Here It Is

I said the other day that I hoped somebody would make the case on the merits for the military aid package to the Gulf Arabs and Israel, and now Tony Cordesman's gone and done it. Insofar as one reads him as responding to objections to the deal from the holier-than-the-pope pro-Israel side I think he's fairly convincing: "We also must not discriminate between Israel and Arab allies, which would undercut our national interest and maybe actually weaken Israeli security by increasing Arab hostility to both Israel and the United States."

His case for giving the aid to Israel seems substantially weaker to me, he primarily focuses on mounting a convincing argument that this is less of a departure from the status quo than it seems at first glance, but even if you buy that, the status quo seems out of whack.

Comments

A sign of how out of whack things are, is that he spends most of his time justifying our SELLING weapons to various arab countries, and very little to justifying our GIVING weapons to Israel and Egypt. That seems backward. Selling good: me make money. Giving bad: me lose money.

In terms of justifying the giving part, he seems to think this is necessary to preserve the peace between Egypt and Israel. I don't think so. Also, he thinks preserving Israels military edge will reduce their temptation to preemptively strike. This may be true in theory, but they already have such a big edge I don't think its true in practice, at this time.

I think what we'll learn from last years Lebanon debacle is that the ability of Israel's opponents to stand up to them is the best way to prevent them from starting more crazy wars.

Posted by Jim W | August 20, 2007 9:37 AM

If we do have to buy Egypt's support for the peace every year, or every couple of years, that doesn't really seem like much of a peace.

All of this is ridiculous, and Cordesman's piece is no less so. Iran is seriously going to attack Saudi Arabia? Give me a break.

We need to buy off Egypt every couple of years to keep them from attacking Israel? Sounds like an incentive to change the policy there.

Israel needs more, and more advanced, weapons? To face a highly technological threat from...where, exactly? This isn't the Cold War - Russia isn't giving Iran their best bombers. The most advanced stuff in the region outside of Israel is the stuff we'll be selling to Saudi Arabia.

The military-industrial complex roles on...

Posted by Steve W. | August 20, 2007 9:46 AM

What we are really doing is allowing Israel and Saudi Arabia to bribe us. We bribe other countries all the time, with outright aid.

Well, it would look a little embarrassing if Israel and the Saudis just shipped George & Company a barrel of money, so it has to be done legally. This way, every senator and representative will have an incentive to be nice to both countries. You don't want your state/district to lose that fat defense contract, do you?

It's the old distinction between honest and dishonest graft, laid down by George Washington "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em" Plunkett. So what's the big deal?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 20, 2007 10:25 AM

Re: "So what's the big deal?"

What kind of bribery involved the bribee giving money to the briber?

I guess what you're saying is that the Israel and US defense contractors are being bribed at the expense of US taxpayers. Shouldn't that be a big deal to us? I mean, if we're bribing someone, aren't we supposed to get something out of it?

Posted by Jim W | August 20, 2007 10:34 AM

"We also must not discriminate between Israel and Arab allies,

Except by giving the lion's share of American foreign aid to some shitty little countries in the ME, we shortchange desperately poor nations that desperately need American foreign Aid in many critical areas.

I know we cannot uplift the whole world with aid into the 1st world prosperity that Israel and a few other ME nations (with oil) enjoy - but it is so shameful that Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians get more US foreign aid that Latin America, subsharan Africa, and the Caribbean get combined.

The major fault is an unholy alliance of AIPAC and the defense industry.

The wealth and power of Jews, as expressed through AIPAC, transformed the infrastructure transition costs of the Sinai giveback agreed to at Camp David - expected to be a few billion over two years - into a permanent welfare check of 5 billion a year over 28 years. 140 billion.

Egypt gets money only because they were smart enough to demand a cut of the Uncle Sam cash payout Carter offered to relocate Israeli bases and Settlers from the Sinai. Egypt never imagined they would get the huge windfall they did from thinking they would get 2 billion for maybe 2 years. But they stumbled into that 28-year long welfare queen windfall because while they didn't have any great clout with the US Congress, AIPAC handled little lobbying chore that the Egyptians piggy-backed on.

The defense contractors loved it because they got not only US taxpayers hooked on corporate welfare for Egypt and Israel's weapons purchases for what seems to be enternity, they also rake it in from starting a subsidized arms race - forcing KSA, the Gulf States, Turkey to buy US arms to keep up with the Joneses. Soon, they slaver, Libya will be buying US gear, and likely Iraq as we are "hooking them" on US goods now and scrapping all the Soviet stuff they had in inventory. (Somebody has to be making money off the 500 billion spent to "keep America and it's "Allies" safe by fighting in Iraq, and the defense industry is the only real winner outside Israel not paying a cent or drop of blood for the US war to topple one of their adversaries)

So the defense lobbyists on K-Street march in lockstep with AIPAC to the feeding trough and call Israel their "Special Friend" and defend their "Special Friend's Special Deal".

If we had put that money into development in El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Haiti instead, perhaps we wouldn't have been deluged with 30 million poorly educated, jobless illegal immigrants.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 20, 2007 10:48 AM

I really don't know enough to expound on the merits of this particular deal, but the general realpolitik behind arming Israel has always been that a country with nuclear warheads that's historically highly vulnerable to existence-threatening foreign invasions needs to be kept absolutely invincible when it comes to conventional weapons to deter enemies and to prevent a rapid escalation to nuclear conflict. Egypt gets their aid because we're still paying them off for making peace in 1979, something that has made the region immeasurably safer.

Now it happens that there are a lot of political benefits back home to boosting Israeli security and delivering aid to them in general, so that's always going to affect this policy and very likely produce a lot of unnecessary and\or questionable aids as well. But the overall strategy seems common sense to me -- keep the region stable by making another 1967 or Yom Kipper war impossible.

Posted by Benjy Sarlin | August 20, 2007 10:52 AM

If you want to see another general Mideast war, by all means make the Arab nations think Israel is vulnerable.

Here's the problem: they actually think that the only reason Israel is powerful, and there are plenty of Americans who think that too, despite Israel's success at kicking the crap out of all comers before there was any serious American aid.

If we substantially reduce aid, then the Arab states will logically believe that Israel is now weak. Thus tempting them to war again. And this time the UN won't be able to stop it because there's not threat of a US-Soviet clash, which was the real reason Israel stopped each time.

Posted by Adam Herman | August 20, 2007 10:58 AM

Re: "But the overall strategy seems common sense to me -- keep the region stable by making another 1967 or Yom Kipper war impossible."

Those wars were only possible because of the massive Soviet military support for the Arab countries. Militarily, the situation is so lopsided now, that this is a nonsensical rationale.

And, even if there were some justification to this argument, there's no reason that we should be footing the bill. At the level of popular consumption, this policy is always sold based on sentamentality and political correctness.

Posted by Jim W | August 20, 2007 11:07 AM

"Those wars were only possible because of the massive Soviet military support for the Arab countries. Militarily, the situation is so lopsided now, that this is a nonsensical rationale."

I agree that the context for the aid is very very different now, but it still is a descendant of the same rationale, only now with Iran as the stand-in for the Soviet Union. Whether or not this and the Saudi arms deals actually makes Israel and America's allies in the region look any scarier to Ahmadinejad (or is even genuinely intended to) is another story. Like I said, because of the political benefits of these deals, it's very difficult to tell what is foreign policy and what is domestic politics in the eyes of those crafting the aid packages. And I also agree, there doesn't seem to be any good reason we should be straight-up paying for this stuff ourselves.

Posted by Dan Panorama | August 20, 2007 11:42 AM

"If we substantially reduce aid, then the Arab states will logically believe that Israel is now weak. Thus tempting them to war again. And this time the UN won't be able to stop it because there's not threat of a US-Soviet clash, which was the real reason Israel stopped each time."

Except what Arab states are you talking about here? Egypt? Egypt would still lose and thus Moubarek's son's chance to be president would be in question? Jordan? Do you know how little Jordan wants to have land populated by Palestinians? The Hezbollah quasi-state in Lebanon? Oh no, Israel might lose the Sheba farms (or whatever they're called)! Syria? Does anyone think Syria could possibly believe they could win that? When you have a minority leading a country like Syria and they end up losing a ground or aerial war, what do you think happens to said minorities?

We also should ask ourselves what strategic benefit comes from giving Israel weapons on such good terms when Israel is the only country that was explicitly left out of the "coalitions" that went into Iraq both times. We spend all this money beefing up their military but when we fight wars in Israel's own backyard, having Israel on our side would only make the propaganda war against us worse.

Posted by Reality Man | August 20, 2007 11:47 AM

Re Chris Ford's comment "The wealth and power of Jews, as expressed through AIPAC, transformed the infrastructure transition costs of the Sinai giveback agreed to at Camp David - expected to be a few billion over two years - into a permanent welfare check of 5 billion a year over 28 years. 140 billion."
---------------
As readers here know, I despise the malign influences of AIPAC and other elements of the Israel Lobby.

But I don't think its fair to saddle America's 6 million Jews with responsibility for the acts of a few --for the acts of the Israel Lobby.

For one thing, as I've shown with citations, the loudmouths in the Israel Lobby are largely professional sycophants living off the patronage of a few billionaires. Some of those billionaires --like Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch-- are not even Jewish. Their advocacy seems driven by other considerations-- which I can discuss if anyone's interested.

And it's not clear to me that those billionaires who are Jewish are all that motivated by the moral teachings of the Torah.

Even Israel herself is a proprietorship largely owned by roughly 19 major families. 19 Families Who --instead of paying taxes for defense of their country -- prefer to have US taxpayers cough up $3 Billion/year

By contrast, most of America's 6 million Jews are middle class citizens who are largely ignorant of what's going on -- especially those in New York who mistakenly think the New York Times is a real newspaper and depend upon the Times for info.

Plus , some of the most bitter critics of the Israel Lobby are Jews. People like MJ Rosenberg.

Why? Well, the Israel Lobby's support for aggressive war helps Big Oil and Big Defense but it does not necessarily help Israel. When the oil runs out , Big Oil and Big Defense will no longer have a reason to push for the hugely expensive US military occupations in the Middle East. The huge cost of Social Security/Medicare will also put downward pressure on future defense budgets.

Israel will be left holding the bag ALONE -- facing the hatred of 1 Billion Muslims. A hatred inflamed by decades of support for a predatory imperialist who will have stolen the only wealth -- hence, the only future -- that the peoples of deserts had. The creation of a small country might eventually have been forgiven by all but a few Palestinians. But Israel's longtime linkage with USA special interests will be remembered always.

Plus the Israel Lobby's acts are also a threat to America's Jews. America has been a safe refuge for Jews for centuries and will always be a more secure home than Israel could ever be. Our Constitution protects the rights of our Jewish citizens.

The only thing that could ever endanger that is if a large number of US citizens come to believe --falsely -- that the disloyalty and malign manipulations of the Israel Lobby are characteristic of all Jews.

I don't believe that -- the USA might never have came into existence if not for the strong patriotism of a Jewish merchant here in Philadelphia called Haym Solomon.

But non-Jewish oligarchs have always found it expedient to scapegoat the Jewish community as a way to divert the common citizens attention away from the oligarchs' own behavior and responsibility for disasters. Plus its interesting how pogroms tend to cause huge amounts of wealth to migrate from wealthy Jews into the pockets of non-Jewish oligarchs.

The Truth is the first casualty of propaganda subsidized by the wealthy.

Posted by Don Williams | August 20, 2007 11:59 AM

"Israel itself faces new threats and must maintain its conventional military edge; it must adapt to new asymmetric threats from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and it has to deal with the growing possibility of an Iranian nuclear threat to its very existence. Helping Israel deal with conventional threats through arms sales frees it to deal with those other threats on its own, and produces far more stability in the region than would a weak Israel, which might have to strike pre-emptively or overreact."

This is one of the dumbest articles I've ever read from Cordesman. It's a joke.

First of all, Iran is not and never will be a nuclear threat. The only reason Iran would have ANY interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon would be remove regime change from the table as an option for the US and Israel. Because if you know you're going to be attacked for the purpose of regime change anyway, you might as well go for broke and nuke Israel. But if Israel cannot withstand a first strike - despite having a second-strike capability - then if Iran has a nuke, Israel has to remove the regime change option.

Second, none of the weapons the US is giving to either Saudi Arabia OR Israel is going to help them with the "asymmetric threat" represented by Hamas or Hizballah.

Third, Israel already has more than enough military capability to deal with the existing conventional military threats, and therefore does not need any additional weaponry to allow it to be free to deal with the asymmetric threats.

Fourth, Israel always and continues to "overreact" to its supposed threats. Primarily because they are NOT threats to Israel's existence, but threats to its program of being the dominant power in the Middle East.

Cordesman admits that his organization is financed by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia - then he fatuously claims that none of them asked him to write this. Naturally they didn't - they didn't have to. His credentials depend on being accepted in the FP and military analysis community, and if he wrote the truth about these arms sales, he'd be accused of being antisemitic and worse.

The reality is that these arms deals are BRIBES to allow the US and Israel to attack Iran.

Period.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 20, 2007 9:59 PM

Having written the above, I see Antiwar. com has an article saying just about the exact same things, written by a pseudonymous northern Virginia-based defense analyst.:

Militarism's Transmission Belt
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/werther.php?articleid=11473

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 21, 2007 4:27 AM