The article is long, but the Eisenhower admonition about the military-industrial complex is very obviously in play here.
We Have sent arms to the Saudis for decades. Around 2015 or so, they started a war against Iranian backed rebels in Yemen, an adjoining country.
Their targeting has been a human rights disaster since thousands of civilians have been killed. Disease and starvation are rampant.
Obama stopped sending bombs, etc. Raytheon was the major supplier. With the new administration it ramped up lobbying power and with Navarro, Pompeo, Esper, and the president, got multi-billion dollar shipments going again. The bombing continues as does the human rights mess.
The philosophy is that bombs are money, money means jobs and it is not our place to worry how they are used.
Are we that crass? Are there any ethics driving whom we sell arms to if we know the slaughter is indiscriminate? Is the argument that “if we don’t, the Russians or others will“ a fair argument?
And why the Saudis? 18 of the hijackers were Saudi. There is good evidence that Royal Family money funded terrorists. They just murdered a legal American resident working for an American company.
Bottom line is that arms dealers make money when there is a shooting conflict. We are the biggest arms dealer in the world…or close to it.
The argument says we can’t be the worlds cop. Maybe so, but do we have to be the world’s executioner supply depot?
BTW I wonder how Mexico would feel if we made bombing runs in an effort to destroy the drug cartels? A few thousand Mexican children, wedding parties, schools, hospitals and other sundry civilian casualties might be worth it to destroy the scourge.
In addition, the Mexicans are raising questions about the US supplying small arms to cartels. What about bombs to kill tens of thousands?