[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I thought we agreed

but I was wrong



Abandon is a relative and subjective term with the US. There are many in LATAM that feel abandoned as well.

That's why I said "pales in comparison with the Middle East and East Asia" but "is behind Latam and Eastern Europe." All of these theaters are lagging as resources and attention go to the Middle East.

Obviously, these things fluctuate over time. Central Europe was the main theater for decades, with Latin America, the Middle East and East Asia peripheral, and then only in the context of the long twilight struggle with Soviet Communism. And, of course, before 1941 or so, we cared little about anywhere but Latin America and the Caribbean.

Right now, for obvious reasons, the focus is on the Middle East and East Asia. Resources are being diverted from Europe (that 1-year mission in Bosnia is finally effectively over) and Latin America (to the extent there were many resources there in the first place).

For Latam, in the long-term this represents a geopolitical shift. Since the 1970s, most of the region has shifted to relatively stable democracies, albeit with problems. Cuba is now the only unfree state in the Western Hemisphere, though Venezuela's future is in question. We remain concerned about Colombia and narco-trafficking/terrorism links there and elsewhere in the region. A Chavez-Castro alliance is worrying, but fears of a new left alliance of Lula!'s Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Zapatero's Spain seem to have abated. I don't think anyone thinks Brazil will be a military threat to the United States.

You want a metric? (probably not, but here goes )

Total US Foreign Military Financing in 2004 was about $4.6 billion. For 2005 it is estimated to be $4.7 billion and the Administration has requested $4.6 billion for 2006. Looking at 2004, by region:

Africa: $20.9 million
East Asia and the Pacific: $24.7 million
Europe and Eurasia: $191.0 million
Near East: $3,728.6 million
South Asia: $494.7 million
Western Hemisphere: $119.6 million

Africa certainly gets the short end of that stick. East Asia and the Pacific is low because most of the states in the region pay for their own defense. The Near East dominates, but that is because almost 75% of FMF went to two countries, Israel (46.5%) and Egypt (28.0%), while Jordan accounted for 4.4%.

Six countries - Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan, Colombia and Pakistan - together accounted for 91.5% of 2004 FMF. Add in Turkey, Poland, Oman, Bahrain, the Philippines, Bosnia, Yemen and Georgia, the only others over $10 million, and you pass 95%.

The estimates for 2005 show some differences. Every region but the Western Hemisphere went up, though Colombian FMF remains about the same. The Philippines got an extra $10 million, but Bosnia went down by that amount. Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Afghanistan remained about the same, while Pakistan, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen got less and Morocco got more.

The request for 2006 also show differences, and Administration priorities. For the Western Hemisphere, the focus remains on Colombia and counternarcotics/counterterrorism. El Salvador's request jumps considerably, mainly due to costs of its Iraq deployment (and as a reward for staying the course when other Central American states bailed). Homeland security gets a boost, as Mexico goes from $0 to $2.5 million and Operation Enduring Friendship, an initiative aimed at improving border security and maritime interdiction capabilities in the Caribbean and Central America, gets $5 million.

The Near East stays the same, while in South Asia a jump in Pakistan's FMF is offset by the elimination of Afghanistan's. Africa, East Asia and the Pacific and Europe lose money. In Europe, Poland and Turkey get less, but coalition partners Bulgaria and Romania get much more. Ukraine was slated for a big jump, but since it decided to withdraw from Iraq this may go down.

FMF, of course, is only part of a bigger picture. Some countries, like Japan and South Korea, don't get FMF because they can pay for their own weapons, or they often get significant assistance in the form of EDA (excess defense articles), or US hand-me-downs.

Every country in Latin America is eligible for EDA. For example, in 2001, we gave Brazil 91 M60A3 main battle tanks, 4 frigates and 2 LSDs. In 1998-99, Argentina got a brigade's worth of small arms and equipment (57 M113A2s, 25 M106A2 mortar carriers, 20 M577A2 CP carriers, 25 M578 ARVs, 1945 M16A2s, 349 M249 SAWs, 245 M203s, 1600 LAWs, 71 1 1/4-ton trucks, etc.).

In 1999, the Peruvian Navy received 4 LSTs.

In 2003, we offered Mexico 70,000 cans of paint.

We have given Poland two frigates, the USS Clark in 2000 and the USS Wadsworth in 2002.

EDA doesn't just go to poorer countries, but to anyone eligible. We gave Germany, for example, 7.7 million rounds of 7.62x51mm in 1997, along with 55,664 hand grenades, 896 antitank mines, about 120,000 20mm rounds, and 7 shotguns. France received 2 KC-135 tankers in 1995.

And sometimes the country rejects the hand-me-downs. Mexico returned some 70 helicopters in 1999 as inoperable. Turkey rejected 50 A-10s in 1993, along with 15 of 27 AH-1 Cobras.

Turkey is probably one of the biggest EDA recipients, though, along with Greece, Egypt, Israel and Taiwan.

Another area of US military assistance, IMET, is more favorable to Latin America. For 2004, the Western Hemisphere received $13.4 million of the $91.2 million allocated to IMET, but 5,021 of the 11,832 students trained were from the Western Hemisphere, mainly Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras. Africa was funded to $11.2 million and 1,683 Africans were trained, mainly from Zambia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. The biggest chunk, $35.5 million, went to Europe, where 3,149 soldiers were trained. The biggest groups were from Romania, Ukraine, Bosnia, Turkey, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

The relationship between money and numbers of students changes, though, depending on the standard of living of the country, the types of students trained and the types of training. Sending a dozen Ugandan sergeants to ANCOC probably costs less than sending one Russian colonel to a war college. Also, I don't think SOA (or whatever it's called now) is funded through IMET.

EDA, by the way, is something where we have a definite edge over China. Since our standard weapons are in many cases two generations ahead of China's (or Russia's for that matter), our hand-me-downs are often better than or as good as their sale items, and certainly better than their hand-me-downs. We give away M60A3s, they give away T-55/Type-59s. We give away F/A-18s, they give away MiG-21s.