Why America's Mideast military aid is bad news

Countering the spread of Iran and terrorism in the Middle East is tricky business. That's why the Bush administration has decided to give Israel US$30 billion, Egypt $13 billion, and Saudi Arabia [see post], Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and UAE a shared $20 billion in a new arms deal (BBC).

George and Condi's ill-reasoned idea
"Rice says Mideast military aid will counter Qaeda" (Reuters). Yes, throwing money at terror-sponsoring states like Saudi Arabia will surely help defeat al-Qaeda... I wouldn't expect any finer logic from the Bush administration.

How will this military aid help stem the spread of Iran's influence? Won't it make them just want to bolster their military strength? So far the aid doesn't seem to be promoting stability; it is only invoking cries of favoritism and, if anything, destabilizing the fragile state of Mideast diplomacy.

Is instability the new 'stability'?
In some ways I see how this military aid can bring stability, but only if it's used in the right way. Does anyone honestly think Israel or Saudi Arabia will use this military aid in a way that reduces tensions and terrorism? Begin on the policy level, then move on to aid; you don't approve a budget before you see what you're budgeting and the planned end product, right?

America needs assurance these military gifts will be used in a positive manner. Not only that, but we've seen what military force does in the Middle East (and elsewhere). Force is countered by more force, and sometimes breeds terrorism and destabilizes relations. Military force led to increased support for Hezbollah following its skirmish with Israel last summer. Force led to the Iraq war and to — decades ago — the rise of state-sponsored militant groups like what became the Taliban and Hamas. Thinking that military force will bring about peace is the same kind of twisted logic implemented by America and other nations that has resulted in the disaster that is much of the Mid-East.

Buying allies
The NYT reported about the White House's request that Congress approve this aid package. It also touched upon the issue of whether this is such a good idea.

Mr. Burns insisted that the arms package isn’t an attempt to trade weapons for a more cooperative Saudi policy toward the Maliki government in Baghdad.

“There are no formal quid pro quos in this, but it figures that we would want our friends to be supportive of Iraq,” he said.

So the US is buying support... but not really? If Saudi Arabia was a true friend it wouldn't need billions in military aid to keep it a non-enemy. Non-enemy doesn't necessarily equal friend either.

'B' in Rhetoric, 'F' in Logic
Just by looking at history as a guide — throwing even common sense aside (not Bush's strong point anyways) — is even the Bush White House too blind to recognize the follies it is still committing? It's almost like giving disturbed children guns, when you know perfectly well nothing good will come of it. It also makes the US look worse. The charge of favoritism is yet another thing states like Iran and groups that use terrorism will certainly use against the United States, especially since it is so publicly and so largely supporting the 'Zionist enemy' in its quest for world domination over Muslims (their thoughts, not mine). The last thing America needs is more bad PR.

I really do hope Rice is right when she says this deal will not destabilize the Middle East. But a glimpse at reality can bring about quite a different view than the one seen by the secretary of state. Over $60 billion is also a lot of money to give away, considering it probably won't be spent wisely, plus many of the recipients are human rights-abusing, malevolent regional actors. Is this their reward?

Continuing the trend of buying Saudi Arabia's half-hearted support is not the wisest of choices. How will they react, though, when America takes away their allowance? With more terrorism, perhaps...

Also, what will Congress say? It's they who carry the purse.

Reposted. Still in California.

Bribing the Saudis with weapons = key to stability?

America is to give billions of dollars in military aid to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states. Is it trying to buy friends using weapons as currency? Yep. Will this work out well for anyone, hold the Saudis? Nope.

History repeats itself: Bribing against extremism
This is not the first time the US hopelessly tried to get the Saudis to be a viral beacon of moderacy in a sea of extremism. As this Slate article points out, 26 years ago Reagan tried to bribe the Saudis into joining the peace process... (long quote, I know, but it's worth it):

Twenty-six years later, this rational for selling arms to the Saudis is still valid. Two weeks ago, President George W. Bush announced that the United States will host a regional peace conference in the fall, and clearly the Saudis would be the big "get."
...
But luring the Saudis to the peace conference is not the only reason the Bush administration wants to sell the Saudis some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the market. It's not even the main reason. The deal, officially announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday, "will help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Syria, and Iran," according to her statement.

