Weapons for Saudi

Brad Plumer quoting William Arkin and Tariq Ali notes an interesting wrinkle in the Saudi arms sale deal -- both sources say the reason the Saudi military is so terrible despite buying so much expensive US military equipment is that the house of Saud doesn't want a competent military. After all, a competent, independent military might stage a coup. Similarly, it seems clear enough to me that US policy in the Persian Gulf is centered around Dissuading the Gulf Cooperation Council states from developing the capacity to defend themselves against Iran (or, back in the day, Iraq), the better to leave them as dependent clients of the United States.

Photo by Flickr user John Rawlinson used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

The US is doing a poor job of it then because one of the side effects of slow US sales to the Middle East is that they buy Russian instead. Not only traditional client states like Syria, but also GCC countries. The UAE for instance has about three times as many BMP-3s as the Russian Army does.

The real reason for the Saudi purchases is probably pre-deployment. They are not intended for the Saudis to use, but for the Americans to do so. In any real conflict, the US would be hard put to maintain a viable supply line to the Middle East. In fact I suspect they were only able to fight the two Gulf Wars because Saudi Arabia provided all the POL they needed. By pre-positioning equipment in Diego Garcia and in Saudi Arabia, the US is able to fight with stocks of weapons on hand.

Posted by HeiGou | July 31, 2007 7:18 AM

Nothing so sinister as that. Most of this equipment will rust in the sand. This is basically a Saudi payoff to the Iron Triangle that helps keep the wheels greased in Washington, as well as several Saudi palms greased back home. Business as usual.

The real Saudi military is not the Saudi army, but the National Guard, made up of tribes loyal to the al-Sauds. Like most armies, its main purpose is to keep the current regime in power.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/sang.htm

Posted by tequila | July 31, 2007 8:33 AM

I partially concur the comments above. The Saudi arms sales are, essentially, a small rebate to us for costs we incur keeping the Saudis in business (by deterring external threats). I disagree that this equipment will rust in the sand. Desert climates are a great place to store planes; in fact, when there was overcapacity of commercial planes after 9/11, hundreds of them were parked in a desert in the American Southwest.

HeiGou is right that this equipment could serve as pre-deployed assets in the case of a shit-hits-the-fan war in the region, but I don't think the Saudis did much of this for the current Iraq War, which was staged and stocked out of Kuwait. Tequila's also right that F-15s aren't going to protect the Saudis against internal threats to their rule.

I'd much prefer if we could ditch the entire Saudi clan, but such as things are, arms sales to them aren't so bad. The business supports high-paying jobs in America, and the weapons are in a safe place where they most likely will never be used in anger. If the Saudis lose power, I'm sure we could destroy these planes before anyone else got their hands on them; in fact, I expect there are already contingencies for this.

Posted by Fred | July 31, 2007 8:56 AM

Isn't an incompetent military just a likely, or perhaps more likely, to stage a coup as a competent one?

Posted by Gene O'Grady | July 31, 2007 9:49 AM

Tequila and Fred are, with respect, wrong: F-15s could indeed protect the royal family from an internal threat, by either a) destroying the army from the air in the event of a coup attempt or b) escorting them on their flight into exile.
Won't protect them from a coup involving the air force, of course, but the Saudi air force has a lot of family members in it and is probably quite happy with the status quo.
This is classic dictator stuff. You have an external force, to protect you from outside threats, and an internal force, to protect you from the external force. Works with bodyguards. Works with armies - Army/Republican Guard, for example. (Actually Saddam had Army/Republican Guard/Special Republican Guard, but the principle's the same.)
Why were the AA elements of Wehrmacht divisions Luftwaffe, not Army? So that, if the Army turned against Hitler, it would be left defenceless against the (presumably still loyal) Luftwaffe.

Posted by ajay | July 31, 2007 10:35 AM

Similarly, it seems clear enough to me that US policy in Europe is centered around dissuading European states from developing the capacity to defend themselves against Anyone (or, back in the day, the Soviet Union), the better to leave them as dependent clients of the United States.

Whenever we hear US politicians whining about European unwillingness to participate in their latest rash misadventure it is worth remembering why European military's are so weak.

Posted by ndm | July 31, 2007 12:01 PM

Isn't an incompetent military just a likely, or perhaps more likely, to stage a coup as a competent one?

This was exactly my thought. After all, it isn't like Idi Amin was commanding the second coming of Rommel's Afrika Korps...

