Defense jobs shift overseas=foreign policy by threat or fear?

[SUBMAN1]

An interesting article:

-S

Defense jobs shift overseas=foreign policy by threat or fear?

Wes Vernon
April 14, 2008



Let's start with the assumption that the "global economy" is here to stay.

Let us also entertain the notion — one that we used to take for granted — that the "global economy" does not mean we leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign governments when it comes to providing for our own defense.

Can we all agree on that — just for starters? I mean, we're not on a suicide mission here, right?



(Living with the "global economy" also should not mean we sacrifice our very sovereignty, but that is a more multifaceted issue with which we have dealt in previous columns and will again in the future.)

So why are we doing this?

Several weeks ago, the U.S. Air Force announced its decision to award a European firm a $40 million contract to replace a refueling fleet that dates back to the Kennedy-Johnson years and in some cases, all the way back to Ike.

The winner in that bidding war was Northrop-Grumman/ EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company — parent of Airbus). Days later, the Boeing Company, an American firm that lost out to EADS — filed a formal protest charging the acquisition process was "flawed." Further, Boeing believes the metaphoric cards were stacked, bars raised and goal posts moved in a manner that favored EADS and disadvantaged Boeing.

Boeing alleged, "Repeatedly, fundamental but unstated changes were made to the bid requirements and evaluation criteria. These arbitrary changes not only unfairly skewed the results against Boeing; they penalized the warfighter and the taxpayer by selecting an airplane that did not satisfy the Air Force's own bid requirements."

Again, why are we doing this?

In the bidding, the Boeing KC-737 surpassed the EADS KC-30 in terms of size requirement and mission capability. But here's the part that has fair-minded observers scratching their heads: Boeing and EADS were given equal ratings on the issue of risk (about which much more below). For reasons that will no doubt outrage taxpayers, the U.S. Air Force discounted weight and life-cycle. Boeing charges that such unbenign neglect was compounded by the fact that USAF actually inflated Boeing's costs by billions.



Why are we helping them?

Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis writes in Human Events that a former EADS executive told him it was the "declared objective of Airbus to destroy, if possible, the American commercial airplane dominance."

About that question of "risk"

So USAF gives Boeing and Eads "equal" ratings on the question of "risk."

Let us examine that judgment:

For starters (meaning read on, it gets worse) Boeing has repeatedly cited its record of building and upgrading over 2000 operational tankers, compared to zero for Northrop-Grumman (EADS' American partner).

Boeing has delivered over 1800 air to refueling booms; again Northrop-Grumman, zero.

From stupidity to malice

Frank Gaffney (a former Reagan Pentagon official) spends most of his waking hours steeped in fact-finding for his Center for Security Policy (CSP). Where America's strategic interests are concerned, nothing gets past him.

After the Air Force made its decision, Gaffney participated in a news conference here in Washington, declaring that as far as he was concerned, EADS is most welcome to compete in U.S. contracts..................after the company cleans up its act.

Talk about risk: I'll show you "risk"

Can we really trust a company whose backer-state spies on this country, steals our secrets to the detriment of U.S. interests, and "uses bribery and chicanery to undermine this country around the world?" While that sordid activity has not been tied directly to EADS, one of its supporters — La Belle France — has been so implicated.



However, if EADS has been accepting stolen American secrets, CSP believes Airbus has thereby been complicit in such breaches of trust.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal a few years ago saying that the U.S. "Echelon" intelligence program had caught France in the act of bribery.

The former intelligence chief said the U.S. was not spying on European companies to steal their trade secrets. "They don't have much to steal. Instead, we were looking for evidence of bribery." Or to put fine point on it: "Your companies' products are often more costly, less technologically advanced, or both, than your American competitors. As a result, you bribe a lot."

The U.S. Department of Commerce has also cited French spying on American firms. So too has the European parliament.

Putin's oar applied to the mix

EADS is partly owned by the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, whose KGB fangs have been increasingly evident the longer he stays in office and then virtually anoints his successor. Press reports indicate Russia might very well collaborate with the nation of Qatar — owner of the Islamist propaganda organ Al Jazeera — to increase the Kremlin's shares in EADS.



Hugo Chavez

EADS' "in your face" attitude regarding America's security interests was highlighted when CSP caught it arming the America-hating, terrorist-loving Marxist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez with the same CN-235s it was selling the U.S. Coast Guard and was trying to sell the Pentagon.

Red China again

Notwithstanding a European Union embargo, EADS has managed to funnel supplies to Communist China's armed forces. China, let it be remembered, has missiles pointed directly at the United States and, in the considered judgment of some military experts, poses an even greater threat to the U.S. than does Islamofascism. EADS has provided China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) with a helicopter — the EC 175 — that has both civilian and military uses.

