As a change from my usual Cthulhu and TSA diaries (funny how those seem to fit together!) I take on the challenge of foreign arms sales, this time to Saudi Arabia.
Let's take the most recent example, the sale (approved last fall) of $60 billion worth of aircraft to Saudi Arabia. This was the largest arms deal in the long history of US/Saudi arms deals, and in fact it was the largest arms deal in US history. Here's the official explanation, from the Guardian (linked previously):
"This proposed sale has tremendous significance from a strategic regional perspective," said Andrew Shapiro, the assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs who announced the deal.
"It will send a strong message to countries in the region that we are committed to support the security of our key partners and allies in the Arabian Gulf and broader Middle East. And it will enhance Saudi Arabia's ability to deter and defend against threats to its borders and to its oil infrastructure, which is critical to our economic interests."
Now, let's face it. The government of Saudi Arabia is based on torture, enforced ignorance and oppression. Don't believe me? Read the 2009 State Department Human Rights report on the kingdom. The cruddy little mafia who run this country are just as bad as the Iranian government, who, you will recall, was part of the Axis of Evil.
Now, all this is widely known. So why are we selling arms to these goons?
The short answer is: we have to.
The official explanation: "Iran is a threat".
Now, the semi-official version of the reasons for the arms sale is that Saudi Arabia is threatened by Iran. Anthony Cordesman writes, on the Council of Foreign Affairs website:
... Iran already poses a missile and chemical weapons threat and may pose a nuclear one within the next three to five years. Upgrades of the Saudi Patriots create a base for an integrated approach to air and missile defense. They lay the groundwork for follow-on sales of advanced missile defense systems like THAAD, and an emphasis on defense (not Saudi purchases of missiles or nuclear systems). Coupled with recent U.S. offers of "extended regional deterrence" and the creation of a Saudi Air Force that is more of a threat to Iran than Iran's conventional missiles are to Saudi Arabia, they offer the best hope of both giving Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states security and stopping a nuclear arms race in the region.
But I think the truth of the matter is rather different.
The sham Royal "Saudi" Air Force.
Let us completely forget the idea that there actually is such a thing as the "Royal Saudi Arabian Air Force." Oh sure, there are airplanes which say that they belong to such an orgranization. And there are jet pilots who are Saudi citizens and who are occasionally permitted to fly these aircraft. However, in reality, the Saudi airforce exists only as a creature of the US, Great Britain, etc, or whoever it is who sold the weapons system to the Saudi government.
For example, take this officious document entltled Notice of Proposed Contract Action
The Saudi Government requires the use of Saudi nationals/Saudi companies as part of a "Saudiazation" program. The prime contractor will be required to utilize Saudi owned subcontractors to perform all on-site work,.
Translation: up until now, the Saudi government has been entirely dependent on foreign contractors for the maintenance of its military aircraft, otherwise there would be no need for "Saudization". One could readily be suspicious of how much "Saudization" could really take place if a foreign contractor has to be hired to supervise it."
And for this latest $60 billion deal, which is tantamount to the sale of an entire air force, the Saudis will be entirely dependent on foreign contractors to service the aircraft, at least according to a report produced by an Israeli defense analyst described in this article
"This would require the preparation of manpower in considerable quantities, even on the assumption that as in the past the Saudis will rely on maintenance and training that is almost entirely based on foreign workers employed by foreign contractors," the report said.
In their 2007 book, Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars, Volume 1, Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan, state, on page 216:
...maintenance and sustainment still present problems. Up unti the mid-1990s, the Saud Air Force at excellent foreign support. The Kingdom did, however, face growing financing and payment problems after the mid-1990s, and these problems worsened after the oil crash of late 1997. This created a climate where readiness and sustainment were not properlty funded.
Efforts to force the rate of Saudization in contractor maintenance and support without adequate resources and standards have not helped. Foreign contractors have often been replaced with Saudis selected more for their contacts than for their skills, and training programs for Saudis have not enforced the proper qualification standards.
In short, Saudi Arabia cannot support an air force without heavy involvement of highly trained Wastern personnel to service the aircraft. These people have no loyalty to the Kingdom beyond that which can be purchased with a paycheck. When oil prices fall, the Saudi Air Force skips training and maintenance, which effectively grounds their planes. (See here for a 1998 defense department report which discusses Saudi arms procurement policies in detail, as well as the effect of fluctuating oil prices.)
Why engage in the sham then?
Were Iran to actually attack Saudi Arabia, they would face instant retaliation from carrier-based U.S. aircraft, as well as long-range bombers. That is the real deterrent to any such attack, not the inept Royal "Saudi" Air Force. So why do these arms sales continue?
The Saudi end of the deal.
Of course, the Saudi government is not composed of fools, and they are fully aware of the weakness of their air force; hence the "Saudization" propaganda. But why engage in the sham anyway; wouldn't it be cheaper just to keep the $60 billion and let the U.S. navy scare off all those Shiites in Iran?
At least part of the answer lies in the little known requirement of "offsets" that are a legal condition imposed by Saudi Arabia on foreign arms purchases. Offsets are legalized bribery which require that the foreign arms seller line the pockets of some cronies of the purchasing government.
If you credit Wikipedia, here is what it has to say about Saudi offset policies:
Saudi Economic Offset Program is under the Deputy Minister of Defense. Saudi offset request is that 35% of their contract value is invested in Saudi jobs creation and training, economic diversification, technology transfer and foreign direct investments in general. ... The U.S., in spite of the fact the most of its defense sales to the Kingdom are U.S. Defense Department Foreign Military Sales, leaves offsets to the private contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Boeing, and General Dynamics. Foreign Direct Investments are authorized and supervised by SAGIA [52], and they receive high multipliers according to the most strategic sectors and the Kingdom's priorities (such as water, electricity, communications, etc.).
In other words, of the $60 billion contract recently reached with Saudi Arabia, fully $21 billion will be diverted into the coffers of various Saudi businessmen and/or the Royal family and their cronies, ostensibly for the purpose of economic development. Essentially this is a huge theft from the people of Saudi Arabia.
Our end of the deal.
Of course, it's always good to be able to sell weapons systems for $60 billion which are actually worth only $39 billion. But more importantly, in June 2010, oil prices reached $71.57 per barrel, which was the second adjusted highest ever (highest was in June 2008, at $92.31). This is just sucking money out of our economy. Two solutions might be to stop subsidizing oil consumption, or actually engage in a bit of conservation, but of course, that's all so Jimmy Carter.
No, the best thing to do is to sell huge amount of arms to the Saudis and try to recoup some of the money we've shipped their way for the oil. This has the advantage of keeping defense contracts going in a whole bunch of Congressional districts.
I am no economist, but it seems to me that we are essentially required to pay for the oil not with dollars (those are only a medium of exchange) but rather with arms.
Thus, so long as we MUST have the Saudi oil, then we MUST sell them arms.