"The worst, however, position to be in the Bazaar is to be the one who gives up something for nothing."

Im not so sure about this- we get to sell 21 billion in military hardware (which reduces the costs of our own hardware to boot) to the Saudis, who realistically have no use for it (the Israeli AF, much less the US, would make mince meet of the Saudis no matter what they were flying). The only benefit the Saudis ultimately draw is to keep the Iranians wary, which also benefits us. How are we losers on this? Now if we let the Soviets... sorry Russians horn in and sell them the stuff, THEN we would be losing something and gaining nothing.

We've been selling arms to the Saudis for decades and what has it got us?

So we make a few billion - politically, we're all the poorer unless we leverage the deal to get some serious concessions from the Saudis, esp. their funding of worldwide proselytization of anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Western propaganda promulgated through mosques that they pay for.

Don't sell the Saudi AF short - it performed in the Gulf War with a very high level of skill and professionalism. They are US trained, after all. We can outnumber them, of course, but pilot for pilot they would be quite good.

Donald,

"We've been selling arms to the Saudis for decades and what has it got us?

So we make a few billion"

What is it that you think we ought to get from selling a few billion $ worth of arms other than a few billion $. Steady access to oil, perhaps? A stable regime ontop of a huge oil reserve? A place from which to launch an invasion?

If we sell $400 worth of anything to anyone and get $400 in exchange, how are we suckers? Or are we discounting the price and losing money on the deal? Is this aid or sales? That's a genuine question as I honestly don't know.

It has been that way since the first agreement, back in 1946, between US minister William Eddy,
and King Saud "We may use your steel, but you are not to touch our faith" Wahhabism. Mind you this has not a small matter to do with Russian arms sales
(MIG fighters, SAM missiles, et al) to Iran; which seems counter productive with the vevak's ties to the Chechens; and their proximity through Georgia and the Pankisi Gorge.

"So we make a few billion - politically, we're all the poorer unless we leverage the deal to get some serious concessions from the Saudis,"

But that again is expecting the Saudis to do something not at all in their interest (or perceived interest). To accept that kind of deal the Saudis become the 'freier'.

We can't hold them hostage for arms, god knows we cant! The Russians and Chinese would LOVE to horn in on the market, as would the Euros. So we make demands of SA, they laugh at us and strictly buy Eurofighters and Migs (making everyone elses arms cheaper to produce and ours more expensive) and we lose whatever finger in the pie we had to begin with.

"Don't sell the Saudi AF short - it performed in the Gulf War with a very high level of skill and professionalism."

They did indeed, but that was working hand in hand with the US. The Saudi AWACs and ground control are run and controlled by US firms (under Congressional mandate).

No matter the skill of the pilots, they dont have the C&C infastructute to stand up to the US or Israel. The US at least could knock the Saudis AF completely out of the picture with stand-off missiles and stealth technology alone.

In other words, the Saudi military is of no concern to the US either way.

More like you've played the sucker for supporting Bush.

I disagree with pretty much everyone here.

The deal is a fig-leaf to cover US withdrawal from the Gulf. Some but not all of the sales will go through. There will be no "deal" to recognize Israel by Arab states, since they can't do so and remain in power. There will be no withdrawal to 1967 borders since Israel wisely does not trust Arabs one inch, and any "hawk" on the Arab side can start lobbing rockets from West Bank and/or Gaza to torpedo any deal.

Israel will withdraw to some border and cut off the rest of the West Bank which they don't want (because of the Palestinian masses) and will bomb the heck out of them when not if they rocket ala Hamasistan. Saudi and the rest will make noises about confronting the Iranian menace but won't team up with Israel because it would cause their overthrow.

What's driving this is the widespread retreat of the US. Weakness invites attack and even Obama is starting to realize that.

Will this put to the lie that Bush is a puppet of the Zionist entity?

I agree with Mark Buehner (though I think this is a more serious problem for Israel). Because of the bazaar culture (as opposed to the Western system of contracts, rule of law and transparency), I seriously doubt the Saudis ability to stop wealthy families from giving to their favorite charities.

We are selling the Saudis the defense capability to contain Iran because for the first time ever, the United States might be approaching a point where its willingness to act on the Carter Doctrine is in doubt.

See this on negotiation in the bazaar:

http://tinyurl.com/25ef2w

H/T Small Wars Journal

Thats a great link Andrew.

"From now on, if anyone asks Israel for "plans," the answer should be: No plans, no suggestions, no "constructive ideas" - in fact no negotiations at all. If the Arab side wants to negotiate, let it present its plans and ideas. And if and when it does, the first Israeli reaction should always be: "Unacceptable - come up with better ones."

