Saudi military spending and strategic capability - is there a disconnect?

[Halimi]

As documented by organisations such as SIPRI and IISS, Saudi Arabia is now the world's fourth largest military spender, behind only the US, China and Russia. $60 billion dwarfs the spends of other regional countries, including Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Israel and exceeds those of traditional, 'old' powers such as France and the UK.

For instance, the Saudi airforce is one of the finest in the world, at least in the top six or seven. According to @500, it comes just after Israel and is the 5th best in the world, ahead of India, Turkey, Egypt or any Western European country.

Despite this, however, it does not seem the financial investment is reflected in Saudi Arabia's strategic weight or how analysts evaluate its regional role. Barring Nawaf Obeid, who is arguing for a comprehensive strategic doctrine in which KSA is the leading regional actor, it seems that most people aren't appreciating or anticipating this role. The popular conception is that KSA still needs security guarantors (eg. US) and is not capable of matching Iran or Israel or Turkey. I see it very often in Arab and Western circles, it's like KSA's punch is not at the level of its purchases.

Why?

Is that spending disproportionately directed towards the air force at the expense of other areas?

Are people generally ignorant of Saudi military capability? Is there a perception problem?

Is Saudi's small (but growing) population still considered a hindrance to its ability to be the major regional military power?

Does it lack the strategic nous that countries such as Iran, Turkey and Israel have?

Would appreciate responses. No trolling please.

 

[al-Hasani]

Well KSA is already a internationally recognized regional power of the ME militarily, financially and in terms of influence in the Middle East (West Asia) and the entire Arab world.

Regional power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot of the military spending in KSA is not fully spent or allocated for actual military purchases. That should be kept in mind.

The air force which is crucial is undoubtedly among the very best in the world. The land forces are frequently conducting drills etc. with the best of the best. The equipment is self-explanatory as well.

Population wise the native population is quickly approaching 30 million. Enough manpower to project power/influence overseas.

Obviously the weak link is the navy. Which should be much better considering that KSA has a nearly 3000 km long coastline in two seas that are not landlocked but connected to the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Sea and from there the Indian Ocean.

The last weak link is experience in actual wars. That's very important as well. But very few militaries have that in the ME. Recent that is and against opponents of their own size. I don't consider insurgencies here as in this case KSA can count the successful defeat of Al-Qaeda in the 2000's and the victory against the Houthi sect in (2009-2010).

Anyway I think a lot has to do (in terms of outside perception) with lack of actual wars and the past status of the armed forces which is now totally irrelevant.

In this case and by that logic (historical perspective) the military of KSA should never be questioned as it were individuals from KSA and armies from KSA that created and ruled 4 of the 15 biggest empires in human history. More than any other people from one specific country of today.

I don't know about "security guarantors". That's not relevant anymore. The US has no military bases in KSA unlike countries such as UK, Germany, Japan and dozens of others across the world. The deployment of troops during the First Gulf War had something to do with protecting Kuwait. Not KSA. The fact that they later stayed was to protect Kuwait and to keep Saddam in check. Yes, the Iraqi military was the best in the region in terms of hardware and numbers in 1991 but it is a myth that they would have steamrolled all of KSA which could not have taken place due to the size of KSA, geographic challenges, distances and KSA's military back then which were no pushovers. That amount of troops could not have been accommodated in Kuwait alone. There were no other options as Kuwait only borders KSA aside from Iraq.

That's my take on it.

 

[Falcon29]

@al-Hasani

Please don't bring ancient leaders into this. It's irrelevant.

My take on this:

You are looking at this from an conventional POV. I believe you could do a lot more with your military budget. Give that budget to any other nation you mentioned and see how they utilize it.

I also think having a ruling family can't bring the military to strategic standards. I don't see that your people have the willingness to be a regional leader. Arabs have more faith in the Egyptian military. Egypt has a much smaller budget though.

Israel has a different approach. They focus one on maintaining a qualitative advantage over its neighbors but also invest much more effort intelligence. What matters them to securing resources in the West Bank.

