenching choices, and no matter which path you choose, your decision will send many people to their inevitable deaths. The only questions are, whose people, how do they die, and what kind of world emerges in the aftermath?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I take it the nuclear option is off the table?
Kini on August 8, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Sure.. Now…
After September 11, we should have cut everybody off. Using this kind of commerce as a bargaining chip when we need it.
Why do we continue to assume arms sales though our unpleasant competitors is a bad thing. Should they buy from Russia, well then we would know a little more about Russia. And the terms and consequences of such a deal would become a strain for folks like Saudi Arabia, their customers.
“Business as usual” just removes options from the table, and prevents the learning of difficult but necessary lessons.
Agrippa2k on August 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
A well thought out point, Bryan. I sometimes wonder if Reagan faced the same conundrum in the eighties with Iraq-Iran.
This, frankly, combined with the recent headline article that claimed “any attack on Mecca would create a billion suicide bombers”, makes me very, very curious to wonder what Iran’s intentions are with Saudi Arabia. What IF Iran were to invade? Surely they wouldn’t attack Mecca. Or would they? What will happen if Achdiminniemouse is no longer in charge?
A set of vexing questions, indeed. Plus, I would grow a third eye the day Markos Moulitsas takes such a tempered approach to such a volatile topic.
MadisonConservative on August 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
We are arming the middle east because we might not be there after Bush leaves office.
Whatever else happens Iraq must not be allowed to grow. And for once it will be the regions problems and not ours alone
William Amos on August 8, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Good piece, Bryan.
Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 5:29 PM
The Saudis are “not worth a bucket of warm spit” - attributed by some to Lyndon Johnson.
MB4 on August 8, 2007 at 5:30 PM
A similar logic applies to our oil demand. I believe our long term strategy is to suck the middle-east dry. Once the oil is gone, we will be in a better position, not worse.
Russia and China’s demand accelerate this outcome, however it would be better to stop buying oil now and switch to domestic alternatives like coal, even ethanol.
While this would seem to strengthen their hand, the immediate effect would be rock bottom oil prices - bad for them. Russia and China would soon require more oil, back to current levels, but would demand the same rock bottom prices (unreasonable to us, not them).
The options are use up all of the oil (slow with debasing compromises for us), or devalue it (immediate devastation for them).
Agrippa2k on August 8, 2007 at 5:33 PM
You need to post the stuff about the one billion muslim bombers in a seperate thread. The quotes from those muslim parilement members are far more radical than I would believe
examples
William Amos on August 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
“No good options on the table”? Anybody who questioned [or questions] our use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki never had his ass in an assault craft, headed towards a Pacific island with a dug-in, fanatical and suicidal enemy.
Unbelievable. After 62 years, Americans wring their hands.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Thought provoking article, Bryan.
1. I agree that it continues to be in the national interest of the USA to keep Saudi Arabia relatively well armed. Yes, they are compromised allies, but in the ME that is still an asset.
2. I don’t think that Iran will be allowed to test fire a nuclear weapon, partly because of “1.”
3. In the matter of Iran, or Syria for that matter, the immediate goal should be the killing of her offspring in Iraq in an overwhelming show of strength and security.
Randy
williars on August 8, 2007 at 5:41 PM
OhEssYouCowboys on August 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Right on! Truman had a VERY GOOD, under the circumstances, option “on the table” and he used it and never looked back, nor should he have.
MB4 on August 8, 2007 at 5:46 PM
With billions of petro-dollars, Saudi Arabia has been buying very modern, deadly weapons from America.
Many of the systems on order, such as the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, M2A2 Bradley armored vehicles, F-15E Strike Eagle attack aircraft and Patriot surface-to-air missile, are the top-of-the-line systems deployed with U.S. forces.
TheEJS on August 8, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I always assumed the Saudi support for Wahhabism started as a ploy in internal politics. I figured the part of the royal family that isn’t in direct line for the throne was funding and befriending the radicals to use for support should they make a move for the throne, or even to have more influence in lesser matters.