If the army (or a faction thereof) decides to take over, since the only real resistance can be from other parts of the armed forces, the effectiveness or competence of the army is really inconsequential.

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 31, 2007 12:18 PM

Saudi Arabia has no military for an obvious reason. It expects basically nothing from its citizens. There is no military service and negligible taxes. The state doesn't even need the people to work jobs; it imports many of its workers. As a result we end up with a social compant of no obligations for no rights, the contrapositive of democratic government.

And actually it works fairly decently, the populace is pretty content with the government and resistant to change. Having a serious military would create a class of people whom the state needs, and therefore this class would demand payoffs from the state in one form or another.

As people pointed out, this is basically a payoff to the United States, like previous arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis almost certainly can't use or maintain F-16's, just like they couldn't operate the F-15's of the past.

Posted by Skyler | July 31, 2007 2:26 PM

Anyone know what the building in the photograph is? Is this the Saudi Guggenheim or something?

Posted by Fred | July 31, 2007 2:57 PM

I'm pretty dubious about the theory that this equipment is really just pre-staged for US use. The thing is, we don't sell the Saudis the same equipment that we use ourselves - it may be called an F-15, but in fact, it's an export version, which has older and less capable technology in it.

I also have a hard time believing that the Saudis would be spending such an enormous amount of money on weapons they don't intend to do anything with, essentially as bribery. It's too indirect - the benefit accrues to Northrop shareholders, and there's too little benefit to our political leaders. I really think they go shopping for weapons like kids in a candy store - they buy stuff because it's cool, without thinking that they're really not going to be able to use it.

Posted by Sean Peters | July 31, 2007 10:36 PM

Posted by Sean Peters | July 31, 2007 10:36 PM:"I'm pretty dubious about the theory that this equipment is really just pre-staged for US use. The thing is, we don't sell the Saudis the same equipment that we use ourselves - it may be called an F-15, but in fact, it's an export version, which has older and less capable technology in it."

Sure but it also has a vast number of share items. The Saudis will have to keep a wide range of spare parts. So it is not as if the US will fly those particular planes - although they might - but they will probably be able to use some of their weapons and all of their spares. All of which reduces the burden of supplying the US in Saudi Arabia.

I believe that the US did draw down Saudi stocks in the first Gulf War. In particular missiles.

Posted by Sean Peters | July 31, 2007 10:36 PM:"I also have a hard time believing that the Saudis would be spending such an enormous amount of money on weapons they don't intend to do anything with, essentially as bribery. It's too indirect - the benefit accrues to Northrop shareholders, and there's too little benefit to our political leaders. I really think they go shopping for weapons like kids in a candy store - they buy stuff because it's cool, without thinking that they're really not going to be able to use it."

Actually it is a direct benefit to Saudi Arabia. It is hardly bribery. Only the Saudis can agree to the use of those parts. The more that the US relies on SA, the more control they have over what the US does. Given that the main use of these weapons will be defending Saudi Arabia, that is a direct benefit to the al-Sauds. It is also a matter of prestige. Which does fit with the kids in a candy store approach. However the choice is between an irrational purchase which brings prestige, or a mostly irrational purchase with some logic to it which brings prestige. Which is more likely?

Posted by HeiGou | August 1, 2007 5:36 AM

Note the British are actually responsible for the Saudi Air Force, its maintenance and upkeep (the Al Yamamah II contract). There is a special allocated part of the Saudi oil production, which goes straight from the fields to the Rotterdam oil market, to pay for Al Yamamah.

That is why the Saudis fly British Tornados, and will fly Eurofighters (they've ordered 80). It's a Saudi policy of dual sourcing.

The Saudi Air Force makes a kind of strategic sense. It maintains sovereignty against the Iranians and could fight a limited air war with them. Ditto the Syrians, Sudanese etc.

The Patriots fit into that context as well, particularly if the US does an Israel-Hizbollah on the Iranian nuclear sites, and the Iranians start chucking missiles around.

For internal security, as others have noted, the key is the National Guard, which is made up of loyal tribesmen.

I don't think too many people rate the Army, but the equipment could be used by American forces, so you could call it a sort of stealth forward emplacement.

I don't know if the Jordanian Army is still as good as it was, but it is probably the best of the Arab armies. The arms deal also includes stuff for them.

Posted by Valuethinker | August 1, 2007 9:09 AM