Iran's regional strategy is a whole other thing. Although they are beating you in the Syria front. They also manage to successfully smuggle weapons to Lebanon and Gaza even under US/Israel intensive intelligence efforts to thwart that. Gaza is mostly self sufficient now though. Egyptian military generals have a hand in this though. Iran isn't hesitant to protect its interests.

For Saudi Arabia, I really don't know what your regional approach is. It is confusing at times, but I don't believe you're capable of strategic planning. Don't look for guidance from the international community. This is your problem. People need to see it to believe it. If you can demonstrate to the region that you can have an effect on the ground then we will find your budget useful.

Most of your regional approach is ties to Arab monarchs and financial aid to Egypt.

What Saudi Arabia has impressed me on has been their humanitarian and professional diplomatic standards. I believe your nation takes the lead in that in the region. You fund projects in many nations.

I think it's we that need to ask you questions so I can further address your concerns.

1. What role do you see Saudi Arabia playing in the Middle East politically?

2. Do you believe Saudi Arabia should even play a political role in the region?

3. What is your regional approach? Is it mixed?

4. What do you plan to do with this military budget?

5. Do you want to take a leading role in the region?

.....................

It all depends on what you want to be. If it's about securing your borders than you can't be a regional leader in that sense.

 

[al-Hasani]

@Hazzy997

It is relevant because it shows the greatness of our ancestors in the military area. That has also been demonstrated in more recent times.

What does "much more" mean here? Please be specific.

I don't see any correlation with the form of government and the strength of the military. By far the majority of the officers etc. have nothing to do with the House of Saud and those who do have a military background from leading military academies of the world such as Sandhurst etc. It's not like nobodies are picked.

Egypt have much more manpower and have experience in actual wars although that's a long time ago and they were short-lived. Egypt has also been a militaristic nation since the monarchy ended. It's basically the army that has been ruling. That's not the case in KSA.

Israel is above everyone else in the region for reasons we both know.

I don't see any "beating" in Syria. Al-Asshead has not won anything and besides that then Russia is pulling all the strings. Not a pariah state like Iran that is barely able to keep afloat.

Iran has very limited conventional powers thus they are using guerrilla groups. Guerrilla groups who are not even Iranian to begin it or led by Iranians. Not impressed. Also I don't see what their achievements are on that front.

I don't agree with this at all. KSA has been influencing regional events since the First Gulf War. We don't need to support armed groups directly to show that.

The problem is here that countries seek alliances. KSA main alliances are the GCC and neighboring Egypt. That's always been the main worries in the last few decades. I don't know what the focus should have been otherwise? Iraq is a failed state. Syria is a failed state and was piss poor before the civil war. Then what is left? Iran is a regional rival. Same with Turkey although ties with the latter are not hostile. The other main Arab players are either already allies or located too far away.

1.
That of a leader or at least one of the leaders of the Arab and Sunni Muslim world. Pragmatic and bound on stability.

2.
That's already happening while we speak and have been happening for decades. One can always discuss the extent and policies and their success or failures.

3.
Tied to point 1 and 2.

4.
Continuing upgrading the military and eventually kickstarting a self-reliant military sector which is the goal although it takes a long time. Already has been initiated.

5.
Tied to point 1 and 2 but I guess every regional player wants as much influence as possible but I don't think that KSA has any interest in ruling anything in the region. I don't see any country being able to rule the whole region anyway. KSA's main sphere of influence is the Arabian Peninsula and the Arab countries we border in the North. Outside of the Red Sea/Gulf/Arabian Sea. At least the later should be more of a priority when the navy gets upgraded.

Also I believe this discussion will/could be more interesting if it was taken from the perspective of the entire GCC or that of a future united Arabian Peninsula. But that's just me. In this case manpower will not be a problem and direct access to the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean would also be a reality. At the same time more responsibilities.

 

[Falcon29]

@Hazzy997

It is relevant because it shows the greatness of our ancestors in the military area. That has also been demonstrated in more recent times.