This would mean that there are those within Saudi Arabia who depend on the us as a foil against this pressure. Just me speculating though, so feel free to correct me…
trubble on August 8, 2007 at 5:57 PM
And yet everyone ignores the fact that Dubai Aerospace Enterprise was recently allowed to buy Standard Aero and Landmark Aviation which means that the Dubai govenment now owns plants located on US military bases within America. We only thought that handing our ports to Dubai was the worst possible thing that this administration could do.
Buzzy on August 8, 2007 at 5:58 PM
I don’t care as long as they are not ours
I don’t care as long as they are dead
A world where the USA is still the only super power.
csdeven on August 8, 2007 at 5:58 PM
I feel just about the same way, Bryan. One of those damned if you do, damned if you don’t sort of things. Good article.
NeoConNews on August 8, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Bingo. War (and geopolitics for that matter) so often times boils down to either bad choices or worse choices, with no good choices available.
thirteen28 on August 8, 2007 at 6:26 PM
A very good article; it’s a million miles from the stereotype of right-wing blogs as a bunch of hate-spewing thoughtless “nuke the bastards” rubbish. Keep it up.
Apeking on August 8, 2007 at 6:27 PM
That’s a good point Bryan. My thoughts exactly. Foreign policy sometimes means deciding which evil is best supported. If Saudi Arabia falls to radical Islam, then the World would be in for a world of hurt. At least we can deal with the House of Saud.
KCtheKat on August 8, 2007 at 6:28 PM
William Amos on August 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Damn beat me to it, I was going to post that. The point here being look how riled up Muslims get at the mere thought of someone turning Mecca and Medina into smoldering glass.
doriangrey on August 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Before this is all over, somebody will be nuked.
We are slowly loosing our power to choose who gets nuked.
unamused on August 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Reagan was villified, torn apart by both sides of congress, and especially the Dems. for selling “secret” high speed printing machines to China. Hundreds of them and they could basically only be used in military applications. China said it was for civilian use. What happended? In the first Gulf war, Iraq used the equipment in their SAM bunkers. The problem was (for Iraq who bought the equipment from China), in each of the printers there was a radio wave signal that was given off and picked up by our satellites. We knew where every one of their SAM sites were months before we invaded. You can always second guess a program by the president, you just don’t know the real reason.
right2bright on August 8, 2007 at 6:57 PM
The F-22 Raptor is way ahead of the latest F-15:
http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/2369/Raptors-wield-unfair-advantage-at-Red-Flag.html
If we ever decide to buy enough of them at their high price!
fred5678 on August 8, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Unfortunately there has been a chain of events that don’t bode well for the good ol’ US.
We have become increasingly dependant on cheap foreign made goods while simultaneously losing large sectors of our manufacturing base.
During WWII the we rationed all types of war materials, but at least we could make our own boots and clothes.
We have become energy dependant on unfriendly nations that have either Islamic fundamentalist plans for our utter destruction or banana republics with Castro juniors for leaders.
Our old nemesis Russia has been primed by us and are just waiting to capitalize on our mistakes.
Over half of our elected officials have advanced degrees from the Jumma Carter schools of defeatism.
Our folks at home are useless as tits on a boar hog. The average person can’t dress a squirrel or scald a chicken.
I hate to sound pessimistic but with all the above mention problems, it is hard to remain sunny.
It is a sad day when the only poker chip left is a fleet of submarines with Armageddon as their purpose.
TheSitRep on August 8, 2007 at 7:23 PM
THOUGHTS ON THE SURGE, FROM Victor Davis Hanson: “So the key is not debating whether the surge is ‘working’ (it is), but rather concentrating on the post-surge, and defining exactly what are the conditions that result from it vis a vis Iraqi security and our military situation and national mood.”
bnelson44 on August 8, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Great article Bryan
I don’t like it; however I would much rather have them flying our stuff (that has been limited a bit) over foreign countries stuff.
Where I get concerned is when we start selling our “high tech gear” that is equivalent to ours.
One thing about the Saudi Air Force.
Even though they fly variants of the F-15C and F15E (as someone else pointed out). They certainly did not know how to fly them very well.
It was amusing to watch them come in for a landing, time after time they would have to abort and go around for another try (The “worst” was watching a pilot go-around 4 times before he landed on the fifth try.