Iran's nuclear program

Through its dealings with a South Korean company, EADS may have inadvertently aided Iran's nuclear program. The South Korean company was reselling some Nickel 63 and so-called "Tritium Targets" (acquired from EADS and both pivotal for a nuclear explosion)" — to a company that is a front for Partoris, a state-owned Iranian firm. Even if this was done unknowingly, that would make EADS suspect in terms of carelessness.

Not exactly Archie Bunker's union

CSP defines EADS — through its aviation program — as "a huge jobs program for anti-American labor unions that form the backbone of some of Europe's most powerful socialist parties." Chief among these is the German IG Metall which represents workers at Airbus Deutschland, whose flag is still the Soviet-era red banner and whose literature has ripped American businesses as "bloodsuckers" and "parasites."

Would you feel comfortable knowing your sons and daughters depend on materials made with people so imbued with such virulent "Hate America" propaganda? And this is no isolated instance. Socialist-dominated EADS unions abroad have engaged in work-stoppages in support of Chavez in Venezuela and supported communist causes in Mexico aimed at destabilizing the already porous southern borders of the United States.



But again — why?

Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters insists on allowing Mexican trucks over the border to roam through American highways at will. This despite the clearly expressed wishes of Congress — on both sides of the aisle — to stop it. Reportedly the Bush administration's defiance is prompted — at least in part — by a concern that unless the dangerous and job-killing trucking program goes forward, Mexico stands ready to retaliate.

Is that why obvious pressure was brought to bear to award the tanker contract to a foreign firm instead of an American one — a fear — implied or stated — that there will be retaliation from one or more of our trading "partners" if the USAF/EADS deal is not consummated? There may be a Pulitzer awaiting some investigative reporter. Is this foreign policy by threat? It is hard to imagine any other explanation that makes sense.

Buy American — now more than ever

American jobs in this? Estimated at 25,000 for EADS; 44,000 for Boeing.

Getting back to that comment by a onetime EADS executive about the aim of destroying American airplane dominance, here's the rest of the quote:

"With truly unfair trade practices and our naïve, stupid government, they succeeded in shutting down Lockheed and McDonnel-Douglas, leaving Boeing to slug it out on a very unlevel playing field."

Do tell!

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080414

[Lurchi]

40 Million $ contract??
That's too cheap!

A KC-737???
That's too small!

My suggestion to the author of this article: Don't drink and write!

This part is favourite:

Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis writes in Human Events that a former EADS executive told him it was the "declared objective of Airbus to destroy, if possible, the American commercial airplane dominance."

That's big news, LOL.
I mean, every child (outside the US of course) knows that this was the Intention when Airbus was founded around 30 years ago. It was the right thing to do and an amazing success story.

Congrats to this smart Colonel for this sensational news ... even if it took, well, a little bit longer to find this out. Better stay in retirement.

Very funny article written by a potential Boeing shareholder - why do i think of comical Ali right now ... bad loser.

[Hakahura]

Kind of funny and fitting if you ask me.
Payback for the way Lockheed "Sold" the F104 around Europe 60's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

If it's OK for USA to supply other countries defense equipment, then why not the other way round?
Besides aren't US/UK/Europe supposed to be allies?

[Trex]

There's another reason to support this choice. No matter what nation we are talking about, the tendency is to buy local. That's great for jobs, but giving the nod every time to in-house designs cannot fail to encourage waste, bloated prices and less-than-the-best designs. To be sure, there are exceptions, but some healthy competition puts producers on notice that their bids had better be cost-effective.

Moreover, this is a flying gas station, not a stealth bomber or H-bomb. This is something anybody capable of building an airplane of the right size can build. It's not like critical design expertise is going to be lost or something.

Next time some people are at the mall, they should find the Life Store.

And get one.

[Tchocky]

In the bidding, the Boeing KC-737 surpassed the EADS KC-30 in terms of size requirement and mission capability

Wrongggg

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Wrongggg

He quoted the wrong price and wrong aircraft (767), but thats not his message. And yes, the Boeing plane beat out the KC-30 in most areas, inlcuding fuel usage by a large margin, and survivability by a large margin. Apparently the KC-30 is a very vulnerable aircraft.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Hakahura

Besides aren't US/UK/Europe supposed to be allies?

When has France not been detrimental to the interests of the U.S.? I believe it was during the American revolution.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

When has France not been detrimental to the interests of the U.S.? I believe it was during the American revolution.

Never. But of course, if you see my post above, soon they will change their tune.

-S

[Hakahura]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Never. But of course, if you see my post above, soon they will change their tune.

-S

More of the same from you as usual Subman.
Yes we get get the picture...
"UK/Europe bad, USA good. USA rules, everyone else should be subserviant"

I get the feeling Barack Obama might have been refering to you personally in his recent controversial speach.

There is more than 1 country in the world.
But don't panic they are not all out to get you.

But hey, carry on, why not try and alienate as many allies as you can.