I have often wondered where the terrorists around the world get all the weapons and ammunition they use. Every time I see a news report about terrorists, they all have automatic rifles and are firing ammunition like crazy. I often suspected that they came from the United States as well as the other big military powers in the world like China and Russia.
The United States' companies control about 80% of the global conventional weapons market which is estimated to be over $70 billion a year. Weapons are big business, and the companies that make them in the United States exercise significant influence over our foreign policy.
In 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations arms trade treaty. As you can guess, the Senate has not ratified that treaty. Initially reaching agreement on the treaty and the signing by the United States was heralded as a positive sign by many including the editorial staff of The New York Times (here). Unfortunately the availability of arms throughout the world and particularly for terrorists continues to be a huge problem and is probably getting worse. In October, 2013, the editorial staff of The New York Times criticized what it called Obama's "Shortsighted Arms Deregulation" (here). President Obama moved much of the oversight of arms sales from the State Department to the Commerce Department which is much friendlier to business interests, even though the State Department only rejected 1% of the requests for military sales. The editorial reaches the following conclusion about why the change was made:
The deeper reason for the relaxed controls is that American defense companies, which lobbied heavily for the weaker rules, are scrambling for new markets in an era of plummeting Pentagon budgets.Despite an incredible body of evidence that much of the arms and ammunition provided to government and rebels in the Middle East by the United States ends up in the hands of ISIL and other terrorist groups, President Obama continues to push for more arms sales and more arms aid to these countries and groups. While there can be no exact accounting of how many United States arms and munitions get into the hands of people we are fighting, by all accounts it is very significant.
In October last year Foreign Policy published an article entitled "Where Does the Islamic State Get Its Weapons?" (here). The subtitle, "Many of the weapons the militant group fights with in Iraq and Syria came from the United States", answers the question. The weapons and ammunition get into the hands of the terrorists by graft, corruption and incompetence as well as being taken on the field of battle. The articles citing the graft and lack of accountability surrounding the weapons and ammunition provided by the United States to Iraq are numerous and demonstrate a stunning lack of accountability and indifference to the fact that United States soldiers are put in danger because we permit our arms to reach our enemies. An example of the kind of article you will find if you go looking is one from The New York Times in November last year entitled "Graft Hobbles Iraq's Military in Fight ISIS" (here).
As the total amount of weaponry and munitions increase in the world, the amount available to the terrorists will increase. Unfortunately, President Obama has been increasing foreign arms sales. Amy Goodman on her program "Democracy Now" had a segment earlier this week entitled "Are Obama's Record Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq Fueling Unrest in Middle East?" (here). It is a frightening interview with William Hartung. Mr. Hurtung states that President Obama has sold $30 billion more in arms during the first five years of his presidency than President Bush did in his entire eight years. I shudder to think what will happen if Republicans gain the presidency although Secretary Clinton is undoubtedly more of a hawk than President Obama too.
Here is a brief description by Mr. Hartung of the terrible state of arms in one part of the Middle East:
We don’t know the full numbers but in Iraq, the security forces abandoned large amounts of the weaponry to Isis. U.S. armed rebels in Syria armed by the CIA, went over to join Isis. There’s $500 million missing of weapons in Yemen. Some think it’s gone to the Houthis some think it’s gone to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Of course there’s arms on both sides because the government and the forces have split in this war. So it’s quite possible every side of that war in Yemen may have some level of U.S. weaponry. So it’s really gone haywire. It’s sort of what I call the boomerang effect, when U.S. arms end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries.The transcript of the piece by Amy Goodman quotes the CEO of Lockheed Martin in her answer to an analyst's question during an earnings call,
MARILLYN HEWSON: Even if there may be some kind of deal that is done with Iran, there is volatility all around the region and each one of these countries believes they’ve got to protect their citizens and the things that we can bring to them help in that regard. So similarly, that’s the Middle East. And I know that’s what you asked about, but you can take that same argument to the Asia-Pacific region, which is another growth area for us. A lot of volatility, a lot of instability a lot of things that are happening both with North Korea as well as some of the tensions between China and Japan. So in both of those regions, which are growth areas for us, we expect that there is going to continue to be opportunities for us to bring our capabilities to them.War is good for big business.
The piece also points out that United States companies can now obtain permission to sell armed drones to foreign governments. Those governments have to promise not to use them for bad purposes, but we all know that is not an enforceable promise and these governments are oppressive and violent. What could possibly go wrong with this program? But drones are becoming big business.
Mr. Hartung points out that in defending weapons sales to foreign governments, the Defense Department points out that these sales promote jobs in the United States. I guess war is always good for employment and big business.
We know that weapons that are manufactured by United States companies are being used by both our friends (?) and enemies and against United States soldiers. We know that we cannot trust the countries in the Middle East to whom we give or sell these weapon to keep them and use them only for the intended purposes. We know that the availability of weapons is a necessity for the terrorist to gain and maintain control of populations. Yet we continue to permit the sales of these weapons. It is clear to me that the only ones benefiting from these sales are the big businesses selling them.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