In short they do not have the skill that our pilots have so I am not worried about having to fight them later on down the road (if it comes to that).
Also in the case of the F-15, we degrade some on the attack systems (radar for example) so the US F-15 has an advantage over the Saudi F-15.
Also assume a Saudi-Iran war where Saudi is our ally…
It can also be advantageous for the US to have Saudi purchased US equipment in theater because if we need to “help” in a Saudi-Iran war the Saudi support facilities are designed to accommodate our jets and not the Russians jets. (A couple of times we were able to get parts needed for our F-15’s faster from the Saudi’s then having the part shipped from the US).
F15Mech on August 8, 2007 at 7:46 PM
TheSitRep
There is really nothing in the World the US can not build, it is just cheaper to buy it elsewhere. If a major war broke out, we could produce all we need. Our 58 inch Plasma will just have to be what we watch for 5 years. In small towns all across American products are bing made, they would jsut switch machinery or add machines.
just my viewpoint
WoosterOh on August 8, 2007 at 7:46 PM
I posted to that Paki site about 2hrs ago, nothing too vitriolic, but I did invite them to go ahead and blow up the Vatican and any other religious, holy site around the world if’n they thought that would solve their issues. There are a whole bunch of us who’d prefer to fear Mom Nature than someone else’s definition of god, so their threat is idle, IMHO.
What I DID suggest is that if we REEEEallly wanted to blow up their holy sites, we’d've done it a lonnnnnng time ago and they wouldn’t've even heard us coming.
Funny, they didn’t post my comment ;)
Biffstir on August 8, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Even with degraded avionics and weapon systems, I would hope we have a cylon kill switch somewhere deep inside both the hardware and software.
Look at the upside though about the Saudi AF: they’re masters of the touch-and-go’s.
Always a “but…” with the F-22A fred5678. Until then, I would prefer to work with the F-15E in the future if the option comes up.
BTW after the Gawalior AF Base “defeat” of 6 F-15Cs (wihtout AWACs or AESA system), didn’t the Indian AF show up at Red Flag Alaska and bowed out before F-15s with AESA could come into play?
TheEJS on August 8, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I’m a bit shocked that people are shocked at all about this. There’s nothing particularly new about our selling good equipment to the Saudi’s and their neighbors: Saudi received the F-15C when it was still bleeding edge, and today they already have the F-15S (an evolution of the Strike Eagle specifically designed for Saudi Arabia that’s somewhat superior to America’s F-15E), have had AH-64D’s for some time now, and will be purchasing the quite capable Eurofighter to replace its aging F-15C’s in significant numbers (at which point its primary air superiority fighter will be superior to Israel’s, though certainly not its pilots). The United Arab Emirates already operates an impressive force of F-16E/F “Desert Falcons”, which are significantly superior to America’s F-16C/D’s.
If we were considering selling the Saudi’s classified systems like the F-22 I might be more concerned. But simply selling them more of the same gear they already have to further offset emerging Iranian capability seems like rather straightforward and uncontroversial geostrategy. (Hell, it even returns a significant number of our hard-spent petrodollars to America, and funds R&D on upgrading US fighter types that the DoD would not spend itself.)
Obviously, the lessons of Iran loom large over such transactions. But should Saudi Arabia fall into the hands of anti-American Islamist rulers, the US will have vastly greater problems than merely the weapons that would come into play (in fact, I can’t imagine that the US wouldn’t intervene on behalf of the current regime–covertly or overtly–along with those well-equipped neigbor states like UAE and Qatar to prevent its fall in the first place). And in this case, the possession of highly capable weapon systems will likely serve to reinforce the existing regime,for all its considerable problems, against alternatives that are far worse, both from Iran and from within.
I’m no fan of Saudi society, either, but balancing the pros and cons here, deals like this seem a no-brainer. The pros are numerous and clear, and the cons tend to boil down to little more than “We don’t like them.”
Blacklake on August 8, 2007 at 8:24 PM
We would not need to nuke Mecca, just threaten to Nuke Mecca.
