To make my point, I am juxtaposing these three quotes from Mr. Ravinsky's article:
"Days later, the State Department finalized a $1.29 billion sale of targeted bombs to Saudi Arabia."
"Limitless and beyond the view of the public, U.S. military aid is a tap foreign governments don’t want to turn off. The longer they’re “fighting terrorists,” the more “security assistance” they get. There’s no reason for them to actually defeat terrorists, because if they did, the cash would go away."
"The logic of military aid — or security assistance, as it is euphemistically referred to — is twofold: U.S. military equipment, training, and support will build strategic relationships with partner nations and then empower them to fight terrorists on our behalf."
Only a cursory mention is then made to this--which is the real driver behind the policies that disguise military sales AS aid, and keep the U.S. weapons contractors--with many of these firms headed by former military top brass--fat:
"During Obama’s tenure in office, democracy assistance funding has declined by almost 30 percent. And while the Pentagon is slated to receive over $600 billion in funding, the State Department and foreign aid account will be lucky to get $50 billion."
First of all, the $600 billion doesn't include black ops., funding for Veterans' needs, or new nuclear bombs.
Secondly, is the writer bemoaning the "mere" $50 billion allotted to the State Department... that font of so much creative catastrophe up to and including planned assassinations of state leaders?
Why would someone who identifies with "Open Society Foundations" offer such a thinly veiled paean to THAT stealth organization?