In short, it is meant to ensure the Saudis' commitment to the "moderate" camp, to help Washington better manage its affairs in Iraq and prepare to block Iranian expansionism in the region. The United States is practically bribing the Saudis to make them more cooperative in Iraq and more confident in light of an emboldened Iran. This is yet another manifestation of an administration that is setting its priorities anew: No more reforming the Middle East—let's focus on managing it in the old, realist way. Using friends, however reluctant, against foe; manipulating regional powers against each other; using whatever regimes are at hand to ease the pressure on the United States.

The problem with the Saudis, though, is that time and again they have proved to be unbribable and unmaneuverable. In fact, it is Riyadh that is manipulating Washington into this questionable deal, using tactics they've been perfecting for decades—never fully committing themselves, always leaving the door open to other alternatives to keep the United States on its toes. If America will not sell them weapons, they might turn to China or Russia. And as for the threat from Iran, they know that the United States knows that leaving the Saudis to their fate is not an option. Not as long as there's no real alternative to the fuel they so generously provide.
...
This new deal with the kingdom is no more than another down payment, an attempt to ensure its future cooperation on a number of issues on which the Saudis should have cooperated long ago. ... This is one of many instances in which the Saudis have defied U.S. interests and played the double agent: working with Syria on the fate of Lebanon, orchestrating an agreement between rival Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas, allowing Saudi businessmen to keep an open channel to al-Qaida.

So why is Saudi Arabia so bad (besides the human rights abuses and support for terrorism, and all that other jazz)?
An influential US envoy to Iraq has even said that Saudi Arabia is a driving force behind the instability in Iraq. Oops... How's that for an example of a moderate and positive Mideast actor with strong ties to America? One has to wonder: In the US-Saudi relationship, who's exploiting who?

Hoping for the best

A much talked about summit is about to take place. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, not to mention the Quartet of Russia, the EU, the US, and the UN, which is steering these diplomatic talks, will be in attendance.

Reuters:

Arab leaders arrived in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday ahead of a summit set to revive a five-year-old plan to end decades of Israeli-Arab conflict at the heart of the region's problems.

The two-day Arab summit, due to open on Wednesday, is expected to renew an offer to the Jewish state of normal ties with all Arab countries if it withdraws from all territories it occupied in the 1967 war, accepts the creation of a Palestinian state and agrees to a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged Israel to seize on the Arab offer, describing it as a last chance for Israel to live in a "sea of peace" across the Arab and Islamic world.
...
The meeting will also tackle other crises, including the Iraq conflict that has divided Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims across the region and a political standoff between the Western-backed government and the pro-Iranian opposition in Lebanon.
...
The Arab summit will also encourage the international community to end a political and financial embargo on the Hamas-led Palestinian unity government.

Sounds all fine and well, right? Arab states recognize Israel if Israel returns to its legal borders. If only the world, and its politics, was that simple. Possibly the biggest problem is that of the Palestinian refugees.

There was some good news in Palestine a while back about rival political factions Fatah and Hamas finally coming together and forming a unity government. So far, the government has worked, with one still-outstanding problem: lack of international recognition. That breakthrough took place in Saudi Arabia, which has been a keen diplomatic player because, as is the case with Egypt, it is an ally of the United States as well as an active Arab state. Expect to see more Saudi diplomatic action, and continued action by long-time Israel-Palestine peace actor Egypt, as there seems to be another spurt of sluggish — or superficial — progress in Israel-Palestine peace talks.

Although the State Department seems to be taking the Middle East diplomacy with stride, many are cautious of the Bush administration's new found diplomatic furvor. Between Bush's tour of Latin America, a peaceful deal being made with North Korea, and US Secretary of State Rice shuttling back and forth, trying to promote dialogue among Arab states, much seems to have changed in the Bush administration's often militant foreign policy outlook. However, policies on Iraq, Iran, and recognition of the new unity Palestinian government remain stubbornly static.