MONDAY, the American engineering company and military contractor Lockheed Martin won a bid to build six military transport aircraft for the armed forces of India. While a large contract, worth over one billion dollars, it merely represents the latest installment of American contractors building military technology for other countries. Lockheed Martin alone partners with over 50 countries worldwide. The United States government also offers military support, aiding them with money, arms and sometimes training. While in the short term, the rationale behind helping other countries acquire weapons may seem profitable (for private contractors), reasonable, even advantageous, in the long term, the real politik complex nature of international relations makes it a gamble at best. Therefore, the United States ought to look with a very severe eye on its decision to supply arms to other countries and ought to limit its contractors in doing the same, in order to preserve an edge in military technology in case of future conflicts.
The reason such caution should be exercised is simple: If the American military has the best technology, it is less likely to lose soldiers. Technology also allows us to keep the numbers of people involved in our armed forces down, which saves money and lives by limiting exposure to combat. Providing the same technologies available to our soldiers to other nations cuts down on the advantages our soldiers hold in combat.
Afghanistan provides the textbook example for why providing arms to other nations is such a risky, complicated business. In the 1980's, the United States supplied weapons to Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan in their struggle against the Soviets. This made sense in the short term; the Soviets presented a very real threat to American interests all over the world, and the Afghan war was a blatant attempt at raw expansionism. And yet, 20 years later, American soldiers found themselves engaged with their former allies in combat. This merely illustrates what can happen very rapidly in international politics: Allies can become enemies and enemies can become allies in very rapid sequence.
Because of scenarios like this, where countries change alignments in the blink of an eye, the United States ought to be very discerning in where it lends material military aid and where it allows its contractors to work. Military equipment should never be given where it could potentially have a negative impact on U.S. interests. The airplanes Lockheed-Martin will build for India fall under this category, given India's long-standing disputes with Pakistan over Kashmir. Since Pakistan currently cooperates with America in its pursuit of terrorists in its borderlands, it would seem improper to allow American companies to give military aid to its leading rival. And, should the United States ever finds itself involved in the Indian subcontinent, it could find itself facing top-of-the-line American military equipment.
This same logic can be pursued all over the world. Almost any distribution of weapons or military aid, no matter how good it may look in the short term, can come back to haunt a country in the long run. Only in very rare cases and with countries with whom the United States has a long history of good relations should military material be exchanged. The list of countries that fall under this label is short. Countries like Israel, which received over 2.5 billion dollars in Foreign Military Financing in the 2006 fiscal year, and perhaps a select few others are the only ones that should get any kind of support, and then only if they need it.
Even in the few cases where it would be smart to offer military support, it should be done on a limited basis and covertly. The mere suggestion of the distribution of arms can be enough to push the buttons of neighboring nations. The Middle East is a powerful example, as Iran continually flares up in anger over American military support for the state of Israel. Giving military aid to Taiwan, another country with which U.S. contractors do business, probably does not help relations with China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province.
Supplying other countries with military support is something the United States has done and probably will continue to do for years to come. But America ought to pay close attention to where their military technology goes and to strictly limit where the best technology goes, lest it come back to haunt us in the future.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 20 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
