National Security Demands a Strong Military - Who Knew?

Our increasing reliance on foreign manufacturing for our national security will be our undoing in the foreseeable future. As this article states, most of the problem started in the '90's with Clinton who, by the way hates the military, cut funding to the military as it wasn't needed anymore except to fight floods and other domestic problems.

As anyone with any common sense will tell you, it isn't just the New Progressives that are trouble makes, it's the Rino's, Republicans in name only, getting their cut as well. And who stands out in this picture of RINO's, John McCain. (sigh) We need to look closely at just what he did here.

Electing a NSPP congress and President though will be a disaster for this country given their stated intentions to raise taxes and cut military spending to mandate more entitlements and social programs to weaken an every more dependent population.

Vote for national security in November and keep the faith, you know the battle is joined!

America's Fading Military Industrial Base
By KERRI HOUSTON
Posted Monday, May 05, 2008

History dictates that protecting and maintaining a nation's industrial base is critical to its national security and to winning wars. This is why taking out an enemy's manufacturing infrastructure, as America did to Germany and Japan during World War II, is the first step in rendering it defenseless.

Yet today in America, despite the menace of terrorism and threats from assorted despots around the globe, we are neglecting — and in some cases damaging — our own military industrial base.

America has shed 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, many in our military supply chain. The average age of today's factory worker is 54, and 58% of all U.S. aerospace workers are over 45. Nationwide, officials in defense companies are expressing concern that they will not be able to replace current workers as they retire.As we lose infrastructure and skilled labor necessary to supply our military swiftly with U.S.-made equipment, we are becoming increasingly reliant on military components and materials from foreign countries.

*Chinese Bullets*

Although several congressional acts require the Pentagon to purchase equipment and supplies from domestic sources, the Government Accountability Office repeatedly reports "systemic supply system deficiencies" in nearly all military supply categories.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says, "I worry about the industrial base of the future," and the Pentagon has developed a Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortages system to identify domestic material and manufacturing scarcities. When ammunition procurement budgets were cut dramatically in the 1990s, many domestic suppliers were forced out of business.

Defense officials began looking to foreign sources — including China — for bullets and missile propellant. Domestic sources of armored steel for military vehicles are limited, and today's soldiers often suffer as producers struggle to keep up with demand. As the Defense Department rushes to purchase mine-resistant vehicles, a shortage of materials and manufacturing is hampering the rate at which these badly needed vehicles are deployed.

Against this backdrop of declining materials, manpower and manufacturing in our military industrial base, the Pentagon has outsourced a $35 billion contract to design and manufacture the Air Force's new airborne refueling tankers to a European consortium and its minority American partner, Northrop Grumman. The extended contract could well exceed $100 billion taxpayer dollars.

What few Americans know about this contractor — European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. — is its history of bribery and corruption, and that its top officials are involved in a major insider-trading scandal in France.

Then there are EADS trade violations. At the same time the Pentagon awarded EADS this multibillion-dollar contract, the U.S. trade representative was suing it in the World Trade Organization in the largest illegal-subsidy case every presented in that world body.

American policy is increasingly concerned about the transfer of our advanced military technologies to hostile governments, yet EADS is widely reported to have close relationships with the governments of Iran and Venezuela. As Russia is a significant EADS stockholder, America should clearly not expect a sympathetic ear.

The original Pentagon Request for Proposal called for a midsize refueling tanker, agile in the air, able to take off and land on less than ideal runways (dirt, desert), with a small ground footprint and whose core competency is midair refueling.But using a refueling tanker the size of EADS' K-30 to fill these requirements is like putting Mike Tyson in a tutu and expecting him to dance "Swan Lake." EADS is supplying an airplane twice the size of the original Pentagon request, too big to maneuver easily in the air or to take off and land on anything but a long, paved runway. Its wingspan is so wide, it will also require costly upgrades to existing bases.

*Made In The U.S.*

The EADS plane is not capable of refueling tilt-rotor aircraft or some of our cargo and personnel
carriers. And in direct contradiction to the Air Force's initial statement that it must be a "tanker first," the Pentagon justified its final decision by touting the KC-30's ability to carry cargo, taking care to note that domestic production was "not considered."Why did the specs change in the middle of the game? We must wait for further review, but during the course of the bidding process, it appears that Sen. John McCain requested that the Pentagon change its specifications.

The result of the changes seems clear enough: Rather than the EADS proposal seeking to meet the Air Force's criteria, the Air Force's criteria were apparently adjusted to meet the EADS proposal.

The tanker deal is not about one plane or one moment in time. If we are to retain our military superiority at home and abroad, we must maintain the ability to manufacture original equipment and replacement parts in the U.S. Needlessly sending defense jobs overseas will do nothing to ensure our long-term national security, which history shows will require a robust research and development, technical and manufacturing base.

Houston is senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Liberty. She served as a commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission./