Arms Deals Can Raise as Many Questions as They Answer

After The Wall St. Journal reported that the US is planning to sign a $60 billion arms deal with the Saudis, it seemed a good time to reflect on what, exactly, this means.

Very technically, it means that the President will formally notify Congress, which will review the plan. After some horse-trading, the deal will most likely be stamped by lawmakers and put into place. The Saudis will then be authorized to purchase the up to $60 billion of aircraft. Analysts expect that it will be some time before they actually meet that quota, but that top-line number would represent the largest signed deal in US history. 

Very strategically, it means that the US is (continuously) employing a strategy of arming allies against countries such as Iran in the hopes that 1) we will keep up good relations with those states and, 2) they will serve as a deterrent to Iranian military action in the area without a direct showing or use of force on the part of the US.

All seems reasonable enough. Deterring a potentially dangerous enemy without boots on the ground is certainly an attractive option particularly considering the current state of military affairs. However, and despite the fact that Blawgconomics is often critical of comment sections on web articles, a quick scroll down the page linked to above shows that some folks around the world have perhaps a better grasp of history than some US leaders. Two names that seemed to keep coming up were Iraq and Afghanistan...

This certainly is not to say that, like these others, Saudi Arabia will be anything less than a staunch ally anytime in the near future. However, the fact remains that most of the military actions the US has taken in the past few decades, whether on a large- or small-scale, were taken against enemies who had some old US issue among their equipment. Just food for thought...