U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
A Links entry from Saturday, July 28, 2007U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
$20 billion in weaponry. Brilliant.
tina oiticica harris
Why not? We are loaded with weapons and cash for war. This government has reached a point of no return as far as decency and ethics are concerned.
Jason
Absolutely! Bush = Hitler! Insert additional generic whining!
Christ, whatever we sell is years behind technologically. Besides, if it wasn’t us who’d sell them stuff, it’d be the EU or Russia. We all basically copy one another militarily; Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22, MiG F, etc.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Yeah, when has providing billions of dollars in weaponry to the Middle East ever backfired…..
Jason
Not on point, but ok. I was responding to the comment on “decency and ethics”. Woe-is-us comments like that seem popular enough to make bumper-stickers for. We seem to forget that administrations aren’t for life, and if we always held grudges against nations that exhibited douche-baggery in the past, then Germany would currently be a dead zone.
In any case, I find it dificult to think of any situation where a country that uses its purchased weapons hasn’t created a situation that, per your logic, “backfired” on the selling nation. By that I mean that you seem to categorically hold that any use of one’s purchased weapons is a negative thing, as use of weapons period is always something negative.
Anyway, if you’re suggesting Iraq during the first Gulf War, they only used US Apache helicopters to gas their own citizens. For the war itself, they used Russian tanks and weaponry. Same with Afghanistan. Oh, and I recall Egypt staying out of most of the wars against Israel due to our 2 billion a year bribes. And to be more technical, those Apaches amounted to millions, not billions. Evidently you’re seeing some vast irony that I’ve been heretofore unaware of.
Bryan Klausmeyer
Well, the one particular one that I had in mind was Osama bin Laden… My contention is that providing arms to an unstable region is not only morally and ethically irresponsible, but also a bad military plan, which I think is somewhat self-evident.
Jason
I think there’s a fallacy to that logic though. In most cases, nations that purchase weaponry are nations that lack the capacity to create them themselves, and thus they’re nations that aren’t your typical “first-world” or “upper-echelon” locations. It seems to follow that these nations, lacking the same oversight, control, and resources as wealthier, “westernized” nations would of course by seen as less stable. You’re falling sway to the same “Euro-centric”, “pedastaled” logic that you so readily denounced in that earlier topic invovling Alex Taylor. Based on that platform, we’d never provide these supposed “unstable” (ie pretty much non-white) regions with any weapons…or machinery…or technology blueprints…or anything that could give them a chance at power. From that lack of access, they remain unstable. It seems like a vicious circle.
Bryan Klausmeyer
I completely disagree. There’s a difference between, say, condoning Iran for seeking nuclear technology based on the idea that they’re somehow inherently more unstable due to irrational fundamentalism, etc., and the U.S. arming one of its questionable allies in the Middle East.
On the one hand, my point is that it’s in fact the opposite from creating instability: the problem isn’t that the U.S. giving weapons to nation-states that will make the region inherently unstable, but is attempting to stabilize it in a form of a Thermidor—say, a totalitarian capitalist theocracy.
On the other hand, if one can’t sympathize with the victims of “terror”, say the Israelis or the people in the WTC on 9/11, then one is a heartless idiot. Weapons proliferation to fundamentalist, pseudo-fascist groups is to be admonished just as much!
Your post-modernist stance (which I’m assuming you’re using just to play Devil’s Advocate) silently privileges the Defense contractors and munitions dealers/manufacturers who stand to make a pretty penny from such a deal over, say, either the victims of terror or the terrorists themselves. That’s probably the most reprehensible stance there is.
Jason
First, you of all people should be aware of the fallacies behind quickly-fashioned critiques against post-modernism(having read Foucault, Derrida, etc).
In any case, I wouldn’t say that I’m taking a stance that lacks morality, or that ignores sentiment. You understand my opinions regarding events in such places as Darfur, or Taiwan, Israel, etc. I don’t advocate the free and expressionless proliferation of weapons to any and all willing to meet a price. I was more asserting that Saudi Arabia was perhaps incorrectly a target of your ill-will.
In any case, Saudi Arabia is not the sole nation in the region that the US is planning on bolstering. The UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman are a few others. Of course, it seems like all of this is being done to level the field againt Iran, and whether or not this all amounts to the paranoid “domino” race the US undertook during the Cold War remains to be seen. The way I see it, and I believe this is undeniable, is that short term stability at the very least is gained from these interactions. We not only increase our reputation in an area sorely needing it, but we counteract a growing issue arising from our earlier decision to go to Iraq. I wouldn’t call it modernist, but realistic…if we leave the region entirely, then its worse off than before. There needs to be some balance left over so that no one side can just steamroll into dominance.
It weirdly reminds me of the Virginia Tech debates that arose after the shooting. You had one side saying that it was a call for more gun control, and then you had another side asking that, if guns were on campus, couldn’t it have been prevented? Both had situations/stories that supported their views. I suppose when talking about entire nations, I’d agree with the latter perception. I’d rather follow the MAD notion than one where I leave all my trust in the goodwill of someplace so “unstable”.
And, as always, if it isn’t us, its just gonna be China or Russia. 
Bryan Klausmeyer
I’d rather follow the MAD notion than one where I leave all my trust in the goodwill of someplace so “unstable.”
You know… since 9/11 the U.S. has reversed its Cold War stance, saying that nuclear weapons are now no longer off the table. This is as clear a renunciation of MAD as we’re going to get. Moreover, I think that because we define our enemy as an invisible, rootless, global underground kabal (sounds a lot like the anti-Semitic conspiracies, and probably for a reason…), rather than an obvious target (say, Moscow), we’re more inclined to use nuclear weapons (if our enemy doesn’t even have a human face, how can we feel sympathetic?)