Didn’t we live through decades of MAD, where the very threat of nuclear holocaust kept the Soviets (and us) from pushing the button, or doing anything else really, really dumb? We simply announce that, if any nuclear device (or catastrophic, cataclysmic event) occurs in our homeland, or in Israel, and Islamofascist terrorists are responsible, then we will respond with the destruction of that silly black rock, whereever it may be.
The threat should be enough to keep the lid on at least some Muslim terrorists…if they are as ’stable’ as were the Soviets.
Then again, they do suicide bomb themselves, and believe in that ‘virgin’ thing…
/Nevermind…
Serr8d on August 8, 2007 at 8:26 PM
To master a “touch-n-go” you actually have to touch-n-go.
Hearing the DEC’s on the Saudi jets cycle, when the pilot was adjusting the throttle trying to land only to give up and go around was comical to watch.
F15Mech on August 8, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Of course, the per-unit price is so high in large part precisely because we aren’t buying enough of them. It’s the same economy-of-scale that made the B-2 per-unit price seem ridiculous. When you amoritize the cost of development across only a handful of aircraft, each one becomes staggeringly expensive. But if you buy the number you should have, while the total expenditure goes up, the per-unit price drops precipitously.
Planes like the F-22, B-2, and C-17 will certainly never be remotely cheap, but when you procure them in the numbers they’re intended to be procured at, the amount of capability you gain relative to the dollars spent far outstrips the proportional per-dollar capability of these (ridiculously) slashed procurement plans. (Factor in the fact that, to make up for the shortfall in new planes, you also have to invest significant funds in upgrading and overhauling old aircraft like the F-15C, or buy new aircraft of a different type to fill the capability gaps left by the “castrated” procurement anyway, your rate of savings over simply going forward with the full procurement gets even more questionable.)
Oh, on an interesting little aside: The first operational V-22 Osprey squadron is scheduled to deploy to Iraq next month.
Blacklake on August 8, 2007 at 8:38 PM
That’s a lil bit different. On the other hand, the Saudis can create a real-life version of the kiddy go-round (the ride you see at fairs with lil airplanes attached to center wheel that go up and down).
TheEJS on August 8, 2007 at 8:40 PM
More or less that was my impression of the Saudi AF when I observed them 10 years ago.
F15Mech on August 8, 2007 at 8:45 PM
4 out of 5 times I go to Amarillo, I get to see one of those out circling around the factory…awesome.
Tio on August 8, 2007 at 8:52 PM
I agree.
F15Mech on August 8, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Part of their high price was also caused by the addition of Air to Ground capabilities added mid-design. Not to mention the price per jet will go up if you cut the number of jets ordered.
F15Mech on August 8, 2007 at 9:05 PM
That is a thought provoking and troubling article Bryan.
In my view, and you touched on an important point, China and Russia (to a lesser extent) are the “head waters” of all this tumult. China has been building up their military faster than any other country, other than us. A blue water navy, modern Air Force with aerial refueling capability, advanced missiles (thanks to Klinton), a manned space program, and over a billion people to operate all that stuff.
A revival of the democracy movements in both countries (China and Russia) would be a great turn of events and a welcomed change for our troubled world. I fear it may be the only way out of this Truman like conundrum.
Zorro on August 8, 2007 at 9:29 PM
China has their eye on a strategic use of outer space, which is a huge move. Iran is the front man in all of this and if we can’t deal with their behavior now when the time is right, it’s going to be dismal when China starts to run the clock.
The Dems, and our nations other enemies want to see us fighting for our lives…and it’s coming.
Hening on August 8, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Bryan, the solution to Saudi Arabia is simple. For it is also the solution to the middle east problem. Turn Saudi Arabia into Israel.
That’s right. Kick those lazy Saudis to the curb. Give Saudi Arabia, oil rights and all, to Israel. In exchange, Israel goes to the Palestinians. That makes the Palestinians happy, makes the UN happy, makes bin laden happy, it stabilizes and safeguards our oil supply, provides Israel with untold wealth, and removes the number one engine for the global jihad - the Saudi oil money. In one master stroke, this mess is fixed.
And for the Saudis? Send them to Iraq. They will hate the US, but they will also hate the Palestinians. That will throw a monkey wrench into the politics of the jihad, from which it may never recover.
