Early in his presidency, President Obama made increasing military exports a major priority, and those increased exports were focused heavily on oil-rich Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, who had long had a relatively basic defensive capability, started investing heavily in more advanced US arms. By the end of Obama’s second term, Saudi Arabia was one of the highest military spenders on earth, sucking up some 8% of their annual GDP.
You can only spend so much money on defense though. A new study from IHS Jane’s is showing that, while the Saudis intend to continue increasing their already staggering military budget, they are shifting decisively away from defensive equipment and toward increasing their offensive capabilities.
The 2015 Saudi invasion of Yemen has been a big driving force in the budget, as well as in future Saudi military planning, as the expectation that they’d quickly overrun the smaller and poorer nation didn’t pan out, and a large amount of Saudi spending became dedicated to US munitions to drop on Yemen.
That the Saudi attack on Yemen didn’t produce a quick victory appears to have led their purchasers to conclude they aren’t buying the right things to go attacking neighbors, and as they continue to ratchet up tensions with the region’s Shi’ites they want that offensive capability to be more secure.
Yet it’s not clear that sort of capability can really be bought, as even the United States, with its far larger, and far more expensive military, has struggled with open-ended wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, then, probably shouldn’t hope to be any more effective by simply buying a subset of the same US arsenal for its own wars of aggression.
I think that too many Americans are refusing to come to terms with the reality in their “OWN” country. Until that starts happening threre is little hope of changing foreign policy. And unfortunately that denial of reality has infected even this site!
If there is one thing about Trump that is positive, it’s his campaign suggestions that there is a peaceful way. Some Americans took it seriously and that at least opened up the conversation.
Sadly, Trump wasn’t talking with any sincerity and so any good that could
have come out of his words has been completely crushed by the establishment. Not to suggest for a moment that Trump offered real hope; he offered nothing but false hope. And now, people like Raimondo and some others, continue to do perhaps irreparable damage in their stubbornness to not see the truth.
We must get over those campaign promises and see through to the truth and in so doing then maybe we can pick up the fight again as a cohesive antiwar force for peace. It can only be peace in spite of Trump, and not any hope of peace from his lies and distortions.
You’re quite the evangelist for ‘no hope,’ Don. If there’s no way forward without unity, who is to decide exactly where the line between ‘us’ and ‘them’ should be drawn? If you see your own narrow interpretation of that as the only answer, then indeed there is no hope for you to be part of the solution.
If you want to change that, I suggest being a little less dogmatic and a little more specific where you think potential allies are wrong (as in incorrect, not amoral), and why. Unity is not built by calling your views ‘the truth’ without any clarity or effort to persuade.
Respectfully, I don’t see any truth in your idea that there is no way forward, with or without unity. When truth is established, unity springs out of that truth. Or in some instances, when lies are established, unity comes too. Think of both possibilities from the POV that sometimes death and destruction comes out of unity. The Nazis found unity in the pre-ww2 German people. Or, the Soviets found unity in opposing Germany. Will the American people find unity with Trump or will they find unity in opposition to Trump? I’ll continue to fight for the side I consider to be on the side of right.
I will continue to be dogmatic, if that’s the way you want to term my behaviour. I view it as being adamant and committed to peace.
I don’t understand what you mean by being more specific on potential allies being wrong. If you care enough then you can clarify what that means. What allies? Wrong in what way? You do some clarifying and I’ll be specific. I’ve never refused to make my views clear on these boards.