142. Telegram From the Embassy in Saudi Arabia to the Departments of State and Defense1

2803. Subj: Leahy Team Draft Report. Ref: Jidda 2725.2

1.
Leahy team deserves commendation for excellent overall contribution to one of most important USG efforts in Saudi Arabia in recent years—the attempt to rationalize SAG defense spending and development, which is cement of official US–Saudi relationship at very difficult period in our relations. Draft report reflects much hard, expert effort. Because of importance Leahy team’s task and fact that report itself will be to SAG visible end-product of team’s endeavor, we wish comment frankly and in detail on draft. Also because of time factor we are submitting comments telegraphically.
2.
Re “sanitizing” report we assume that all items marked in copy of draft we received by vertical line in right hand margin are to be deleted from version presented to SAG. We concur. In addition suggest that first three sentences section 6 para 3–A of Annex H (page H–14) and paras 5(C) and (D) and 6(H) in Annex I (pages I–7 and I–10) be deleted or rewritten in view their sensitive nature.
3.
Re substance of report we generally concur, with following observations:
(A)
Threat Analysis: While most of “threat analysis” will presumably be eliminated in version presented to SAG, we find it significant insofar as it may bear on conclusions/recommendations that report [Page 457] generally underestimates ability and will of external enemies to threaten internal stability of Saudi Arabia. First, advantages of Suez closure and Nasser’s preoccupation with Israel notwithstanding, continuation of Arab-Israel conflict does not relieve pressure on SAG but rather increases it. SAG’s only real foe, at home and abroad, is Arab revolution. Arab-Israeli conflict may not be revolution’s parent, but it certainly is the midwife. To imply as report does that Israeli pressure on UAR and others is somehow a protection to Saudi Arabia is serious misreading of dynamics security situation in Arabian Peninsula. (We must keep in mind that through Leahy mission SAG is seeking to strengthen US commitment to Saudi defense development and is aware USG not interested in building up Saudi armed forces to permit them engage Israel. Therefore when SAG tells official mission that its “northwestern” defense posture is low priority, we should keep in mind that Saudi public statements and privately expressed fears as well as Tabuk buildup3 and presence SAG in Jordan all belie this statement.) While Khartoum payments, which at moment face doubtful future, may keep UAR appeased, SAG has virtually no leverage on increasingly hostile Iraqi and Syrian regimes or on more radical fedayeen groups, all of which presently active on propaganda and subversive fronts in effort to bring down Saudi regime. (In this connection, suggest that proper focus for report re Jordan is not whether Jordanian army presents external threat to SAG but rather if SAA may some day find itself engaged alongside Jordanian army in picking up pieces after Iraqi/Syrian-backed fedayeen overthrow of Hashemite regime.)
(B)
Para-Military/Regular Military Priorities: We belabor above point because we suggest final version report omit emphasis on regular military having recruitment priority over “para-military” forces. Whether “para-military” refers to Fahd’s Interior Ministry forces or Abdullah’s National Guard, both are more closely related to gut task of preserving Saudi regime than are SAA and RSAF. We have never determined whether regime really wants fully staffed and efficient SAA and RSAF, and suspect top regime leaders also are equivocal on this point in view their apparent policy of maintaining National Guard/ public security forces as check-mate to SAA/RSAF. Believe therefore we should not in report take sides on this delicate issue which we have no way of either fully assessing or finally determining. Immediate problem is that report’s emphasis on building up regular military at expense para-military conflicts with USG recommendation in AID/Dept [Page 458] army survey report now under active SAG review to build up Saudi Frontier Force/Coast Guard.4
(C)
Economic Considerations: A major underlying US purpose behind Leahy mission was to impress on SAG that it is poorer than its military planners realize. We would prefer to see report bear down a bit harder on seriousness SAG’s present, and foreseeable, financial plight. Specifically, we think 1969 drop in Saudi foreign exchange reserves was serious, particularly in view it will probably continue in 1970. Also report may be unduly optimistic about future Saudi oil revenues since it completed prior to latest, and possibly permanent, closure of Tapline.5 We would like to see stress on fact that SAG 1969/70 budget is in effect in deficit, particularly when subsidies to UAR and Jordan considered as de facto part of budget. (In this connection suggest review Table Appendix 5, Annex E re question whether UAR/ Jordan subsidies are or are not in FY 69/70 budget. It our understanding payments to UAR and Jordan extra budgetary in FY 68/69 and 69/70.) Report correctly suggests rather severe whittling down of Saudi military expansion appetites. This recommendation, and hands of those top SAG figures who agree with it, would be strengthened if report laid more stress on bleaker aspects Saudi financial outlook.
(D)
MODA Reorganization: As laymen we probably do not appreciate refinements of proposals for MODA reorganization, and thus defer in final analysis to Leahy mission’s judgement. Would, however, like to note for consideration following points:
(1)
In view Saudi military’s critical lack of talented top level management skills and demonstrated tendency Saudi military (or civilian) entities to compete rather than cooperate, we question efficacy of recommending “co-equal” military services. In first place equality between 52,000 man SAA and 900 man RSNF seems impractical, as does concept of rotating planning responsibility among Vice Chiefs of Staff of Services. Frankly RSNF would do well to produce number two man capable of bringing patrol boat alongside pier without loss of life and limb and should leave additional task of staffing desk jobs in MODA largely to SAA. We question whether, in absence co-equal organizational status, RSAF and RSNF will be at mercy SAA partisans in MODA. For foreseeable future SAG will still function more on strength, or weakness, personalities than by dictates organization chart. Under [Page 459] leadership BG Hashim, backed by liberal sprinkling of “flying princes” in Lightning squadron, RSAF already has ample clout where it counts in MODA—with Prince Sultan. Scope of past and future RSAF expansion plans tends bear this out. For its part RSNF seems to be current royal pet. Given difficulty developing any kind of competent Saudi staff officers, we wonder whether SAG should not be prodded toward single “general staff” representing and controlling all services rather than urged to create headquarters staffs for each service. Creating single “general staff” may also foster prospects of one of report’s most meritorious suggestions, creation of separate air defense administration.
(2)
We also somewhat skeptical re practicality and acceptability “civilian control” concept implemented through MODA Directors General, Under Minister and Deputy. With all their warts, senior Saudi military officers are best defense establishment managers available. Across SAG, DG level is one of weakest manpower links. Even if Sultan and Turki could find competent civilian DG’s to fill slots suggested in proposed MODA reorganization, we question whether they would want to have potentially powerful civilian commoners imposed between them and “their” officer corps. We must remember that al-Saud is but generation removed from desert, and what may look like conventional defense ministry relationship to us may look more like the “shaikh-bodyguard” relationship to Sultan. Alternative approach would be suggesting developing adequate legal/financial/organizational advisory staff in Minister’s office. In final analysis “civilian control” is democratic concept having limited applicability in the Saudi Arabia of foreseeable future. So long as al-Saud survives, senior princes such as Sultan will maintain tight control on MODA and virtually every other SAG agency. If al-Saud goes, military officer corps is likely to be running country.
4.
Impact of Report: Our greatest concern is whether report as currently presented will have all the impact it could and should have on Sultan and his senior aides. Frankly, report proper does not live up to promise of its generally excellent annexes, and Sultan is not noted as habitual reader of annexes. We strongly urge that “report proper” be redrafted for clearer, stronger impact on top Saudi readership. Particularly report as presented to SAG should make clearer link between Saudi financial/ manpower resources and military expansion recommendations. Essentially it should say:
(1)
That SAG faces a number of security problems and that ability of SAA/RSAF/RSNF to fulfill its mission against external threats is only one of them. (It should of course say this not so clearly.)
(2)
SAG has only so much money coming and by King Faisal’s own public admission it is regrettable that such a high proportion of it must be spent by MODA.
(3)
Thus defense spending, as a percentage of budget, should be held to present levels. (Report could project, for example, budgets for FY 70/71 through 74/75 on basis 5 percent increase per year in oil and other revenues from likely FY 69/70 level. Assumption could be made that budgets for these years would be balanced, including subsidies to UAR/Jordan, and that should subsidies and resultant savings would go to replenish reserves or fund badly-needed civil development projects.)
(4)
First priority in defense spending must go to paying current and deferred payment costs (spelled out) of existing expansion commitments (without rescheduling).
(5)
Second priority must go to meeting Chapter I, II and III costs of present and DOD-suggested future defense force (spelled out) with liberal cost factor thrown in for various reenlistment/morale incentives which report recommends, as well as proposed troop buildup for all services.
(6)
Balance, spelled out by years, is what SAG may have left to fund extension existing services contracts beyond scheduled completion dates or to acquire new hardware or programs. In this connection believe it unrealistic to suggest to imaginative and sometimes personally motivated shoppers in MODA that they stop somewhat short of where they now are in dreaming up new expansion plans. As presently drafted, annexes establish, as SAG requested, priorities for modernization/ expansion schemes for each service. Would be desirable if “report proper” could pick this up and even integrate priorities to recommend combined SAA/RSAF/RSNF priority list. Further desirable feature would be breakdown on how much MODA should allocate for each recommended project in each of coming five years.
5.
Comment: In reiterating praise for work of Leahy mission, urge that above comments be considered in spirit of capping this undertaking with finest possible final presentation to SAG. Overall effort of survey team has been excellent. Believe some revision along lines suggested above would insure better end product of long standing utility in our dealings with SAG in military matters.
Eilts
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, DEF 1 SAUD. Confidential. It was repeated to USMTM Dhahran and CINCSTRIKE–USCINCMEAFSA.
  2. In telegram 2725 from Jidda, July 14, Eilts noted receipt of the draft of the Leahy Report. (Ibid.) The Leahy Report as presented to Saudi Arabia is attached to Document 144 but is not printed. The unsanitized text was pouched to Jidda on September 21, but no copy has been found. (Telegram 154861 to Jidda; ibid.)
  3. Tabuk is the site of an air base in northwest Saudi Arabia, approximately 150 kilometers from Israel.
  4. See Document 136 and footnote 7 thereto.
  5. The Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline), which carried Saudi oil to the Lebanese port of Sidon, ruptured May 3 when struck by a tractor in western Syria. Syria halted repairs the next day and Saudi Arabia determined not to reopen the pipeline despite the loss in revenue.