Bill Overview
Title: Strained Partnership Act
Description: This bill requires the removal of all U.S. Armed Forces and equipment from Saudi Arabia. Certain equipment, specifically Patriot missile batteries and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, shall be relocated to other locations in the Middle East, to the extent practicable.
Sponsors: Rep. Malinowski, Tom [D-NJ-7]
Target Audience
Population: people in regions with U.S. military presence and related contractors
Estimated Size: 20000
- The removal of U.S. Armed Forces from Saudi Arabia will directly impact the military personnel stationed there, as well as their families back home and in any bases where they might be relocated.
- The local populations and governments in areas where the U.S. military is withdrawn from or redeployed to within the Middle East will be affected by the changes in military presence and regional security dynamics.
- Military contractors and civilian employees who work with the military installations in Saudi Arabia will be directly affected by the removal of forces and equipment.
- The Saudi government and local economy, which rely on the military presence for security and economic reasons, will be impacted.
- The redeployment or removal of missile systems like the Patriot and THAAD could influence regional security, affecting those under their protection.
Reasoning
- Military personnel and their families are directly affected by deployments and potential relocations. These individuals will experience changes in their living situations, job security, and overall mental and physical health due to the policy.
- Military contractors and civilians working with or for the U.S. military installations will see changes in job security and possibly economic hardship due to the removal of military assets from Saudi Arabia.
- The presence of U.S. Armed Forces affects local economies and indirectly impacts people who depend on the economic activity generated by the military presence.
- Regions where military equipment and personnel are redeployed may experience changes in local economies and security perceptions.
- Some Americans may not be directly impacted by the policy, but may experience indirect effects such as changes in national security perceptions or economic fluctuations in sectors related to defense.
Simulated Interviews
Active-duty Military (California)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about my family's stability due to potential redeployment.
- The change may affect our housing and children's schooling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Military Spouse (Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the uncertainty of redeployment.
- My family's routine could face substantial disruption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Defense Contractor (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could impact my contract and income.
- Economic security and employment may be at risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Journalist (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The redeployment might shift regional dynamics.
- Concerns about potential destabilization and wider implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Government Official (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift in military presence could change defense strategies.
- Balancing security concerns and budget constraints is challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Military (North Carolina)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the stresses relocations cause on troops and families.
- Veterans might see policy as a change in military commitments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
University Professor (New Jersey)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Academically, it's an interesting policy with broad implications.
- It may shift economic and security debates in the classroom.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Military Analyst (Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a need to assess the strategic impacts thoroughly.
- Concerned about potential voids in regional security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Tech Industry Worker (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Minimal direct impact on my role.
- Globally, changes in deployments may adjust cybersecurity needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Engineer (Alabama)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There may be changes in contract availability.
- Shifts could alter job stability in defense tech.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The overall stability of regional security might affect U.S. interests and costs related to foreign policy.
- Base location in the Middle East may lead to variable costs based on geopolitical needs and host country negotiations.
- Initial reallocation costs are high, but long-term operational savings from fewer overseas deployments are significant.