When talking about why he was refusing to vote for Ukrainian aid, a far-right Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Tom Tiffany [R-Wis], said, “I’m about…taking care of our own needs here in America…we must take care of Americans’ needs first.” To put America first, we should not reject our place as “the Arsenal of Democracy.” Rather, we should continue and expand both commercial arms sales to countries that align with our values and direct assistance to those fighting against illiberal groups.
How do Arms Sales Work?
The United States is engaged in security cooperation with numerous entities, such as Ukraine, NATO, Taiwan, Israel and Saudi Arabia. While this article will not defend the provision of defense articles through arms sales to every country, it will make a case for the leverage granted by defense articles being superior to the effects of their negatives. The US conducts security cooperation by providing military equipment, called “defense articles” through the Arms Export Control Act and Subchapter II of the Foreign Assistance Act. This can be done through either Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Hybrid Sales, Leases or Excess Defense Article (EDA) grants:
- FMS is when the U.S. sells defense articles, usually without any financial profit for itself. Some items, such as advanced systems or training, can only be sold through FMS.
- DCS is when the U.S. grants export licenses to military contractors to engage with foreign governments.
- Hybrid is a combination of FMS and DCS.
- Leases of military equipment may be acquired for up to five years, typically while waiting for delivery of FMS and DCS or for training and collaboration purposes.
- EDA is the provision of unneeded defense articles, which is common when supporting in a low-tech role, such as with counter-narcotics operations in Latin America.
Military Benefits: US aid can reduce violence.
Arms sales generally increase U.S. power and influence. Stockpiles of existing military equipment could be used to help supply democratic nations in Africa against Islamic terrorists such as Boko Haram. This strategy is superior to conventional deployments, with more executive flexibility, insulation from political consequences incurred by American deaths and a lower threshold of action. It is a far better investment for the U.S. to provide arms now then pay the price of a failed state later. Additionally, provision of defense articles allows for greater interoperability with U.S. forces, which is useful for training, disaster relief and further security cooperation. It also helps us combat state-supported terrorist organizations such as the Wagner Group and ISIL, with a long record of human rights abuses. If other countries are willing to risk life and limb in the fight against global authoritarianism, it is the U.S.’s moral responsibility to help train and arm them. Even in a purely strategic sense, I’ll introduce a quote from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “the best money we’ve ever spent…the Russians are dying.”(Referring to U.S. military aid to Ukraine) The provision of defense articles can help allied nations obtain a very favorable casualty rate against our enemies. For example, Ukraine aid has led to a significant weakening of Russia. Also, allowing for DCS to countries currently engaged in conflict with authoritarian states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea allows for U.S. equipment and tactics to be tried in the field. This information will allow for any flaws corrected before American lives depend on them. Significant transfers of defense articles also helped establish states favorable to liberal democracy, such as the partial victory of the Syrian Democratic Forces in establishing the state of Rojava during the Syrian Civil War.
The Defense Industrial Base
The American defense-industrial base is in crisis. US arms aid could help revitalize it.
One of the key lessons of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine is that artillery is king. However, artillery warfare uses a lot of shells. The problem, for the United States, is the ability to quickly increase the defense-industrial base’s production of shells. We have just eight days of shells if China decides to cross the Taiwan Strait. While we are taking some steps to revitalize our withered production capacity, a meager $50 million investment will not be enough, considering the scale of the problem (the U.S. may only have a month of shells). Providing aid to partner countries can ensure that those factories are prepared and able to scale up production, should the United States find itself engaged in a conflict with a near-peer adversary.
Diplomatic benefits
Countries who want a defense capability will get that capability, regardless of who provides it. By abstaining from arms sales, we will only be replaced by countries like Russia, who (at least used to be) a major supplier of arms. When the U.S. refuses arms transfers, examples like Turkey have shown they will knock on Russia’s door instead. Russian arms sales also gives it additional leverage when it comes to reliance on them for spare parts or upgrade packages. If arms sales are to occur regardless, the U.S. should be the country that reaps the diplomatic spoils, instead of Russia or China. The U.S. State Department (which is responsible for diplomacy) regards the offer of arms sales as “important U.S. foreign policy tools”, to use as leverage to help secure favorable diplomatic deals. Many of our allies really want to buy U.S. systems. We can fufil that concern in return for important issues like human rights or to help seal a Saudi normalization deal.
Related: The United States’ Role in the Oppression of Palestinians and the Case for Conditioning Aid
