U.S. arming all sides in the Middle East
by Chris 3 comments Leave a comment January 31st, 2008
Our government officials, not just President Bush, seem to enjoy telling us that America supports the cause of peace, democracy and freedom throughout the world. It’s a nice story, and one I often wish I could believe, but it simply doesn’t match the actions of our government.
We give and sell billions of dollars in weapons to autocratic countries in the Middle East. Countries that, by the way, have no justification for expanding their military power. “Arms control analysts have consistently argued that the Middle East is too militarized already and the recipient governments already possess military capabilities well in excess of their legitimate security needs,” says international relations scholar, Stephen Zunes.
In an excellent new article by Zunes, he outlines the various military aid packages and arms deals we endorse and have endorsed in the Middle East. Just think of how different our foreign policy debates would be if this wasn’t true:
Over a 25-year period, the United States pushed the autocratic regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi to purchase today’s equivalent of over $100 billion worth of American armaments, weapons systems, and support, creating a formidable military apparatus that ended up in the hands of radically anti-American Shiite clerics following that country’s 1979 Islamic revolution.
Woops! Zunes wonders if we’re possibly sowing the seeds for another 1979 revolution in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Either could cause a lot of trouble with their American made militaries.
Opposition in Washington D.C. to these arms deals is practically nonexistent. Zunes took a closer look at key Democrats:
For years, calls for the Democratic congressional leadership to eliminate or even scale back this kind of taxpayer subsidy for wealthy and powerful U.S. military contractors - referred to by critics as “merchants of death” - have been summarily rejected. Indeed, since first being elected to Congress in the late 1980s, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has voted in favor of over $50 billion of taxpayer-funded arms transfers to Middle Eastern countries that have engaged in gross and systematic violations of international humanitarian law. In her time in the leadership, she has never seriously challenged any arms transfers to the region.
[...]
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards argue that additional military aid is necessary to protect Israel from potentially hostile Arab states. However, given that the arsenals of most of these Arab countries are of U.S. origin, it would make more sense to simply call for an end to the large-scale arms transfers to these regimes.
As long as things continue on this path, we better hope Bush was right when he said “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”
For more information: http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/index.html
Great link. Thanks
Is it too redundant and old news to remind everyone we trained and armed Osama bin Laden? Or Saddam? Its like we give these people weapons with the knowledge that someday were going to use our weapons on them. The circle of life. The only ones benefiting are the weapons companies and the politicians who they give money.