Editor's Note:

In late July the outlines of a significant collection of weapons packages to US allies in the Middle East began to take shape.  The deals included a $20 billion sale to Saudi Arabia and other GCC nations.  Shortly after the State Department announced the Administration's commitment to support their defense needs Doctor Anthony Cordesman addressed the subject in a New York Times op-ed.

We were pleased to have an opportunity to talk with Doctor Cordesman at the recent Arab-US Policymakers Conference in Washington.  You may already have listened to his presentation -- the audio files were posted shortly after the proceedings and transcripts are forthcoming -- from the "Defense Cooperation" panel.  In this brief interview he summarized the purposes, timing and political consequences of the arms deal.

Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and is Co-Director of the Center's Middle East Program.

Saudi Military Modernization
A Conversation with Anthony Cordesman

SUSRIS: Thanks for taking time to talk with us about the proposed U.S. arms sales to countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. What are Washington�s aims regarding the Saudi Arabian piece?

Cordesman: The United States has to operate in the Gulf with Saudi Arabia in terms of airspace, force levels, and the capability to project air power -- the need for over flight, basing support. If there is any serious confrontation with Iran or any other power, U.S. and Saudi cooperation is absolutely critical. 

That cooperation is dependent on two things: first, the relationship at the military level between the United States and Saudi Arabia; and second, Saudi Arabia�s capability to operate with U.S. forces with the most modern and the most effective equipment for the mission. 

Saudi Arabia has long been involved in a process of military modernization. It has tried to develop a qualitative edge that could deter any attack from its northern Gulf neighbors. During the period when oil revenues and export earnings were low, the late 1990�s, Saudi Arabia�s modernization fell behind. It�s now seeking to catch up. If it does catch up it�s going to be far better for both Saudi Arabia and the United States if it catches up with US arms. These are the arms which allow the US and Saudi Arabia to cooperate. They provide the widest area coverage. They provide the greatest mix of contingency capability. 

SUSRIS: Talk about the timing of this arms deal.

Cordesman: The timing of this is not pegged to one incident or one moment in time. There obviously is a new emphasis in the southern Gulf on military modernization, on developing capabilities that can deter and contain Iran. 

Saudi Arabia is only one of the countries making major arms purchases and that is involved in the process of modernization. It is also important to point out that this is not something where you have a major purchase and all of a sudden arms appear in Saudi Arabia. These figures are for a purchase plan that would extend over ten years. Deliveries take years. Once deliveries take place, forces have to convert, train, and develop the maintenance systems to use this equipment effectively. So what we are talking about is modernization over a decade. 

It is in many ways an effort to keep Saudi Arabia capable of providing deterrence and containment and being interoperable with the United States over time, not to make some sudden change in the Gulf military balance.

SUSRIS: Arms sales to the Middle East can be contentious domestic political issues. What reaction should we expect to see in Washington, in Congress, especially in the politicized atmosphere of an election year?

Cordesman: Well there will be a great deal of political posturing. There often is and it doesn�t necessarily matter who or what the arms sale is about. Politics affects sales to Taiwan and to South Korea not just to the Arab world or the Middle East. But it is important to note this is part of an integrated package. There will be an upgrade to Israel, increased arms deliveries there. There is a package to Egypt. This is not going to be destabilizing in terms of the regional military balance, and it isn�t going to favor Saudi Arabia, Israel or Egypt over the others. 

Whether or not the Congress reacts to these facts as distinguished from posturing to constituencies is, frankly, a question. There is a great deal of political opportunism in most of these debates and really almost no focus on the substance. What�s the strategic interest? What�s the impact on the regional balance? Do we really run any meaningful risk? 

Unfortunately if we look at past debates there has been a great deal of sound and fury and very little intellectual content. 

SUSRIS: Thank you Doctor Cordesman for your perspective on these important questions.