That is precisely how the Arabs have bargained. The whole article is good, particularly the tips on bargaining.

People miss the point: there will be zilch bargaining.

This is Kabuki theater.

Israel wants to dump as many of the Palestinians as possible from under their responsibility while keeping most of their territory in the West Bank that they actually care about: Jerusalem, a few other places. Build a whacking great wall and hammer Fatahstan and Hamastan when rockets fly over as they will of course.

Saudi wants to do some show of force / deterrence to keep Iran from over-running the Gulf, and keep their hand in with Fatahstan (since Hamasistan is lost).

There will be posturing a plenty. Position papers and speeches given and graft spread out and a few weapons bought and displayed. None of which will mean a damn.

I wrote my comment before reading Jim’s. Had I done so I would have added this:

Rabbi Jackson writes that from Israel's perspective the U.S. seems naive about the Middle East. From my perspective, the U.S. is becoming very pessimistic about the Middle East. Nothing is asked of the Saudis because there is little they can be trusted to deliver. They may be able to protect themselves.

#6 Motley:

More like you've played the sucker for supporting Bush.

(Meta)

Motley, you seem new(-ish) here, so let me ask you if that post is anywhere near the best you've got. Is it? Because even as snark, it's pretty weak. What's next? "I know you are but what am I?"?

There's no pleasing everyone, and old hands with a bit more track record of substantive posts tend to get a bit more slack. Some people think we play favorites here; I'm doing my best not to. So this isn't a warning, just a question: is this kind of post going to be typical from you?

Because it's basically a "drive-by."

This is the kind of thing I'd prefer to ask privately.

I ask here rather than via email because I have my doubts about the validity of the email address you enter when posting. If you'd prefer to correspond offlist, please email me at

nortius dot maximus (at) windsofchange . net

Thanks.

So, when israel demands the palestinians give up things for nothing before any negotiation, they're precisely placing them in this position.

They're saying they don't want any negotiation until after the other side is humiliated into showing that they have to accept any terms israel chooses to give them.

Just like a market, if there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers, the deal is between a seller who'll sell at an acceptable price and a buyer who'll pay an acce[table price. If you overpay, all the competiong merchants despise you not only because they think you overpaid, but also because if you'd just been willing to look a little farther each of them would have given you a better deal. You settled for nothing when they could have given you more and still made a big profit. But you weren't willing to talk to them.

But wait, that isn't what's going on. Each arab state has something unique to sell. Syria couldn't offer us what the saudis do, and neither can egypt. Each of them could sell something unique. And we're a unique buyer. Nobody else can offer them what we can. Others can offer to sell roughly similar weapons, but beyond that, no. Nobody but us can influence israel at all for example. Nobody but us can give them large numbers of troops if they need protection from some other army. So -- we're the only one who can stop the israelis from whomping on them, and we're the only one who can stop a stronger arab neighbor from whomping on them.

When there's a single seller and a single buyer, how do you decide what's a bad deal? If you can get a better deal from somebody else but you choose a worse deal, that's a bad deal. When there isn't anybody else to negotiate with, who decides what's bad? You come to an agreement or you don't. If you don't, then you didn't make a bad deal, you didn't get any deal at all. If you do, then it must by definition be a deal you think is OK and the other guy thinks is OK. Otherwise you wouldn't make it. And nobody can give you a better one, so who should complain?

No, this whole bazaar concept is a red herring. It just does not apply. It's more like, you have to move to a small village. There's only one house for sale and you're the only buyer. You need a place quick since you're living out of your car, and they need a to sell quick. You settle on $20,000, and you're thinking you rooked them because you'd have gone up to $40,000, and they think they rooked you because they'd have settled for $10,000. Who's the freier here?

My father-in-law was stationed in Saudi Arabia in the early 50s, I believe training locals and guarding an airport. (He later became a Methodist minister BTW) He was babysitting his grandchild a few years ago and picked up one of my books: The Closed Circle by David Pryce-Jones. He later told me that he read the first few chapters and thought the author was dead-on. (And I mean "dead on" with that kind of excitement when you finally read something which corresponds with your experience)

Anybody familiar with the book knows that it paints a very gloomy picture of Arab society, dominated by tribalism, power-challenges and corruption. Its far more gloomy than this discussion of bazaar negotiations. If its interpretation of the Arabs is correct, however, it is simply not worthwhile to ask the Saudis for considerations that they lack the cultural and institutional veracity to perform.

