ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Growing Middle East Tensions Incite ‘Weapons Buying Binge’ Among Gulf States

idexIDEX-2007, touted as the world’s largest military defense exhibition, began yesterday in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The conference — which brings together “key decision-makers from across the world, defense ministers, chiefs of staff and senior officers from army, navy and air force to network” with defense contractors — is attracting a great deal of attention from Persian Gulf states.

The recently-released National Intelligence Estimate assessed that increasing violence and unrest in Iraq “have heightened fears of regional instability and unrest and contributed to a growing polarization between Iran and Syria on the one hand and other Middle East governments on the other.” And Iraq’s neighbors are equipping themselves for potential battle. The AP reports:

Deep fears about the war in Iraq and growing tension between the United States and Iran are driving the wealthy oil states of the Persian Gulf to go on shopping sprees for helicopters, ships and tanks, officials say.

Helicopters and electronic warning sensors are expected to be hot sellers. For example, seaborne early warning radar can can detect rogue vessels approaching ports or oil terminals. …

In particular, the Saudi military is looking for air defenses and helicopters and perhaps naval frigates. … The Emirates’ shopping list includes ship-to-ship missiles.

States in the Gulf region which have invested little in “rearming” in the “last 15 years,” are now eager to see what others are buying and how they might “defeat those capabilities.” As one analyst said, “The shopping lists are directly correlated to the threat perception.”

Defense contractors attending the summit — including Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing — are more than happy to oblige the Arab nations’ demands. The Gulf states’ “weapons buying binge” is expected to rake in sales that will “soar past” the $2 billion in contracts offered at IDEX in 2005. According to U.S. Ambassador to the UAE, Michele Sisson, U.S. companies are expected to “clinch” a significant portion of the profits.

Digg It!

- Ryan Powers

Dana Priest On Walter Reed: An ‘Unbelievable’ Story of ‘Neglect’ and ‘Indifference’

Dana Priest and Anne Hull of the Washington Post revealed over the weekend that Walter Reed hospital, once perceived as the “crown jewel of military medicine,” has become “something else entirely — a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients.” Priest and Hull snuck in and out of the Walter Reed facilities over the course of four months without the knowledge or permission of hospital officials. They said they wanted to bypass the hospital’s “very well-oiled public relations machine.” Some examples of what they saw:

– The “legions” of injured soldiers housed at the facility “take up every available bed on post and spill into dozens of nearby hotels and apartments leased by the Army.”

– Building 18 “has been plagued with mold, leaky plumbing and a broken elevator.”

– “The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.”

– “Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs.”

Last night on PBS Newshour, Priest admitted Walter Reed’s dilapidated condition was “surprising” to her. “We think that the American — we know that the American people support the troops, no matter what they think of the war,” Priest said. “And so, when we started hearing these stories of neglect, and in some cases indifference, it was unbelievable.”

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/walter_final.320.240.flv]

John at AmericaBlog has been covering the Walter Reed issue extensively, and has a nice round-up of veterans news here. PTSDCombat, FireDogLake, Carpetbagger, Daily Kos and Atrios have more.

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

War on Parasites

Nicholas Kristof has more on Jimmy Carter’s efforts to combat parasitic infections in Africa, including campaigns against river blindness (caused by a different worm from the one responsible for Guinea Disease), elephantitis and malaria, intestinal worms, etc. Then comes the policy point:

Mr. Carter’s private campaign against the diseases of poverty, put together with pennies and duct tape, is a model of what our government could do. Imagine if the U.S. resolved that it would wipe out malaria and elephantiasis (both are spread by mosquitoes, so a combined campaign makes sense). What if we celebrated science not by trying to go to Mars but by extinguishing malaria? What if we tried to burnish America’s image abroad not only with press releases and propaganda broadcasts, but also with a bold campaign against disease?

So I wish that President Bush could visit villages like this and see what Mr. Carter has accomplished as a private individual. Mr. Bush, to his great credit, has financed a major campaign against AIDS that will save nine million lives, and he is also increasing spending against malaria — but not nearly as energetically as he is increasing the number of troops in Iraq. So I asked Mr. Carter whether President Bush should be pushing not for a possible war with Iran, but for a war on malaria.

I would hardly bother to criticize Bush on this point. Compared to other aspects of his administration, Bush’s “let’s try to cure diseases in Africa” policy has been pretty good (as Kristof said, involving some meaningful increases in some areas). Obviously, he should do more, but we’re talking about a really, really bad president so I don’t expect anything better from him. But for the next administration and peoples’ edification, these points are well worth considering. The marginal value of additional resources spent on these sorts of problems is pretty giant at this point, and it’s a lot clearer in a technical sense how you would go about helping people through public health measures than how you would go about building democracy or spurring economic development.

Yglesias

Remember When?

As we see the anti-Ethiopian Islamist insurgency in Somalia continue to pick up steam, even prompting Ethiopian troops to deploy the legendarily successful counterinsurgency tactic of “return[ing] fire with artillery and heavy machine-gun fire throughout the night,” can we ask once again what the United States policy in the Horn of Africa has accomplished. None of the terrorists allegedly being harbored by the Islamic Courts Movement have been captured. The Ethiopians cannot (of course) effectively control the country. It seems that hundreds of Somali civilians have died in various kinds of fighting. And we’ve effectively opened up another branch campus of Jihad University.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up