Also, unless that reference to MAD means you’re in full favor of allowing Iran to become a nuclear power, I’m not sure what the relevance is (America vs. … ?). But, you’re basically saying that since some other country might sell Saudi Arabia weapons, it might as well be us. Once again, what this amounts to is favoring proto-Fascist capitalism over an authentic Middle East (one that precludes the possibility Badiou’s notion of a Truth-Event). There is no way around that.
Being such a fan of Otto von Bismarck, I’m surprised you’re convinced by ill-conceived short-term attempts at maintaining the status quo in the Middle East. Bismarck’s genius was, as you know, that he was able to plot out nearly a century of historical phenomenology…
P.S.: I’m not sure what was fallacious about my argument, nor what was clichéd about my critique you’re quasi-post-modernist stance. Maybe if you pointed either out, instead of leaving them as empty and vague statements…
Bryan Klausmeyer
I feel I should clarify my stance, which is two-fold:
1) Saudi Arabia is not an unstable state (unlike Iraq or Lebanon) and probably won’t “turn” against us. This is exactly the problem: the U.S. is attempting to preclude the possibility of a Truth-Event from arising in the Middle East because it favors Saudi Arabia’s proto-Fascist “capitalism without capitalism” over any other possibility.
2) In the likely case of weapons proliferation, conservative fundamentalist groups (many of whom Saudi Arabia financially and militarily support), such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc., stand neither for the status quo nor for authentic Truth-Event (but instead the ridiculous spectacle of pure reaction and reassertion of the dogmatic clerical state) attain the ability to wreak havoc upon others. This once again precludes the possibility of Truth-Event, but also opens up the possibility for an even more morally reprehensible paradox (in order to increase its security, the U.S. must provide weapons to a country that will enable others to harm the U.S., in order for the U.S. to continue building up its security… a vicious cycle more apt than the one you falsely attributed to me.)
Jason
Once again, what this amounts to is favoring proto-Fascist capitalism over an authentic Middle East (one that precludes the possibility Badiou’s notion of a Truth-Event). There is no way around that.
What is an example of authentic Middle East? Fatema Mernissi’s “Scheherazade Goes West” details the harems that still exist in Middle-Eastern nations. Is this the “authenticity” that you seek?
What is this “Truth Event”? Without defining that, your second post lacked something…I think it was meaning.
we’re more inclined to use nuclear weapons (if our enemy doesn’t even have a human face, how can we feel sympathetic?)
Well, unless all of our faceless enemies gather in say, the Australian Outback…then I guess we’d have to direct a nuclear strike at a major city (Tehran for example). Yes, I doubt there are any innocent people living there…and surely no one to attach a human face too. Your example seems to give people too little credit.
I’m surprised you’re convinced by ill-conceived short-term attempts at maintaining the status quo in the Middle East.
Its been awhile since I’ve spoken to Henry Kissinger, so perhaps there’s been some breakthrough in long-term strategy that I’ve been unaware of. If you could give me a viable long-term strategy…I’ll stand corrected.
Jason
Hm..quotes didn’t go through…arg
Bryan Klausmeyer
What is an example of authentic Middle East? Fatema Mernissi’s “Scheherazade Goes West” details the harems that still exist in Middle-Eastern nations. Is this the “authenticity” that you seek?
It should’ve been painfully obvious from the context, but by “authentic” I was referring to a Middle East whose sociopolitical landscape isn’t being manipulated/dominated by the U.S. for pathological purposes (say: using Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. in order to destabilize the Iranian regime.)
What is this “Truth Event”? Without defining that, your second post lacked something…I think it was meaning.
Truth-Event is an authentic point of revolution (the act) that relates to truth (aletheia / Gelassenheit). That is, the Truth-Event radically alters the ideological constellation and social structure of a society. More info: Badiou’s Truth Process.
then I guess we’d have to direct a nuclear strike at a major city (Tehran for example). Yes, I doubt there are any innocent people living there…and surely no one to attach a human face too. Your example seems to give people too little credit.
I think your example gives people too much credit, especially given the 21st century’s “warfare without warfare,” where war is fought through video screens rather than on battlefields. If we don’t have to ontologize the humanity of our enemy, our enemy loses their ontic humanity.
Moreover, it’s exactly the omni-present invisible threat which legitimizes the visible use of force. This logic is best encapsulated by the Bush doctrine of the preemptive strike. The entire idea of the old power structure was that violence never actually materialized—this is MAD! But MAD only works if there are equal players, say the U.S. and the Soviet Union. On the other hand, if it’s just one “MAD man” who is able to act out paranoiac fantasies, it becomes what Nietzsche called ressentiment.
This also relates to the Truth-Event: if the U.S. believes that the Middle East is a vital threat to it, an ever-present source of danger, threatening the core of our society AND we’re able to act out on this paranoia with no recourse, then our attempts at violently subduing what we imagine is the preeminent source of danger not only forecloses the possibility of an authentic act, but may also lead to something like Shoah.
Its been awhile since I’ve spoken to Henry Kissinger, so perhaps there’s been some breakthrough in long-term strategy that I’ve been unaware of. If you could give me a viable long-term strategy…I’ll stand corrected.
For starters, reducing defense spending drastically and using it to fund a viable welfare system. Any other idea that I might have, at the risk of sounding cliché, wouldn’t be in the interest of corporate America, unlike war and munitions sales…
And of course, my previous two points still stand.
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.edu
13 Comments