It's about modern standards though and modern warfare.

What does "much more" mean here? Please be specific.

For Israel, they have military industry which can be supported with a portion of those funds to develop an assortment of missiles/radars/equipment/weapons systems for all aspects of their military. Turkey needs more time but could also do that in the same manner.

Iran is so and so, I'm not sure how they would use that big budget.

I don't see any correlation with the form of government and the strength of the military.

Leadership.

Egypt have much more manpower and have experience in actual wars although that's a long time ago and they were short-lived. Egypt has also been a militaristic nation since the monarchy ended. It's basically the army that has been ruling. That's not the case in KSA.

That's true.

Israel is above everyone else in the region for reasons we both know.

You can't accept that. If Saudi Arabia wants to be a regional leader it needs to be able to have the strategic capability to compete with Israel. With that military budget they should be catching up. But, on paper it won't mean anything. Political strategy is important.

I don't see any "beating" in Syria. Al-Asshead has not won anything and besides that then Russia is pulling all the strings. Not a pariah state like Iran that is barely able to keep afloat.

The point is you/we can't change the direction of the conflict if we wanted to.

Iran has very limited conventional powers thus they are using guerrilla groups. Guerrilla groups who are not even Iranian to begin it or led by Iranians. Not impressed. Also I don't see what their achievements are on that front.

It's not about impressing us, it's about their ability to secure their interests in some areas.

I don't agree with this at all. KSA has been influencing regional events since the First Gulf War. We don't need to support armed groups directly to show that.

What events? You don't need to directly support armed groups. You need cards that you can play. Have options on the table to protect your interest/take a leading role. Which is what will make you the regional leader in the future.

The problem is here that countries seek alliances. KSA main alliances are the GCC and neighboring Egypt. That's always been the main worries in the last few decades. I don't know what the focus should have been otherwise? Iraq is a failed state. Syria is a failed state and was piss poor before the civil war. Then what is left? Iran is a regional rival. Same with Turkey although ties with the latter are not hostile. The other main Arab players are either already allies or located too far away.

Yes I know this, I just am curious as to your regional political approach.

1.
That of a leader or at least one of the leaders of the Arab and Sunni Muslim world. Pragmatic and bound on stability.

I agree with your second point. On your first point, please explain in what way.

4.
Continuing upgrading the military and eventually kickstarting a self-reliant military sector which is the goal although it takes a long time. Already has been initiated.

That's good news.

5.
Tied to point 1 and 2 but I guess every regional player wants as much influence as possible but I don't think that KSA has any interest in ruling anything in the region. I don't see any country being able to rule the whole region anyway. KSA's main sphere of influence is the Arabian Peninsula and the Arab countries we border in the North. Outside of the Red Sea/Gulf/Arabian Sea. At least the later should be more of a priority when the navy gets upgraded.

Okay, thank you. This is what we need to discuss.

Also I believe this discussion will/could be more interesting if it was taken from the perspective of the entire GCC or that of a future united Arabian Peninsula. But that's just me.

Lets keep the GCC out of this for now.

Please go more in-depth on the bold portion.

 

[Falcon29]

@al-Hasani

Once you outline to me what role and influence you seek in the region in some detail I will tell you what I think about that.

 

[al-Hasani]

It's about modern standards though and modern warfare.



For Israel, they have military industry which can be supported with a portion of those funds to develop an assortment of missiles/radars/equipment/weapons systems for all aspects of their military. Turkey needs more time but could also do that in the same manner.

Iran is so and so, I'm not sure how they would use that big budget.



Leadership.



That's true.



You can't accept that. If Saudi Arabia wants to be a regional leader it needs to be able to have the strategic capability to compete with Israel. With that military budget they should be catching up. But, on paper it won't mean anything. Political strategy is important.



The point is you/we can't change the direction of the conflict if we wanted to.



It's not about impressing us, it's about their ability to secure their interests in some areas.



What events? You don't need to directly support armed groups. You need cards that you can play. Have options on the table to protect your interest/take a leading role. Which is what will make you the regional leader in the future.



