A Different View Of The G7 Summit

A Different View On Aid To Israel

Myth: Israel Is the Largest Beneficiary of US Military Aid

By Prof. Hillel FrischFebruary 10, 2017

FacebookTwitterPrintEmailMore8.6K

US-Israel 'Austere Challenge' Exercise, IDF Blog, Flickr

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 410, February 10, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.

Countless articles discrediting Israel (as well as many other better-intentioned articles) ask how it is that a country as small as Israel receives the bulk of US military aid. Israel receives 55%, or $US3.1 billion per year, followed by Egypt, which receives 23%. This largesse comes at the expense, so it is claimed, of other equal or more important allies, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The complaint conjures the specter of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn.

The response to the charge is simple: Israel is not even a major beneficiary of American military aid. The numerical figure reflects official direct US military aid, but is almost meaningless compared to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – which include, above all, American boots on the ground in the host states.

There are 150,500 American troops stationed in seventy countries around the globe. This costs the American taxpayer an annual $US85-100 billion, according to David Vine, a professor at American University and author of a book on the subject. In other words, 800-1,000 American soldiers stationed abroad represent US$565-665 million of aid to the country in which they are located.

Once the real costs are calculated, the largest aid recipient is revealed to be Japan, where 48,828 US military personnel are stationed. This translates into a US military aid package of over US$27 billion (calculated according to Vine’s lower estimation). Germany, with 37,704 US troops on its soil, receives aid equivalent to around US$21 billion; South Korea, with 27,553 US troops, receives over US$15 billion; and Italy receives at least US$6 billion.

If Vine’s estimate is correct, Japan’s US military aid package is nine times larger than that of Israel, Germany’s is seven times larger, and Italy’s is twice as large. The multipliers are even greater for Egypt. Even the Lilliputian Gulf states, Kuwait and Bahrain, whose American bases are home to over 5,000 US military personnel apiece, receive military aid almost equal to what Israel receives.

Yet even these figures grossly underestimate the total costs of US aid to its allies. The cost of maintaining troops abroad does not reflect the considerable expense, deeply buried in classified US military expenditure figures, of numerous US air and sea patrols. Nor does it reflect the high cost of joint ground, air, and maritime exercises with host countries (events only grudgingly acknowledged on NATO’s official site).

US air and naval forces constantly patrol the Northern, Baltic, and China Seas to protect American allies in Europe and in the Pacific – at American expense. Glimpses of the scale of these operations are afforded by incidents like the shadowing of a Russian ship in the Baltics, near run-ins between Chinese Coast Guard ships and US Navy ships dispatched to challenge Chinese claims in the South China Sea, and near collisions between US Air Force planes and their Chinese counterparts in the same area.

In striking contrast, no US plane has ever flown to protect Israel’s airspace. No US Navy ship patrols to protect Israel’s coast. And most importantly, no US military personnel are put at risk to ensure Israel’s safety.

In Japan, South Korea, Germany, Kuwait, Qatar, the Baltic states, Poland, and elsewhere, US troops are a vulnerable trip-wire. It is hoped that their presence will deter attack, but there is never any assurance that an attack will not take place. Should such an attack occur, it will no doubt cost American lives.

This cannot happen in Israel, which defends its own turf with its own troops. There is no danger that in Israel, the US might find itself embroiled in wars like those it waged in Iraq and Afghanistan at a cost of US$4 trillion, according to Linda J. Bilmes, a public policy professor and Harvard University researcher.

Japan’s presence at the top of the list of US military aid recipients is both understandable and debatable. It is understandable because Japan is critical to US national security in terms of maintaining freedom of the seas and containing a rising China. It is debatable because Japan is a rich country that ought to pay for the US troops stationed within it – or in lieu of that, to significantly strengthen its own army. At present, the Japanese army numbers close to 250,000, but it is facing the rapidly expanding military power of its main adversary, China. A similar case can be made with regard to Germany, both in terms of its wealth and its contribution towards meeting the Russian threat.

What is incomprehensible is not why Israel receives so much US military aid, but why Japan has received nine times more aid than Israel does. This is a curious proportion given the relative power Israel possesses in the Middle East and its potential to advance vital US security interests in times of crisis, compared to the force maintained by Japan relative to China.

Ever since the Turkish parliament’s decision in March 2003 not to join the US-led coalition, and the Turkish government’s refusal to allow movement of American troops across its borders, Israel has been America’s sole ally between Cyprus and India with a strategic air force and (albeit small) rapid force deployment capabilities to counter major threats to vital US interests.

It takes little imagination to envision these potential threats. Iran might decide to occupy Bahrain, which has a Shiite majority seriously at odds with the ruling Sunni monarchy. It might take over the United Arab Emirates, which plays a major role in the air offensive against the Houthis, Iran’s proxies in the war in Yemen. There might be a combined Syrian and Iraqi bid to destabilize Sunni Jordan, in the event that both states subdue their Sunni rebels. Any of these moves would threaten vital energy supplies to the US and its allies. Only Israel can be depended upon completely to provide bases and utilities for a US response and to participate in the effort if needed.

