I’m somewhat dismayed, if unsurprised, at this report by Bruce Reidel in AL Monitor on the military spending habits of Saudi Arabia, particularly this bit concerning the current Administration’s reaction to the spending choices of the Saudis:
Saudi Arabia has the third-largest defense budget in the world; Saudi military spending last year was almost $70 billion — only the United States and China spent more. However, the level of spending is unsustainable and inconsistent with the kingdom’s stated intent to retool the economy. And the Saudis are not buying what the White House is selling. …
Much to the annoyance of President Donald Trump, the Saudis have not been buying big new weapons from the United States. Trump visited Riyadh a year ago and said the Saudis had agreed to a $110 billion arms package. None of it was actually finalized. The president upbraided Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman on television this year when he was in the Oval Office for only spending “peanuts” on American weapons. A resupply of munitions and spare parts does continue due to the Yemeni war, but big new platform sales are on hold. They will be controversial on Capitol Hill.
Implied in that paragraph is the idea that we should be selling, and thereby profiting, to the Saudis – or to anyone purely on a profit basis.
I am, probably to an excessive extent, a realist concerning international politics. Some countries irrationally hate us, some rationally hate us, some simply have ambitions of various sorts that are incompatible with our ambitions, and yet others are nominal allies. We have to deal with these realities on the ground in various ways, and some of them include arming other countries. It’s a dangerous game wherein people get killed, but I fear the alternatives may be worse.
But we cannot and should not select our customers based on their ability to pay, and that’s precisely the implication of that second paragraph up there. The Saudis are flush with cash and looking to upgrade their military technology – and Trump sees green and a sorely needed boost for his prestige and is put out when it doesn’t happen.
Is this a wise way to evaluate the situation? We didn’t get the sale and thus we’ve failed?
The government is not a big profit-making corporation, and the longer we pretend it is, the more precarious our international situation will become, because rather than focusing on whatever is important, whether it be peacefully persuading countries to convert to democracy or mediating conflicts, we’ll be focused on financial profit. That gets us so little, because – in extreme cases – we may end up arming our enemies, if not directly then indirectly through arms transfers.
These sales must be evaluated through the lenses of national security and international diplomacy. Traditionally, they have been. I fear, though, with the State Department in disarray and a profit-addled President in power, we may make critical errors which will cost us dearly in the future.