Yes I know this, I just am curious as to your regional political approach.



I agree with your second point. On your first point, please explain in what way.



That's good news.



Okay, thank you. This is what we need to discuss.


Lets keep the GCC out of this for now.

Please go more in-depth on the bold portion.

That's right. My point was just that those ignorant people who dismiss KSA's current capacities should not do that based on "ancient" events that took place decades ago when the military of today are a completely different beast. In this case they might as well include that part of history that I referred to.

That's because both those countries are ahead, in particular Israel. They were planning earlier. I myself have criticized KSA because of that as I believe steps to a self-sufficient military sector should have been implemented or at least kickstarted 10-15 years ago.

Yes, but KSA might look like a militaristic state if you just take a look at the budget (which once again is not spent fully or allocated to weapon purchases alone) but that's not the case. @Yzd Khalifa can elaborate further on that.

Israel is Israel. Remove the unconditional support to Israel, the Jewish lobby, the billion dollar donations and the nuclear weapons and then we can realistically talk about a equal playing turf. Until then I don't consider Israel an equal on those fronts.

Of course that could happen but that would be highly dangerous and probably turn into a backlash. Also unfortunately I have to tell you that Syria is not that important. If it was more would have been done. Anyway it's way too soon to draw conclusions. You just have to remember that it is Russia that is pulling the strings. They are obviously still a superpower so no comparison with any ME state here.

The question is whether those few groups actually act in the best interests of Iran on the long run? I highly doubt that.

KSA is not seeking any position as the regional leader. The "problem" is that there is no clear superpower in the ME. The playing turf is fairly leveled. Also the ME region gives a lot of headache. Think about it for a second. Which current ME state is willing or even able to control and dictate the events in the ME? Look how easy it was to create a quagmire for the US in Iraq. The end results are clear for all. And we are talking about the most powerful state in human history.

I will tomorrow as I am very tired if you don't mind?

In any case the people of what is now KSA already had their imperial past for nearly 1 millennium. I don't see any push for that again nor do I find it realistic. Nor do I believe it is a wise policy.

If you Hazzy, seek a state that can truly influence the Muslim world, world politics, regional politics and even get a hegemony the only option is 1 single Arab state which all the world powers and regional powers would do everything in their power to stop as only USA, China and Russia would be as powerful. Obviously more powerful but 1 single Arab state would really be a player to be reckoned with. No doubt about it.

 

[Falcon29]

That's right. My point was just that those ignorant people who dismiss KSA's current capacities should not do that based on "ancient" events that took place decades ago when the military of today are a completely different beast. In this case they might as well include that part of history that I referred to.

Did anyone really do that?

That's because both those countries are ahead, in particular Israel. They were planning earlier. I myself have criticized KSA because of that as I believe steps to a self-sufficient military sector should have been implemented or at least kickstarted 10-15 years ago.

True, Saudi Arabia has catching up to do.

Yes, but KSA might look like a militaristic state if you just take a look at the budget (which once again is not spent fully or allocated to weapon purchases alone) but that's not the case. @Yzd Khalifa can elaborate further on that.

Could you show me what it was spread to? A link?

Israel is Israel. Remove the unconditional support to Israel, the Jewish lobby, the billion dollar donations and the nuclear weapons and then we can realistically talk about a equal playing turf. Until then I don't consider Israel an equal on those fronts.

We Palestinians know Israel better than all Arabs. Trust me, what lack is the will to tackle any issue in our region. We don't have the heart to set goals and achieve objectives. This is due to our leadership IMO. These monarchies due to offer stability and economic prosperity though. We know that's because of the oil though. It's an advantage for our people to build on these opportunities so I see a better future, if these leaderships are more flexible and take into concern our peoples aspirations.

The question is whether those few groups actually act in the best interests of Iran on the long run? I highly doubt that.

Depends which organizations. What matters for the long run is consistency.