The politicians, pundits, and IR scholars who attack Israel and the Israeli lobby for extracting the lion’s share of US military aid from a gullible Congress know full well that this is not true. Israel receives a small fraction of the real outlays of military aid the US indirectly gives its allies and other countries. These experts also know that 74% of military aid to Israel was spent on American arms, equipment, and services. Under the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding, that figure will be changed to 100%. The experts simply cite the wrong figures.

The US is now led by a businessman president who knows his dollars and cents. He has been adamant about the need to curb free-riding by the large recipients of real US aid. He will, one hopes, appreciate the security bargain the US has with Israel – a country that not only shares many common values with the US, but can make a meaningful contribution to American vital interests with no trip-wires attached.

View PDF

Prof. Hillel Frisch is a professor of political studies and Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Should The World Take Out North Korea? Will It Have The Guts To Do So?

Why Allowing North Korea to Have Nuclear Weapons Is a Very Bad Idea

 11  2  0  35  50 

 

  1

As the crisis in North Korea over missiles and weapons plays out, it’s rapidly becoming clear that this is a problem that three successive American presidential administrations let fester while the North Koreans worked overtime at advancing their capabilities and weapon technology as quickly as possible, resulting in the “breakout” (or post-breakout, depending on which analyst you believe) status that’s visible today. Even veteran Washington officials such as former Obama era National Security Advisor Susan Rice have admitted that past U.S. foreign policy toward the Hermit Kingdom has been a “failure.”

But, as bad as the North Korean scenario is for the United States, South Korea, Japan and other nations in the immediate term, the situation gets worse in the long-term. That’s because, barring some unforeseen diplomatic maneuver or peace agreement, North Korea will likely continue proceeding down the path of weapons development until it’s achieved all of the dubious “milestones” that superpower nations such as the U.S. and Russia have reached. Among the weapons North Korea hopes to attain are full-scale hydrogen bombs (which would have several hundred times the destructive power of North Korea’s present uranium-based weapons), neutron bombs (which can kill vast numbers of people via radiation without doing as much damage to infrastructure) and perhaps even deadly cobalt bombs (which can make an environment so toxic that their construction has only been undertaken to a limited extent).

It’s possible (and some analysts believed the Hermit Kingdom has already embarked down this path) that the rogue state may one day possess miniature “suitcase nukes” or shoulder-mounted bazooka-style nukes, which would allow them to obliterate very specific strategic targets, either on a battlefield or in foreign lands (think nuclear power plants, government buildings and/or skyscrapers) without having to worry much about how to deliver the munition itself (weight of these weapons can be as light as 40 pounds).

Just a sheer overwhelming number of working atomic weapons in North Korea’s possession means they could distribute them both geographically and via multiple methods of delivery — sea, air, land and possibly one day even from space. The more bombs they have, the more anti-missile weapons and countermeasures the U.S. would have to deploy in the event of an attack. Who’s to say the North Koreans will stop at the current estimate of, say, Israel’s arsenal, which is rumored to number roughly 80 atomic bombs? Why would they, if they’ve been able to produce 60 in a few short years, while the United States and Russia have roughly 7,000 weapons apiece?

And of course, that’s just talking about nukes. Another danger of North Korea perfecting their ICBMs is the ability to deliver biological or chemical payloads instead of nuclear ones. Some defense analysts consider these threats to be exponentially more dangerous than nuclear bombs, which explode just once and cause (albeit devastating) one-time destruction.

If one doesn’t think the North Koreans would really consider using such weapons, one should look up the topic “Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night” on Wikipedia. This was a real, government-sanctioned plan of action that was to be enacted by the Japanese in the waning days of World War II to attack the city of San Diego with the bubonic plague. This attack plan was only forestalled by the surrender of the Japanese five weeks before it was to be carried out following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the Japanese are not the Koreans, one can see that there’s a precedent here for such actions, and knowing that the North Koreans have active stockpiles of both chemical and biological weapons should give extreme pause to military planners and President Trump.

And so, it should be clear that sitting back and allowing the North Koreans to simply do as they wish when they’ve already released many propaganda videos showing Washington, D.C. or New York in flames is tantamount to foolishness.

Even if the North Koreans suddenly decided to adopt more rational policies of detente like other nuclear-armed states, what would prevent them from selling weapons of mass destruction to other nations such as Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates or any number of other states that are desperate to have them? Even worse, what if a non-state actor such as ISIS or al-Qaeda offered to buy such weapons for much-desired hard currency now that the UN has enacted oppressive sanctions on Kim Jong Un’s regime?

Even if somehow we were able to prevent this from happening (and by most estimations such limitations would be impossible to effect), just the message that’s been sent by the U.S.’s inaction over the last 25 years while North Korea advanced from stage to stage of atomic development would be a signal to other nations that they, too, should aim to become members of the nuclear club.

North Korea brings the number of entrants to that club up to nine, with North Korea and Pakistan both appearing to be the least governable, most unstable members. In fact, if you add up the members of the club that are at least somewhat hostile to the United States, the count is four (China, Russia, Pakistan and North Korea).

What would happen if additional entrants came aboard that were equally hostile to the U.S.? What would happen is that the U.S.’s power to dominate the world would start to wane — even if the quantities of weapons possessed by the club’s member states have tremendous disparities; the fact of the matter is that once nuclear war engages more than, say, 50, large-yield weapons, nuclear fallout and ash in the sky produces a “nuclear winter” scenario that ensures the doom of the majority of the world’s inhabitants.

Present U.S. adversaries such as China, Russia, but also (and perhaps especially) North Korea and Pakistan likely desire more members of the nuclear club that they can ally with to threaten and/or encircle the United States. In short, adding more members to this exclusive club is a very, very bad idea. If anything, the number of members should be reduced, rather than increased.

And so, above are outlined just some of the reasons why taking action to denuclearize North Korea — even at a very high cost — could be desirable. The concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) that kept the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union going for so long doesn’t necessarily apply to a state that’s proven itself to be irrational or is convinced that it could actually win in a battle with the U.S.

While the outcomes of traditional war simulations fought with missiles may favor the U.S., Pentagon planners need to consider a vast number of “asymmetric” war scenarios when contemplating North Korea that either didn’t exist or weren’t likely when the U.S. was facing down the Soviet Union. Just two atomic bombs delivered by airplane, submarine or cigarette boat to the harbors of New York City and Washington, D.C. would instantly change not only the power hierarchy and economy of the United States, but also of the entire world.

North Korea may be considered by some military planners to be the equivalent of a yapping Chihuahua chasing after a powerful athlete. The only problem is that if that Chihuahua takes a bite out of the athlete’s Achilles heel — or if it’s able to rapidly transform into a Dobermann Pinscher — it becomes a very different threat indeed.

US ICBM Interceptor Test Goes Well But North Korea Tests Another ICBM. Is A Disaster In The Offing?

North Korea releases dramatic images of 'successful' ballistic missile test

8 Comments

North Korea completes 'successful' ballistic missile test

00:35

00:0700:35

m

•  Our Foreign Staff, video source krt 

30 MAY 2017 • 9:11AM

North Korea on Tuesday boasted its test of a precision-guided missile was "successful", saying it had zeroed in within a few metres of a target provocatively close to Japan the day before.

The North's leader Kim Jong-un supervised the launch of the guided ballistic rocket - the third missile test by the nuclear-armed regime in less than three weeks and carried out in defiance of US threats of military action and UN sanctions.

The projectile appeared to have landed in Japanese waters CREDIT: KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY

"The ballistic rocket flew toward the east sky where the day broke and correctly hit a planned target point with deviation of seven meters after flying over the middle shooting range," the state-run news agency KCNA said.

South Korea's military earlier said the Scud-type missile travelled eastward for 450 km (280 miles). Japan said it believed it had fallen into its exclusive economic zone, extending 200 nautical miles from the coast.

Monday's launch followed two successful tests of medium- to long-range missiles in as many weeks by Pyongyang CREDIT: KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY

The missile test triggered swift condemnation from US President Donald Trump who said it showed "disrespect" to neighbouring China, the North's sole major ally, which has sought to dampen tensions over Pyongyang's weapons programme.

The launch was aimed at testing a weapon "capable of making ultra-precision strike on the enemies' objects at any area", KCNA said.

"Whenever news of our valuable victory is broadcast... the Yankees would be very much worried about it and the gangsters of the South Korean puppet army would be dispirited more and more," Kim was quoted as saying.

Tensions are high in the region over the nuclear-armed North's weapons ambitionsCREDIT: KCNA

The projectile was showcased for the first time last month as part of Pyongyang's annual military parade to mark the 105th birth anniversary of the regime's founder Kim Il-Sung, the news agency added.

Following North Korea's test-firing earlier this month of what analysts said was its longest-range rocket yet, the UN Security Council vowed to push all countries to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang.

But China has made it clear that the push for talks - and not more sanctions - is its priority. On Monday it pleaded again for dialogue.

"We hope that related parties can remain calm and restrained, ease the tension on the peninsula, and bring the peninsula issue onto the right track of peaceful dialogue again," the Chinese foreign ministry said.

The US has said it is willing to enter into talks only if the North halts its missile and nuclear tests.

Several rounds of UN sanctions have done little to stop the isolated regime from pushing ahead with its ambition to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental US.

North Korea's military arsenal

02:01

The impoverished nation has staged two atomic tests and test-fired dozens of rockets since the beginning of last year, including 12 launched this year.

A simultaneous launch of four missiles held on March 6 saw three falling provocatively close to Japan, sparking alarm in the neighbouring country.

Monday's test was the third since new South Korean president Moon Jae-In took office, posing a major challenge to Moon who advocated dialogue and reconciliation with Pyongyang in a break from his conservative predecessors.

Many analysts doubt if the North has developed an ICBM or a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop a missile.

But most agree that the country has made a significant progress under the young leader, who took power after the death of his father and longtime ruler, Kim Jong-Il, in December 2011.