So we should not arm Saudi Arabia. We should disarm it. Occupy it, displace the population and turn it over to Israel. Everyone will be happy, except the lazy Saudis, who until this point, never worked for an honest day’s pay in their lives.
jihadwatcher on August 8, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Whatever you are smoking you need to share.
So you suggest to the Jews that they give up a holy city in exchange for asking the Muslims to give up a holy city.
Let me know how that works out.
F15Mech on August 8, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Ask most Jews in Israel if they would give up a tiny piece of land, forever threatened by arabs just miles away, for a huge piece of land with trillions of dollars of oil in it, and most would say yes. The orthodox Jews are not in the majority. As for the Saudis, they would have no choice in the matter.
jihadwatcher on August 8, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Indeed. Convincing New Hampshirites and Connecticans (no idea if that’s even close to the right words) would be an impressive feat. Get the Jews to leave Jerusalem and the Muslims to leave Mecca? You’re going to need something much stronger than anything you can smoke. That’s some mainline straight-into-the-vein kind of stuff.
Indeed. And all I can guarantee in this is the same thing that was guaranteed to Truman: that the Law of Unintended Consequences will come into play.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki triggered a long chain of events. Would the Cold War have happened otherwise? Korea? Vietnam? Or would the Soviet Union have expanded into Manchuria and China - perhaps achieving global domination? Who knows? All that is certain is that his actions led to future unintended actions - and if he’d done differently, there might have been other consequences, for better or worse.
The same thing is at play here - in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, and in Iran. Whatever we do - including doing nothing - is going to have long-ranging unintended consequences.
Selling arms to the Saudis might just save the world. Or maybe our children will be facing those same weapons.
This is why I laugh at people who suggest they could have done better than Truman - or that they have better answers than the current President. In the real world, there are consequences for everything. Hard consequences. A century from now, this is going to seem easy to some people. It’s not now. Frankly, compared to the choices facing President Bush at the moment, I think Truman had it easy.
I’m glad I don’t have to make these calls.
And I wish we could all - everybody - agree on one thing: that we can really pray that our leaders, of whatever party, have the foresight and wisdom to proceed carefully.
Professor Blather on August 9, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Just as long as all of the most hi-tech devices (jet fighters, anti-missile bateries) have a new built-in remote “off” switch that we can activate at will, then let the Saudis buy ebough arms to fill the Ka’aba.
profitsbeard on August 9, 2007 at 12:53 AM
“No good options on the table, lots of wrenching choices, and no matter which path you choose, your decision will send many people to their inevitable deaths. The only questions are, whose people, how do they die, and what kind of world emerges in the aftermath?”
Well said well said….personally I would like those deaths pushed hard to the foreigners side rather than our civilians. I don’t get but do recognize the existence of many amongst US who believe for some long passed historical evil/wrong those deaths should be here amongst US because we deserve them or some such idiocey like that.
C-Low on August 9, 2007 at 12:56 AM
As a Christian, I don’t look to the U.S. government, United Nations, or even our great U.S. Military to solve the problems of this world. Looking at the big picture, God is in charge, whether you like it or not, whether you agree or don’t.
I don’t worry. Period. Not about Islamists, terrorists, nor earthquakes, tsunamis, bridges falling, etc.
Don’t worry. Trust that God knows what He’s doing.
Doug on August 9, 2007 at 1:51 AM
You do mind that after hearing roseanne barr had a sex tape, I’d rather take my chances then wait for God.
TheEJS on August 9, 2007 at 2:16 AM
I’m not sure why the Saudis even need arms. If Saudi Arabia is attacked, it will be the US doing the fighting to protect them in any case. Witness the Gulf War. Since when does Saudi Arabia protect itself? They don’t do anything for themselves other than persecute Christians, execute teenage girls, confiscate Bibles, and funnel money to the global jihad. That they do on their own. Everything else, like drilling the oil, taking out the garbage, or running their infrastructure, they need foreigners to do for them.
jihadwatcher on August 9, 2007 at 5:27 AM
One need only look back to the grand mosque takeover in 1979…a direct result of the Iranian revolution to see that there is an interest in protecting the heart and soul of islam.
tomas on August 9, 2007 at 9:10 AM
profitsbeard, if every hi-tech device sold to a potential enemy does not have a means prevent it use against an American target a whole chain of command in U.S.A. intelligence needs to be transferred to IED clearance.
