Is this for real? As news breaks that the Bush administration continues to sell America to our enemies, Hugh Fitzgerald, clarifies the issues at hand. Read his article, and shudder at the sheer audacity of our government to wink & nod every time the Saudis feign a cough:The Bush Administration announces in the same breath that "over ten years" Israel will receive "$30 billion in weapons," and that Saudi Arabia will get "$20 billion" in weapons to stave off Iran (over what time period? 10 years, like the Israelis? Or more like a year or two?). And it announces also that, furthermore, a country that is in every way hostile to us, Egypt, will receive "$13 billion" in weapons as a gift.
What shall we say about this? Israel is not only a temporary ally but a permanent ally. It is a permanent part of the West and central to the West's history, at this point, and must be kept alive not only for our own moral sanity, but also because its disappearance, or reduction to dhimmitudinous despair and reliance on Arab Muslim willingness to allow it to survive would whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. But this weapons transfer, billed as "$30 billion," in fact is misleading. Over ten years that amounts to $3 billion a year in weapons aid, which is only one-quarter over the amount now given, and gratefully received. (And need one point out how many advances, in aerospace technology, and in everything from unmanned aircraft to explosives-resistant vehicles that ought to have been, but were not bought, by the Pentagon for use in Iraq, are developed by the Israelis for their, and of course our, use?)
Saudi Arabia, per contra, is our enemy. A permanent enemy, because it is a country whose people are suffused with the most uncompromising, violent, and malevolentfor Infidelsversion of Islam. For in Saudi Arabia they take their Islam very, very seriously. Saudi Arabia is not worried about an invasion by Iran. Such fears are phony. The whole hysteria, coordinated with Egypt and Jordan, about the "Shi'a crescent" is merely designed to get the Americans to focus only on Iran (and its current accomplice, Syria) and to ignore the much larger threat, outside the local business in Iraq, that Sunni Islam poses to Infidels. It is designed to get them to ignore also that above all other states, Saudi Arabia is the world's Muslims’ chief financier, paying for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da'wa, and the buying up of Western hirelings who in the capitals of the Westand certainly in Washingtonwork to do the Saudi bidding. They work to prevent intelligent understanding of the menace of Jihad and of Islam to our legal and political institutions and to our physical security.
It is absurd to think that the Saudis will master this equipment, but not absurd to think that such weaponry could fall into the hands of Arabs and other Muslims who can master some of it. In any case, the mere possession of such weapons would have to be taken into account by Israeli military planners, and will make their own task even more hellishly difficult, and they don't deserve to have that outcome. When the United States protested about a sale of aerospace technology, developed by the Israelis, to China, Israel, at great cost to its own fledgling aerospace dreams, promptly cancelled the salethereby angering China and permanently damaging any hope of future sales to such a market. But Israel listened and heeded our desires. We, however, or at least this and other American administrations, have not ever heeded Israel's pleas on the same score.And what is also bad is the signal to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia should be read the riot act. Saudi Arabia should be told it is not "our ally," and if it wishes to be defended, it will obviously have to rely, in the end, on usnot on weapons that could fall into hands even more malevolent than the Al-Saud (just as the weapons we sold the Shah, that "pillar of stability" in the Persian Gulf, fell into the clutches of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Thus if these weapons are delivered, we would have to be ready to intervene in order to make sure those weapons were not seized, or transferred, to others. Saudi Arabia was a loyal supporter of the Taliban (and one of only two countries to recognize the Taliban government, besides Pakistan). Saudi Arabia must be forced to stop funding mosques and madrasas, stop funding the hate literature against Infidels that have been found in those mosques and those madrasas, stop funding those campaigns of Da'wa that target prisoners, that target all the psychically and economically marginal.
The Saudis do not now do, and never have done, the United States any favors. We buy their oil at the market price. They have fooled successive American policymakers, who wanted to be fooled. They were helped along in being fooled by so many who, directly or indirectly, at the time or soon after, have been paid off by the Saudis, the government, or its institutions, or rich individuals.
The way to "protect" the Al-Saud and the oilfields is quite different. It is to sell Saudi Arabia an insurance policy. We will guarantee the safety of the rulers and of the oil. It will cost: let's say $50-100 billion annually. Too much, you say? Well, since Saudi Arabia takes in about one billion dollars a day, and since the rich Saudis have invested a lot overseas, have perhaps a trillion or more socked away, they can certainly afford $50-$100 billion. Okay, how about a little souk-haggling, in that case? Let's give them a deal$75 billion a year. How's that? As long as you agree with the concept, we can at a later date decide just how much we intend to recoup, for the Iraq calamity and squandering of $880 billion, from the fabulous rich Saudis.
And what about Egypt? Can it seriously be maintained that Egypt needs those weapons because the army of Shi'a Iran may march right across northern Iraq, and Jordan, and Israel, and march right into Egypt? Really? Or is it possible that Egypt needs those weapons because Iranian troops will be coming up from the Sudan? Or that somehow the Sunnis of Egypt, who are deeply distrustful and intensely dislike the Iranian Shi'a for being non-Arabs and for being Shi'a, would somehow be converted by Shi'a missionaries? And if that were the case, why would giving Egypt the most advanced weaponry help in stopping those missionary efforts?
Egypt has fought four major wars with Israel, and has been responsible for nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks in the period 1949-1956 on Israel. It has been, and remains, the most dangerous neighbor Israel has. Egypt does not go to war not because its people have reconciled themselves to Israel's existenceif anything, they have become since the Sinai handover even more virulent in their officially-sanctioned and officially-promoted hatred of Israel and Zionists and "Jews." Yet the Administration thinks that giving weapons to Egypt, a country whose poor will not benefit one whit from the airplanes and missiles Egypt will receive, will somehow be accepted by the American people and by Congress, that we will all be unable to see right through this.The lumped announcement of the one legitimate arms delivery plannedthat to our ally and friend Israelat the same time, in the same breath, with the announcement of the gift of advanced weaponry to Israel's constant threat Egypt, and the sale of advanced weaponry to the funder of the worldwide Jihad, Saudi Arabia, shows an Administration that is terminally exhausted. It cannot think straight about Islam. It cannot begin to start to think straight about the dangers it is creating for an ally, and for the larger Infidel world. It can't begin to get a grip and think in terms of the Camp of Infidels and the Camp of Islam, and how to do whatever it takes to weaken the latter and strengthen the former.
Instead, it has swallowed the Sunni Arab line about the need for countering the Shi'a threat (as if there were not, for Infidels, a greater Sunni threat), which means the threat to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and to Bahrain, and among the Shi'a agitating in Lebanon, or those Shi'a minorities in Yemen and Kuwait. And of course they also mean the threat in Iraq, if the Shi'a are permitted to keep their new gains, and the Sunnis to be forced to accept the new order. That is why, just as the Shi'a exiles were the ones who helped inveigle the Bush Administration to go into Iraq, it is now the turn of the Sunnis, to inveigle usagainst our own best intereststo stay.
The Administration keeps amazing us with its ignorance and inability to see the whole picture.
And in its list of recipients of the arms, the Bush Administration puts one in mind of the scene in a Woody Allen film, in which he is in at a kiosk in New York telling the newsdealer that "I'd like a copy of The Times Literary Supplement, and The New York Review Books, and The Hudson Review and also Partisan Review and, oh, could you just throw in a copy of Slut."