#15 from PD Shaw: "... it is simply not worthwhile to ask the Saudis for considerations that they lack the cultural and institutional veracity to perform."

That is my perception.

Therefore I hope your perception (expressed in post #12) about where the Americans are headed on this is correct.

We are in the post-negotiations phase. The sooner people on our side figure this out, the better.

andrewdb - Great link! I will use this when I next negotiate with any Israeli or Arab.

The mindset explains some of what has bothered me about our dealings with the ME for some time. Why we can never seem to gain the upper hand.

Thanks

#14 from J Thomas:

"So, when israel demands the palestinians give up things for nothing before any negotiation, they're precisely placing them in this position.

They're saying they don't want any negotiation until after the other side is humiliated into showing that they have to accept any terms israel chooses to give them."

No, it's the Muslims who are obsessed with humiliating non-Muslims, because this is part of their religion; and they perceive their (partial and temporary) inability to humiliate, dominate and subjugate others a [i]humiliating[/i] frustration, a denial of a superior status that as Muslims they are entitled to.

Between that and the magic of projection, they also cultivate obsessive beliefs about the Great Satan and the Little Satan [i]humiliating[/i] them. All sorts of things [i]"humiliate"[/i] and enrage them, including harmless cartoons and beauty contests.

And the Jews are behind it all, through foul perversions and devilish conspiracies, as main like Sheik Hilaly will explain in sickening detail whenever they think they're only speaking to their fellow Muslims.

It's all part of religiously rooted cultural and character formations that mean this dispute won't end with fair dealing and amity all round. That's not possible.

So there's not a lot of point in worry about the details of bargains that won't and can't be kept.

Who's been cheated in the bazaar and who's done the cheating is a moot point, when the tourists leave and the bazaar is napalmed. To continue with the analogy.

This metaphor conveniently leaves out the most important personage of the bazaar--the feudal lord. He does not own the marketplace, but he controls the soldiers who police it. He dispenses gifts--gold trinkets, alms, sometimes even weapons--and in return extracts a tithe, in this case a worthless liquid black mineral from the sand.

The problem with Middle Eastern academic or journalistic thinking is simple. No over-arching fact can ever be looked squarely in the face but must be reduced to an acceptable parable or insult that flatters both Islam and the bullies of the bazaar. The ones carrying the weapons doled out by the foreign lord, for instance. This is how Egypt's wars were described--quite sincerely--as miraculous and overwhelming victories, until foreign tanks were seen on the road to Cairo.

May a piece, I mean the peace, of the Prophet be with you...

I'm with the guys who say that what the US gets in return for the sales is $20 billion. We've been tracking what the Saudis want on DID for some time now (search "Saudi Shopping Spree"), and most of it is pretty mundane - lots of refurbs of existing equipment, plus land vehicles et. al. and precision weapons. And the truth is, a JDAM is not a hugely technical piece of hardware, and laser-guided weapons are now common worldwide. If the Saudis really wanted to, they could buy similar precision weapons from South Africa, let alone Russia or France.

And in fact, they are also a major customer of France for aircraft, ships, and land vehicles, at a level about equal to the USA.

When someone is buying your stuff, you may decide that it's a bad idea for them to have it, and therefore refuse to sell it. But conditions plus money? Not likely unless they don't have other choices. And the Saudis do.

The wider US-Saudi relationship that has been bought and paid for by the Saudis among both Democrats and Republicans is, of course, another question. The term we're looking for here is borrowed from Sex in the City: "frenemies." I have few issues re: selling frenemies this kind of stuff unless their collapse is imminent, or there's a substantial danger of the stuff being used against us. Doesn't really apply to the Saudi sale as I understand it, so thanks for the bucks.

As for Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, et. al. (the Saudis aren't the only buyers here), the US gets a lot more than just money out of them, and strengthening their individual and collective deterrence capability is wise.

As a contrasting "frenemies" example, I have serious problems with aid to Pakistan (something the Dems in Congress are attaching conditions to, and congrats to them for it). Musharraf's regime is very nearly finished, and transferring weapons to them that will not be used against al-Qaeda/the Taliban in the hopes that they might... well, let's just say that it seems exactly the sort of thing that bought parties like Scowcroft et. al. would think up. See "Islamic Revolution, Iranian" for how that works out.

In the real world someone is going to sellthese people arms. Now I'd like to know what the Israelis give us.

Yeah Uncle Sam is a sucker. How about not selling or providsing arms to anyone in the Middle East.