Also this thread has no mention of spare parts. The higher tech the weapons system the more dependent it is on a steady stream of spare parts. We cannot just shut off the spare parts for Russian weapons. Money is good but spends quickly; the spare parts tail brings a long term commitment.
TunaTalon on August 9, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Selling advaned weapons to the Saudis. A damned if you, damned if you don’t situation if I ever saw one.
Yakko77 on August 9, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Not to be mean, but that comment reminds of the old joke that ends:
I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more do you want?
darury on August 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I’ve heard a rumor (and I can’t remember the source.. it might’ve been here actually) that we might sell the F-22 to Japan. That might help bring the price down a bit.
Yakko77 on August 9, 2007 at 12:59 PM
On selling weapons to the Saudi’s:
For better or worse, they are still considered an ally. An Alliance is not always built on closeness or cultural sameness–sometimes alliances are born from necessity. And they shift. Sad, but true. This is another case of “support your lesser enemy against your greater enemy”.
On Nuclear Weapons and America’s use of them (speaking to Bryan’s last comment):
If you build a tool, then know how, when, where and why to use it. Period. With nukes, be extra careful, but never take their use off the table. Ever.
On God’s role (in reference to Doug’s post):
I believe God gave us minds and free will for a reason. It is not through our inaction that good prevails. It is, instead, through our actions. To not worry, or to not take action based on those worries in perference for divine intervention seems unwise. It is to be a passive victim. What is that famous quote? “For evil to triumph, all that is required is for good men to do nothing”.
Plus, there is always the debate on whether God exists! (I can say that in a free country, not in Iran…) Wouldn’t it be prudent (echoes of G. Bush Sr.) to be prepared to take action ourselves versus waiting for divine intervention from something that may not exist? Just, ya know, speaking from a risk management perspective! (looks for lightning bolts)
Montana on August 9, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Just my own personal opinion, but if we were to sell F-22s to any foreign power, the only one I would sell to would be Israel.
I would also make sure Israel has one or two of our top-of-the-line nuclear missile submarines. That way no matter if Israel is wiped of the map they can still retaliate. I can think of no better deterent (if any exists) against the Iranian Bomb.
Lancer on August 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM
The Saudis are our enemies. They have built a society where the mosques, media, and school system indoctrinate the people into a hatred of everything non-Wahhabi, non-Muslim, non-Saudi. They particularly hate America for being an infidel state which holds power over the Muslim world.
The Saudis launched a worldwide jihad in the 1980s with billions of surplus petrodollars. The $500k which funded the Sep 11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia. Take any terrorist atrocity and there is a tie back to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia is the nexus of all Islamic terrorist evil.
While the Saudis funded the hard jihad of terror bombings and beheadings, they also fund the soft jihad which shows itself in a dozen ways in America: by funding CAIR to mount a PR and legal assault on America; by controlling the organization that supplies Muslim clerics to our prison system through which they radicalize prisoners; by building mosques in America and populating them with Wahhabi-trained imams who radicalize them; by spreading hate literature throughout every mosque in America; by distributing tourist brochures at their Washington embassy that reminds Muslim tourists it is their religious duty to hate America, etc ad infinitum.
The ultimate solution is to destroy Saudi Arabia. The princes are the petrodollar pipeline for the evil Wahhabi clergy who are blowing people into bloody chunks from New York to Bali. Sever that pipeline and let the Wahhabis whither in the desert.
That said, selling Saudis high tech weapons is the optimum course of action. It doesn’t matter if we sell them the friggin’ Klingon death ray because they’re too stupid to use these high tech weapons effectively. They have a severe cultural handicap in training in anything like fighter jets effectively. The whole Saudi military enterprise relies on American contractors keeping it going and that essential flow of spare parts and service. America can pull the plug on the Saudi military by simply pulling the contractors and stopping the support contracts.
