PDA

View Full Version : A Lone Hero and His ‘Buy America’ Campaign



thedrifter
07-26-03, 07:03 AM
07-24-2003

A Lone Hero and His ‘Buy America’ Campaign



By Paul Connors



His name is Duncan Hunter. A former Army Ranger and a Republican congressman from California, he is also the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Recently, Hunter has shown that rarest of political traits – courage – in his solitary campaign to compel the Department of Defense to “buy American” and increase the domestic content of components and systems used on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.



In doing so, he has gone toe-to-toe with leaders in his own party, the Secretary of Defense and his Senate counterpart, Sen. John Warner, R-VA, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.



The prime contractor for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is Lockheed Martin. Despite its status as the nation’s pre-eminent defense contractor, Lockheed Martin has sold out other American defense suppliers and their workers to win foreign military customers.



The JSF as designed was proposed as a replacement for several different U.S. aircraft platforms that included the Navy and Marine Corps A-6E Intruders manufactured by Grumman Aerospace; the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas F/A-18s in Navy and Marine Corps service and the Lockheed Martin/General Dynamics F-16s utilized by the U.S. Air Force, the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve.



The aircraft design was also historically significant for potential users because Lockheed Martin offered the airframe in two versions. The first was a conventional strike fighter and was offered to the USAF, the USN and the RAF. The second version, featured the dual advantage of conventional and VSTOL capabilities. In principle, this was a great step forward because it offered future customers the ability to tailor their airplane to the needs of their respective services.



In addition to the ready-made market in the United States and the United Kingdom, several other NATO allies expressed interest in the JSF. They included Spain, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands and Canada. Italy and Spain chose the VSTOL version of the JSF to replace the Harriers they currently fly from their smaller aircraft carriers. The British Royal Navy is looking at both versions as they try to determine which type of carriers they will build, conventional or VSTOL.



Given the widespread international interest in the program, foreign military customers have demanded and Lockheed Martin has acquiesced to requirements that aircraft for their armed forces include systems developed and produced within their borders. As a result, major fuselage assemblies, the VSTOL engines, backup radios, wiring harnesses, electronic warfare, avionic and flight control systems, the canopy, and significant percentages of machining will be developed, manufactured and performed outside of the United States.



The supposed peace dividends that came about after the end of the Cold War resulted in a smaller military and significant decreases in defense spending by the United States under the first Bush administration and continued with a vengeance during the eight-year Clinton debacle. In California alone, more than 500,000 aerospace and defense industry jobs were lost during the latter years of the 1990s.



With the current Secretary of Defense so enamored of whiz-bang technology at the expense of increased numbers of “boots on the ground” soldiers, it is not surprising that he is in agreement with the multi-lateral development and production of America’s next generation strike aircraft.



In his attempts to get more for his money, Donald Rumsfeld has contributed to the continued decline in the defense industrial base here at home by permitting Lockheed Martin to sell the aircraft with so many of its key components and systems being delivered by non-American companies. By allowing the continuation of these processes, Rumsfeld is knowingly and willingly exporting American defense industry jobs overseas.



Losing jobs to foreign defense contractors, even those in countries that are (or were) American allies, is something that Rep. Hunter wants to halt. He believes that if the American people are paying for the world’s police force that foreign countries, especially those that did not offer assistance when it was requested, should not benefit from U.S. defense procurement.



What complicates matters is the fact that the United Kingdom, America’s staunchest ally in the war against Iraq has selected the airplane and will buy large enough numbers of the airplane to equip the RAF and Royal Navy as to have a say in systems acquisition for airframes delivered in the United States and elsewhere. Other U.S. allies with well-developed domestic defense design and manufacturing capacity have also demanded a seat at the table.



Foreign opposition is not the only battle that Rep. Hunter is fighting. The California congressman entered an amendment in May to the 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill that requires the increase in American content for the JSF from its current 50 percent to 65 percent.



This amendment to the defense budget has drawn active and vocal criticism from the very people at the Pentagon whom Hunter has been most supportive of in the past. Hunter’s amendment also creates a list of military commodities that only American companies will be permitted to supply. The conditions of Hunter’s amendment have drawn the ire of Rumsfeld to the point that he suggested to President Bush that he veto the entire 2004 appropriation unless Hunter withdraws his amendment.



The White House has stated that Mr. Hunter’s proposals are “burdensome, counterproductive and have the potential to degrade American military capabilities.” Rep. Hunter, a 12-term veteran of the House, seems impervious to such criticism, perhaps because he has the support of other conservative House members, as well as domestic U.S. suppliers and unions that could benefit.



Hunter firmly believes that if Americans are footing the bill for the defense of the free world, that they should also benefit from participating in the manufacture of those military products. Neither the administration, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon agree. Their position includes the exportation of work to foreign countries to cut costs. They could care less about American defense workers.



The Bush campaign of 2000 benefited from the generosity of defense contractor donations, so the president is faced with the quandary of alienating a prominent conservative as well as his California constituency. The defense contractors that had, in the past, also contributed to Hunter’s campaigns now find that he has steered an independent course as he seeks to protect American workers and a domestic manufacturing base.



The in-party fighting and Hunter’s moves to quash the wholesale betrayal of American defense workers has been keenly watched in foreign capitals. British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon in a letter to Rumsfeld called Hunter’s moves “potentially very damaging” and issued a lightly veiled threat that “it would seriously undermine our ability to work together.” The Netherlands, home to some of Europe’s most profitable weapons manufacturers, also weighed in. The Dutch government stated that Hunter’s amendment was a “great leap backward.”



On the surface, it appears as if Rep. Hunter’s amendment affects only one program. Actually, his campaign could jeopardize other programs such as the Army’s “Stryker” program, the light armored vehicle designed in Switzerland and built in Canada, as well as the Lockheed Martin C-130J. The latest version of the venerable Hercules transport, while assembled in Marietta, Ga. utilizes British engines and a new propeller system designed, developed and fabricated in the United Kingdom.



On more than one occasion over the last 30 years, the U.S. government has been forced to take action against corrupt defense contractors who have sought to defraud the American taxpayer. As the world economy has morphed into a global system during that same period, commodities and products once produced by American companies have been shifted “off-shore” by corporations seeking to reduce costs while enhancing profits.



That may be fine for consumer and other non-defense related products, but many believe placing too much defense production capability in the hands of foreign companies leaves the U.S. military exposed to the vagaries of international politics, the economic cycle and shortages of critical strategic materials.



Rep. Hunter is one of those people who are concerned more with the well-being of the American people than he is with the sensitivities of foreign governments and the defense contractors abroad. But unfortunately for Hunter and the American people, the very same Republicans who promised “that help is on the way” seem hell-bent on exporting their economic freedom and viability, as well as military security to countries that don’t show up when needed.



While Hunter’s battle may be an uphill one, the results may well be the real enduring legacy of the Bush Administration’s military policies.



Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. © 2003 Paul Connors.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=146&rnd=680.5330318566351


Sempers,

Roger
:marine: