US Arms Dealing Is Out of Control

What will it take to rein in Washington’s arms-sales addiction?

The Nation, By William D. Hartung. NOVEMBER 23, 2022,

There’s a seldom commented upon reality of this century and this moment: The United States remains the number-one arms-exporting nation on the planet. Between 2017 and 2021, it grabbed 39 percent of the total global weapons market, and there’s nothing new about that. It has, in fact, been the top arms dealer in every year but one for the past three decades. And it’s a remarkably lucrative business, earning American weapons makers tens of billions of dollars annually.

It would be one thing if it were simply a matter of money raked in by the industrial half of the military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, in these years, US-supplied weaponry has also fueled conflicts, enabled human-rights violations, helped destabilize not just individual countries but whole regions, and made it significantly easier for repressive regimes to commit war crimes.

At first glance, it appeared that Joe Biden, on entering the White House, might take a different approach to arms sales. On the campaign trail in 2020, he had, for instance, labeled Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state and implied that the unbridled flow of US weaponry to that kingdom would be reduced, if not terminated. He also bluntly assured voters that this country wouldn’t “check its values at the door to sell arms.”

Initially, Biden paused arms deals to that country and even suspended one bomb sale. Unfortunately, within eight months of his taking office, sales to the Saudi regime had resumed. In addition, the Biden team has offered arms to a number of other repressive regimes from Egypt and Nigeria to the Philippines. Such sales contrast strikingly with the president’s mantra of supporting “democracies over autocracies,” as well as his reasonable impulse to supply weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s brutal invasion.

The last president who attempted to bring runaway US weapons trafficking under some sort of control was Jimmy Carter. In 1976, he campaigned for the presidency on a platform based, in part, on promoting human rights globally and curbing the arms trade. And for a period as president, he did indeed suspend sales to repressive regimes, while, in that Cold War era, engaging in direct talks with the Soviet Union on reducing global arms sales. He also spoke out eloquently about the need to rein in the trade in death and destruction.

However, Zbigniew Brzezinski, his hard-line national security advisor, waged a campaign inside his administration against the president’s efforts, arguing that arms sales were too valuable as a tool of Cold War influence to be sacrificed at the altar of human rights. And once that longtime ally, the shah of Iran, was overthrown in 1978 and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, all talk of controlling the arms trade went out the window.

THE BIDEN RECORD: WHY NOT RESTRAINT?

What accounts for Joe Biden’s transformation from a president intent on controlling arms sales to a business-as-usual promoter of such weaponry globally? The root cause can be found in his administration’s adherence to a series of misguided notions about the value of arms sales. In a recent report I wrote for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on the US approach to such exports, I lay out those notions fully, including lending a hand in stabilizing key regions, deterring Washington’s adversaries from engaging in aggression, building meaningful military-to-military relationships with current or potential partner nations, increasing this country’s political and diplomatic influence globally, and creating jobs here in the United States. In the Saudi case, Biden’s shift was tied to the dangerous notion that we needed to bolster the Kingdom’s supposedly crucial role in “containing Iran”—a policy that only increases the risk of war in the region—and the false promise that, in return, the Saudis would expand their oil output to help curb soaring gas prices here at home.

Such explanations are part of an all-encompassing belief in Washington that giving away or selling weaponry of every sort to foreign clients is a risk-free way of garnering yet more economic, political, and strategic influence globally. The positive spin advocates of the arms trade give to the government’s role as the world’s largest arms broker ignores the fact that, in too many cases, the risks—from fueling conflict and increasing domestic repression elsewhere to drawing the United States into unnecessary wars—far outweigh any possible benefits.

AN ARMS CLIENTS HALL OF SHAME

There are numerous examples, both historically and in the present moment, of how this country’s arms sales have done more harm than good, but for now let’s just highlight four of them—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, and the Philippines.

SAUDI ARABIA……………

EGYPT…………………….

NIGERIA………………….

THE PHILIPPINES……….

COMPANIES CASH IN

While the humanitarian consequences of US arms sales may be devastating, if you happen to be a major weapons maker like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, or General Dynamics, the economic benefits are enormous. Weapons systems built by those four companies alone have figured in more than half of the $100 billion-plus in major arms offers made since President Biden took office.

While those firms prefer to pose as passive beneficiaries of carefully considered government policies, they continue to work overtime to loosen restrictions on weapons exports and expand the number of countries eligible for such equipment and training. To that end, those four giant firms alone routinely donate millions of dollars to key members of Congress, while employing 300 lobbyists, many of them drawn from the ranks of the Pentagon, Congress, and the National Security Council. Once on board, those retired generals, admirals, and other officials use their government contacts and inside knowledge of the arm-sales process to influence government policies and practices.

A particularly egregious and visible example of this was Raytheon’s effort to pressure Congress and the Trump administration to approve a sale of precision-guided munitions to the Saudis. A former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, worked inside the State Department to keep the Saudi arms pipeline open despite that country’s bombing of civilian targets in Yemen, and then Raytheon’s former CEO, Thomas Kennedy, even went so far as to directly lobby Senate Foreign Relations chairman Senator Robert Menendez over Saudi arms sales. (He was rebuffed.) But the most spectacular lobbyist for the Saudis was, of course, President Trump, who justified continuing arms sales to Riyadh after the regime’s 2018 murder of US resident, Saudi journalist, and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi this way:

$110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries—and very happy to acquire all this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!

In fact, neither Russia nor China would be able to replace the US as Saudi Arabia’s primary arms supplier any time soon. The kingdom is so reliant on American equipment that it might take a decade or more for it to rebuild its military around weapons supplied by another nation.

In reality, expansive as American arms sales to the Saudis are, that $110 billion figure was a typical case of Trumpian exaggeration. Actual sales during his term were less than one-third of that, and jobs tied to those sales in the US were similarly far less than President Trump claimed. The figure he liked to throw around— 500,000—was at least 12 times the actual one. Still, the damage done by the weaponry his administration rammed through Congress for the Saudis has been incalculable and can’t be measured by the dollar value of any particular sale.

The Raytheon lobbying campaign was extraordinary primarily because its details became public knowledge. But count on one thing: Similar efforts by other military-industrial corporations surely take place behind closed doors on a regular basis. One precondition for reducing dangerous arms deals would have to be reducing the political power of the major weapons-producing companies.

PUSHING BACK AGAINST AMERICA’S ARMS SALES ADDICTION

In 2019, spurred by Saudi actions ranging from the war in Yemen to the Khashoggi murder, both houses of Congress voted down a specific deal for the first time—$1.5 billion in precision-guided bombs for Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern clients—only to have their actions vetoed by President Trump. Successful votes to end military support or Saudi Arabia under the War Powers Resolution met a similar fate……………………………

Success in reining in Washington’s arms-sales addiction will, at the very least, require a major campaign of public education. Too few Americans even know about their nation’s role as the world’s largest weapons trader, much less the devastating impact of the arms it transfers. But when asked, a majority of Americans are against arming repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and consider arms sales to be “a hazard to US security.”

Still, until there is greater public understanding of the humanitarian and security consequences of what the government is doing in our name, coupled with concerted pressure on the Biden administration, the national security state, and the weapons makers, the arms trade is likely to continue full speed ahead. If so, those companies will remain in weapons heaven, while so many people on this planet will find themselves in a hell on Earth https://www.thenation.com/article/world/arms-dealing-us-weapons-market/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%2011.23.2022&utm_term=daily

November 25, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A new nuclear weapons delivery system is the last thing the US needs

The Hill, BY YINT HMU, – 11/21/22,

As conditions for Russian soldiers deteriorate on the battlefields of Ukraine, we have seen a rhetorical escalation of threats of a nuclear strike from Moscow in response. The risk of a possible nuclear conflict has not been this high since the height of the Cold War decades ago. 

At this moment, we should be doubling down on our efforts toward nuclear arms control. Instead, the United States Congress is trying to develop a new nuclear weapons delivery system we don’t need, and one the Biden administration has emphatically declared it doesn’t want. 

Congress’s pet nuclear boondoggle is known as the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). It’s a Cold War-era idea that was given new life by former president Donald Trump only to haunt us in the year 2022. Nuke-happy, hawkish Democrats teamed up with the GOP and managed to slip $45 million for SLCM-N research and development into this year’s defense budget — the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that is now being debated. 

If completed, SLCM-N would essentially do what its name suggests: deliver nuclear warheads from ships, submarines or naval aircraft on a trajectory that makes it hard to track by radar. 

Weapons like the SLCM-N are inherently more dangerous because of their ambiguous nature. These weapons look pretty much like conventional missiles, which are carried by U.S. naval assets around the world. Neither our allies nor our adversaries will be able to tell whether any random ship or submarine is armed with a nuclear weapon. And whenever a ship or a submarine fires a missile, everyone will be left wondering if it’s a nuke or not. The risk of accidental nuclear conflict is exponentially higher with these weapons in play. And they’re not treaty-limited either, which further destabilizes the environment. 

Members of Congress, nuclear non-proliferation groups and anti-war organizations have called for the elimination of the SLCM-N. The Biden administration has also strongly opposed its funding in the NDAA. And in the recently released Nuclear Posture Review, the administration laid out multiple reasons to scrap the SLCM-N program entirely, ranging from the cost of the program to its redundancy with already existing weapon systems.

Still, the SLCM-N is on track to receive its funding. The provision to fund the research and development of the program passed the House, and right now it’s in the Senate as part of the NDAA. But it’s not a done deal yet, and there’s still time for the Biden administration and Senate Democrats to eliminate the program. ………………..

At a time when the world is rightly terrified of tactical nuclear weapon use by Russia, it’s unacceptable for Congress to go rogue and pursue the development of SLCM-N. The Biden administration needs all the credibility it can get to reduce nuclear risk in Ukraine. Congress pursuing a new tactical nuclear delivery system — a destabilizing move at any time — is especially counterproductive now. It’s time for Democrats to step up and end SLCM-N once and for all.

Yint Hmu is a senior associate for digital campaigns at Win Without War. You can follow him on Twitter @yinth_. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3745138-a-new-nuclear-weapons-delivery-system-is-the-last-thing-the-us-needs/

November 22, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment