"Am I missing something?"
First and foremost, we are an "arms dealer" to the world. This serves our purposes in several ways. Jobs are involved in building those F16s and Abrams. I assume we are getting paid nicely for the arms we sell. Also, when someone is using the means of war that WE produce, we know their capabilities and how to defeat their systems in the event they become our all-out enemy. Finally (believe it or not) you will probably have a better relationship with someone who is your arms customer than you would if - say - they were buying arms from your enemy (i.e., Russia, North Korea, Iran, or even China).
It may seem very strange, but there are distinct geo-political advantages to selling arms to those who might not exactly be considered your "bosom buddies."
And so goes the world of Foreign Affairs in the 21st Century.
It does seem very strange.
However sebe, your explanation makes sense.
Such is the results of the military-industrial complex which President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address.
My point being is this is not an arms sale, it is part of a "foreign aid" package. With the Middle East being so unstable I do not feel this is a responsible transaction. If you might recall from an earlier blog our Commander in Chief is quoted as saying" I would'nt consider Egypt a foe or an Ally" Sebe is 100% correct of the U.S. selling/providing "outdated" weapons systems to our allies. Keep in mind a lot of that was the 60 class armor platform. F16's and any version of the Abrams is a potent platform that could easily be turned toward Isreal or other allies. As far as I am concerned, Bad Buisness
It could be, but nowadays "foreign aid" = "arms sales." "Aid" takes all forms, and is not now nor has it ever been limited to dollars/cash/currency. Our "foreign aid" to South Viet Nam in the 1960s started out with "advisors" and ended up with dead American soldiers.
Yes - the military industrial complex is alive and well.