KSA is not seeking any position as the regional leader. The "problem" is that there is no clear superpower in the ME. The playing turf is fairly leveled. Also the ME region gives a lot of headache. Think about it for a second. Which current ME state is willing or even able to control and dictate the events in the ME? Look how easy it was to create a quagmire for the US in Iraq. The end results are clear for all. And we are talking about the most powerful state in human history.

Good point. But, seeking more influence can change this. You need to study the events to anticipate what's to come. Invest in intelligence since the region is unpredictable in many ways.

I will tomorrow as I am very tired if you don't mind?

No problem.

In any case the people of what is now KSA already had their imperial past for nearly 1 millennium. I don't see any push for that again nor do I find it realistic. Nor do I believe it is a wise policy.

It can be seen differently if the approach was Pan-Arab or Islamic.

If you Hazzy, seek a state that can truly influence the Muslim world, world politics, regional politics and even get a hegemony the only option is 1 single Arab state which all the world powers and regional powers would do everything in their power to stop as only USA, China and Russia would be as powerful. Obviously more powerful but 1 single Arab state would really be a player to be reckoned with. No doubt about it.

We don't need to get involved in the outside world, we need to have the capability for many things. I don't have hope in monarchies either unless they step to the plate.

An alternative to this would be managing our money in better ways. Imagine if Saudi Arabia/GCC funded lobbyist groups in the Europe and US to enhance the Palestinian position and other regional positions we have. Even a small portion would be effective. But, instead we have people spending money on the wrong things.

 

[Kompromat]

The issue with Saudis is its current lack of capability to absorb its bulk buying spree. This issue is going to be mitigated in the long run, though this is where the Saudi Defense apparatus lacks as of now.

 

[Halimi]

The issue with Saudis is its current lack of capability to absorb its bulk buying spree. This issue is going to be mitigated in the long run, though this is where the Saudi Defense apparatus lacks as of now.

You mean in terms of personnel and strategic doctrine? Could you give an example of another country in which this was the case?

 

[Kompromat]

You mean in terms of personnel and strategic doctrine? Could you give an example of another country in which this was the case?

Saudis wanted production for Typhoons but it has been delayed as the industrial base at Al-salam aviation wasn't credible for standardized transfer of technology as of now. Maybe they can take it at a future date though as of now its not an optimistic outlook.

If you notice all of Saudi gear is imported, therefore their military is being bombarded with new toys they are not really able to absorb into service as per the pace of induction.

 

[rockstarIN]

IMO, their Navy is weak. Why there is not much importance to Navy?

 

[al-Hasani]

Did anyone really do that?



True, Saudi Arabia has catching up to do.



Could you show me what it was spread to? A link?



We Palestinians know Israel better than all Arabs. Trust me, what lack is the will to tackle any issue in our region. We don't have the heart to set goals and achieve objectives. This is due to our leadership IMO. These monarchies due to offer stability and economic prosperity though. We know that's because of the oil though. It's an advantage for our people to build on these opportunities so I see a better future, if these leaderships are more flexible and take into concern our peoples aspirations.



Depends which organizations. What matters for the long run is consistency.



Good point. But, seeking more influence can change this. You need to study the events to anticipate what's to come. Invest in intelligence since the region is unpredictable in many ways.



No problem.



It can be seen differently if the approach was Pan-Arab or Islamic.



We don't need to get involved in the outside world, we need to have the capability for many things. I don't have hope in monarchies either unless they step to the plate.

An alternative to this would be managing our money in better ways. Imagine if Saudi Arabia/GCC funded lobbyist groups in the Europe and US to enhance the Palestinian position and other regional positions we have. Even a small portion would be effective. But, instead we have people spending money on the wrong things.

Well, a lot of trolls and ignorant low-IQ members on PDF have done so in the past for instance.

Yes, on that front but it is a work in progress.

I am not sure if there is a link as such (I have not made a search) but I know that the spending is not going to weapon purchases alone.

Whether the rule then I don't see any state in the ME that will become vastly superior to Israel as this will threaten the interests of Israel and its Western allies. It's not about aspiration as such. The world powers would simply not allow it.