However, the ultimate reason that it doesn’t matter if we sell the Starship Enterprise to the Saudis is that they lack the will to defend Saudi Arabia. When Iraq attacked Iran, Iran responded with a desperate defense of hundreds of thousands who used human wave tactics, fought without weapons, and never gave up. They memorialized their dead as martyrs in a huge cemetery crowned with a fountain of fake blood.
By contrast, when Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, the Saudis blanched and outsourced their defense to America. Saudi kids did not rush to the front to defend their homeland. They stayed home with their GameBoys. The Marines had a hard time getting the Saudi military to move when the Iraqis took their border town of Khafji. The Marines had to clear the town with artillery and air support before the timid Saudis felt safe enough to reenter the town.
Saudi Arabia is a Saudi empire. Many of the people of the Hejaz, which includes the relatively more liberal population of Jeddah on the west coast, do not consider themselves Saudi and hate the Wahhab rule. The east coast where all the oil fields are is full of Shiites who hate the Saudi Sunnis, who treat them as heretics. There is only a fraction of the Saudi population who are loyal to the nation.
Even the real Saudis have no loyalty to the nation. They are loyal to their family and tribe. The idea of service to the public is alien to them. They’re not going to risk their lives or fortunes for fellow citizens they don’t know and who are not their blood. They’d sooner pack up and leave. That’s why many Saudis with money maintain residences they rarely use in the West. They are there in case they need to escape.
That said, selling weapons to the Saudis is no defense against the Iranians. First, the Persian Gulf separates Iran from Saudi Arabia. Iran doesn’t have the amphibious capability to transport an army across it. If they did, it would be a turkey shoot for the US Navy. However, if the Iranians were serious about invading Saudi Arabia and found a way to pull it off, the Saudis would be no match for them. The Saudis are an effete, weak, and incompetent people compared to the Iranians.
That said, what would be so bad about the Iranians invading Saudi Arabia, aside from the gi-normous spike in oil prices? Who wouldn’t trade a month of ten dollar gas to see the Saudis get the paste beat out of them? I would imagine those Sunni Wahhabi clerics would be at the top of the murder list for the mad mullahs of Tehran. Have at them, I say! Let the Saudi nutcases run suicide misssions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out like scorpions in a bottle. Maybe Bin Laden and Zawahiri will return to Saudi Arabia and spend what’s left of Al Qaeda fighting off the Persians.
Should this happen, everyone from Hot Air can come over to my place and watch it on Fox News. I’ll pop the popcorn.
And when it’s done, the fires have died down, and the surviving combatants are exhausted, the US swoops in and mops the place up. We subtract the Saudi from Arabia and divide it into three countries: 1) Hejazia, which suvives on trade and the pilgrimmage to Mecca; 2) East Arabia, which is one big oil field run by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; and 3) the Nejd in the north with no natural resources at all but home to the Wahhabis, who can return to the desert in abject poverty and preach their religion of hate to the camel spiders. Perhaps the Saudi princes can find jobs as hotel doormen in New York like the White Russian generals did before them. I fancy the idea of shouting at Sheikh Abdullah Wahhab through the drive through window to put extra pickles on my cheeseburger and be quick about it. Hubba, hubba, Wahhabi.
How’s THAT for a plan?
Tantor on August 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Yakko77: “I’ve heard a rumor (and I can’t remember the source.. it might’ve been here actually) that we might sell the F-22 to Japan. That might help bring the price down a bit.”
Not gonna happen. Japan has a bad habit of passing our high tech weapon secrets along to our enemies. No Raptors for them.
I don’t think there are gonna be any foreign sales of Raptors. At best, there will be a British foreign exchange pilot in the USAF Raptor wing, just like they’ve done with the F-117.
Tantor on August 10, 2007 at 6:05 PM
But they already have so much of our weaponry or a copy of it. F-15’s and Aegis destroyers to name just a couple.
Still, I can see the USAF wanting to keep the Raptor all to themselves. That is such a kick ass bird.
Yakko77 on August 10, 2007 at 7:58 PM
The center of gravity of Islam is Saudi Arabia. Eventually it will end up on our target list. Why, it’s the Mecca for Muslims.
Mojave Mark on August 13, 2007 at 10:54 AM