While for many in the Middle East the sum of all fears is an Iranian-inspired nuclear arms race, this terrifying specter should not distract from the very real scramble for conventional weapons that is already in play across the region. The visit of the Iranian president to Lebanon will refocus attention on the capabilities of Hezbollah, yet Iraq remains the most contested strategic prize with would-be allies in both Tehran and Washington engaged in a high-stakes tug of war.
When it comes to influence, nothing says "be my friend" better than brand new shiny weapon systems. Indeed, despite Iraq's experience of a months-long democratic vacuum and playing host to a series of dangerously unresolved issues around the future identity of the state, western arms continue to be snapped up by the interim government in Baghdad -- whose estimated oil reserves have recently increased from 115bn barrels to 143bn barrels.
Following the recent record-breaking deal to sell $60.5bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the Financial Times reported at the end of last month that the Pentagon proposed to sell weapons worth $4.2bn to Iraq, including 18 F-16 fighter aircraft, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, laser-guided bombs and reconnaissance equipment.
This deal is the latest in a series that has seen Iraq purchase more than $5bn worth of US weapons since 2006, and inherit a significant amount of equipment left behind as part of the US redeployment. According to UPI, the Pentagon stated that the deal would make Iraq "a more valuable partner in an important area of the world as well as supporting Iraq's legitimate needs" regarding self-defense.
While UN security council resolution 1546 theoretically continues the embargo on arms and related material against Iraq, it provides exemptions for equipment required by the government of Iraq or the multinational forces. After all, the US exit strategy from the country relied on building Iraqi security forces over 664,000 strong in order to control the country. Britain also subscribed to such a strategy; according to Foreign Office documents, some 29 military "standard individual export licences" worth £3,542,484 were issued last year.
There are numerous dangers in empowering an Iraqi military in the current national and regional environment. Petraeus adviser David Kilcullen warned last year that Iraq was witnessing the "classic conditions for a military coup" -- where a venal political elite divorced from the population lives inside the Green Zone, while the Iraqi military outside the zone's walls grows both more capable and closer to the people, working with them and trying to address their concerns.
A Rand report into the US redeployment from Iraq recognized that "there is a risk Iraq's political and military leaders could be emboldened by the departure of US forces and their own growing strength to seize control".
The record-breaking hiatus in forming a government will only have furthered Iraqis' contempt for their politicians and empowered the hand of the military.
Another danger is that while empowering the Iraqi military may allow for a smoother US exit from the country and provide it with a potential card to use against Iran, it creates a very real sword of Damocles that threatens the Kurds. Historically, Baghdad has always looked to make peace with the Kurds when it is weak and attack them when it is strong, a lesson very much in the minds of Kurdish politicians today.
Indeed, at the recent party conferences in Britain, there were fringe events organized by the Kurdish Regional Government's representative to the UK, Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman. While the theme was a warning to British business not to be left behind by not investing in the safe haven that is the Kurdish north, during the Q&As Rahman, along with members of the British All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, argued passionately against weapon sales to Baghdad.
The Kurds are aware that despite their support of the US over the years, Kirkuk remains out of their hands and even their energy independence is threatened. Despite an estimated 45bn barrels of oil reserves and six trillion cubic metres of gas scattered across the KRG, last month the Turkish energy minister, Taner Yildiz, affirmed that only those exports approved by Baghdad would be accepted - a serious blow to Kurdish quasi-independence.
Often the fraught politics of the Middle East are caused by short-term thinking, whereby one solution creates a multitude of new problems. Until it is tied effectively to a representative and responsible government in Baghdad, the arming of Iraq's military should be put on hold.
Follow James Denselow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JamesDenselow
How much better off would we be if we used that money for humanitarian aid to countries in natural disasters, or to fund medical aid, buy seed and farm implements for them (Haiti comes to mind - although it appears to have disappeared from the radar of the MSM), rebuilding and building needed housing?
Oh, well - one can dream.
Also driven by unbridled fear of Iran, to keep the Wahabbists off the royals for a while.
Here is my take on this country. The government we now support has no more force then the governments of South Viet Nam. Each stayed in power as long as we were and are willing to be in country. As soon as our military leaves, less then six months the government will have fled the country or there will be a short bloody civil war that the government will lose. That being said it means the billions in military supplies we leave should have nothing more complicated then small arms. I do not want to have to have my grandsons fighting American weapons in the hands of a united Arab military in 20 years.
And not a thing's changed since - except Bush ain't the Decider these days.
Seems the US is trying kickstart its economy by supplying the arms to both sides in the runup to a war (it worked for them in the past).
The Saudi Connection
How billions in oil money spa.wned a global te.rror network
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm
I agree, but what are the chances?
Another in an endless plethora of rationalizations for our continued occupation of a foreign country--a country that posed absolutely no threat to us and that we wrongly invaded under false pretenses.
One of the great things about the internet is that you can look things up that the media doesn't seem to think is important. Over the last 24 months, Iraq has been quietly "auctioning" off the rights to it's massive oil reserves. The recipients of these prizes have been, gee who could have guessed, the big multi-national oil companies. It also appears to this observer that a lot of these contracts have only had single bidders, and that the oil rights have been "auctioned" for pennies on the dollar.
Iraqi oil rights and New Jersey municipal garbage contracts seem to have a lot in common.
In this case, the boogeyman that needs to be kept at bay is Israel and/or the other US friendly dictators who may be tempted to follow in Saddam's footprints (and they also know that they would have a lot harder of a time convincing their slaves...sorry, citizens, that they were fighting off an Iranian invasion in the short time between them attacking Iran and Iran turning from a peacetime economy to a war one, mass producing the arms they'd need, and crushing their attacker. and they also know that the US would be a lot less willing to directly intervene to prevent Iran from doing so, seeing as Iran no longer is the new kid on the block with few if any real friends, and so not as easily scared off, so that scenario doesn't work either)