Consistency? Yes but if the achievements are small then there is nothing to write home about.

The Saudi Intelligence Service is one of the very best in the region if not the world. It's just that there can be no big dog in the ME as of now.
Well obviously I was talking about the Islamic part as Pan-Arabism in its modern political form is not that old and KSA played no part in it really.

It's not about the system of governance. It's about how that system allows the population to grow and how that system protects its people. The GCC model is the right way for natural rich countries as this gives security. Without security you cannot advance on those mentioned fields for obvious reasons.

Anyway you will see the fruits of all those investments, the hundred of thousands of top educated students from top universities across the world that will return etc. in the upcoming years. I will want to wait before I make conclusions until then.

Well because GCC acts like one unit. In terms of a aggression on any GCC state the rest must protect that GCC state.

In terms of the Arabian Peninsula then my prediction is that we will become one entity sometime in the foreseeable future. Then population will be no problem as Yemen already has nearly 30 million people and has one of the fastest growing populations. At the same time a too high population is not healthy either. 100 million or so by 2025 would be a good start.

IMO, their Navy is weak. Why there is not much importance to Navy?

Please see post 2.

 

[Halimi]

From a distance, can't help but think that Saudi's ability to project power is in part contingent on greater integration, be it within the GCC or through a pan-Arab or pan-Islamic alliance which it can lead through its economic or historical clout.

That might be realised through a GCC union, a formal strategic alliance with Egypt or Pakistan. Either of those options would be a 'natural' development considering historical and geographical realities. The strategic 'dividend' will then follow.

And as the US retreats from the Middle East and there's a shift towards global multipolarity, Saudi's responsibility will grow and its willingness to hedge its alliances and take initiative will grow. We're already seeing talk of KSA gravitating towards China and cutting deals with Indonesia and India. As a megatrend, that indicates something.

In a way, I think Saudi Arabia is and will be maturing rapidly in the next decade or so and the seeds for that process have already been planted.

 

[al-Hasani]

From a distance, can't help but think that Saudi's ability to project power is in part contingent on greater integration, be it within the GCC or through a pan-Arab or pan-Islamic alliance which it can lead through its economic or historical clout.

That might be realised through a GCC union, a formal strategic alliance with Egypt or Pakistan. Either of those options would be a 'natural' development considering historical and geographical realities. The strategic 'dividend' will then follow.

And as the US retreats from the Middle East and there's a shift towards global multipolarity, Saudi's responsibility will grow and its willingness to hedge its alliances and take initiative will grow. We're already seeing talk of KSA gravitating towards China and cutting deals with Indonesia and India. As a megatrend, that indicates something.

In a way, I think Saudi Arabia is and will be maturing rapidly in the next decade or so and the seeds for that process have already been planted.

Well bro, I think that you described the situation perfectly well in a short but nevertheless a very precise way. Let me add that I expect reforms to take place in the country too and in the meantime the already initiated industrial self-reliance "project" will also have grown considerably if everything goes according to the plan.

One should remember that KSA has one of the youngest populations not only in the ME but the world. 55% of the population or so are under 25 years old!

The economy is rapidly growing. Already in the top 20. The non-natural sector of the economy is among the fastest growing too and in a constant development. Billions are being spent on the tourism sector which will be an important sector of the economy in the future etc.

What is crucial is keeping the stability intact which is hard when you nearly border Palestine/Israel, Iraq which is on fire, Yemen which is only slightly better security wise and have a seemingly more and more unstable Jordan bordering you as well. Let alone Syria which is nearly a neighbor as well and whose conflict is felt in KSA as well. Iran across the Gulf too. A war there could create further instability in the region.

If the government was more lenient I have no doubt that more trouble would take place. The region is getting more and more unpredictable. One event can turn into something big. So one must play it safe at least in the post "Arab Spring" years in terms of reforms, demands etc.

It's a difficult balance. A constantly more demanding world, a generation that wants reforms etc. coupled with the fear of the unknown.

I think that UAE is in many ways a model to follow. From the neighborhood at least.