U.S. APPROVES AIRCRAFT ENGINE PROJECT FOR EGYPT

We continue to build the military of a country which is preparing for war against non other than the State of Israel.

The support and logistical supply train would halt if that happened, and their fleet of aircraft, helo's and tanks would grind to a halt in a matter of days (if not hours. . .their maintenance practices are awful).

It is better to provide the stuff, through FMF than to allow the Chinese to do so. We provide the FMF bucks, never leaving a US bank, to be spent on US gear. It's a process that allows the US physical and political access, as well as a degree of control.

And, finally, the stuff we sell to them is not the good stuff. . .regardless of what the media say. We sell stuff that ensures Israel maintains the qualitative edge.

This is my business and I have experience in the region, so if you have any other questions, please ask.

Good to hear from an expert. If you have time please post on what Eygptian maintainance practices are like. (though only if you have time Gunrunner - my interest is purely casual)

So basically, its better we provide the aid to a hostile government then another government. The US is not only providing the equipment, but knowledge as well. And that knowledge is very hard to get back. US taxpayers should not be paying for a country's military which is hostile not only to an American ally, but to America itself. This technological assistance could also be used by "unofficial" sponsored terrorists in unconventional ways, or even given to other Arab countries. I am not denying that Israel is given better stuff for it to have an edge over the stuff.

Reminiscent of the Tomcats for Iran fiasco.

Not Quite.

Egypt allows the "arab street" to rant and rave for media consumption, but in reality Egypt is a close ally of the US and views with greater suspicion Libya and Sudan, as they a) know Israel will not attack them, and b) if they attacked Israel the US would freeze their assets and cut of their military support, thereby making them vulnerable to more radical regimes in the region. And, let's not overlook the support Egypt is giving the US in our war on terror. You have not heard much about this support because the Egyptian's are not good at media relations (Bannerman and Associates are their lobby group and they are awful), and the Egyptians want to keep a low profile anyway in order to mollify a small section of their population that is more radical. Those terrorists we capture and fly to Gitmo. . .we stop the jets enroute for refueling and crew rest. . .and consider where we do this. Of course, the terrorists MUST be held somewhere during the layover. This is how we receive much intel. The Egyptian government is by no means democratic, true, but they are very protective of their FMF bucks. They don't want to lose those bucks. If they lose those bucks then their military is toast and THEN they would have a real problem. 80% of their non-FMF budget comes from tourism, and if you haven't noticed, tourism in Egypt has fallen off a lot post 9-11. They remain on the hook with the US as we shape events within the region.

Here are my talking points I use when lecturing on the subject.

USG FMS Main Players: State Dept, DoD, Commerce, Embassy, “others”

Historical Background

US Has History of Isolationism
Sep 1940: WWII Looms for America
FDR Wants to Delay US Entry, Initiates “Destroyers for Democracy” Program
1941: “Lend-Lease Act” Passed.
Congress Permits President to Lend/Lease/Sell Arms to Britain, Commonwealth, China
By Wars End, Virtually All Allies Receive Arms
Lend-Lease Valued at $50.6 Billion
1947: Cold War and the Arms Race is On

Cold War Shapes US Political-Military Policy for Next 40 years
“Containment Policy” to Fight Communism
“Truman Doctrine” Promoted Containment by Helping Friendly Countries That Request Aid
1947: Greece and Turkey Are Fighting Communist Insurgency
US Grants $400 Million in Aid

Sales Permit Physical Access to Country
Access Important for Strategic Reasons (Gulf War)
Access Results in Increased Influence on Political Matters

US Arms Sales Strictly Controlled by Legal and Financial Constraints
Break the Rules, Lose the Loan, Lose Technical & Logistics Support, Deliveries Suspended

Access and Influence Gives Real Power to Shape Events in a Region/Country

Why The US Conducts FMS

Security: “The President Must Determine The Eligibility of the Prospective Purchaser on the Basis that Sales Will Strengthen US Security and Promote World Peace” (DoD 5105.38-M)

FMS Enhances US Security By Protecting Infrastructure:
Keeping Technical “Know-How” Current (R&D) while letting others pay for it
Keeping Factory Doors Open to Ensure US Defense Capability in Time of Crisis

US Defense Industry Suffering from Defense Cuts
US Defense Spending is so Low, Pentagon is Now Unable to Fully Support Defense Infrastructure

Downsized and Reduced US Overseas Presence Demands Coalition Partners
US No Longer Able to Afford Large Forward Bases
FMS Takes the Place of “Actual” Presence
US Presence is Maintained Through Arms/Support
Coalition Shares Cost of R&D and Production
Lower Cost-per-Unit, Means Sufficient Numbers to Satisfy Defense Needs
Coalition Means Almost Seamless Integration, Less Loss of Life, Increased Opportunities

State Department Suggests to POTUS General FMS direction
Has a Role in Program Determination
Has a Role in Program Integration

Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Directs, Administer, and Supervise DoD Security Assistance Programs
Develop and Promulgate DoD Security Assistance Procedures
Administer the Following Programs:
DoD Humanitarian Assistance
DoD Demining Assistance
(DoDD 5105.38)

How Does the Process Work

Country Requests from MILDEP “Price & Availability” (MILDEP = Military Department)
Country Must Be on Congressionally Approved List before P&A is Provided (P&A = Price and Availability)
Specific MILDEP Contacts Defense Industry to Get P&A Estimate
MILDEP Does “Sanity Check” to Make Sure Price is Reasonable
If P&A Reasonable, P&A is Passed

Country Considers P&A and Submits Formal “Letter of Request” (LOR) if they want the Stuff
The LOR is Evaluated for Validation by White House, State, Commerce, “MILDEPs, Embassy, “others”

Evaluated for Authority to ask for the Stuff
Validated for Permission to Have the Stuff

If LOR Approved, The Process is Started

“Letter of Offer and Acceptance” (LOA) is Prepared
LOA is a “Total Package” Contract:
Establishes Terms and Conditions
Specific items to be Sold, Delivery Schedule, Liabilities, Cost, Training, Logistics, Follow-On Support, Limitations on Third-Party transfers of Technology/Knowledge, The Works!

LOA Must be Approved By White House, DoD, Commerce Dept, State Dept, and “others”

President Notifies Congress When:
More than $50 Million in Military Stuff
More than $200 Million in Construction
More than $14 Million in Major Items
At any Price, If “Significant Military Equipment” is Involved

When Congress Notified, President Explains:
How the Sale Affects:
The Balance of Power
Impacts the Arms-Race
Impact on US Technological Edge
How it Supports US National Interests

Congress Thinks About the Sale
20-Day “Unofficial” Notification
30-Day “Official” Notification
50-Days to Approve/Disapprove Sale
Lack of Objection = Approval
Country has 120-Days to Sign
Country Accepts and US Military is the Honest Broker and Conducts Program Management Reviews (Monitors Delivery, Upgrades, Training and Use)

Legal Authority
Foreign Assistance Act
Section 516; NATO
Section 517; Counter-Drug
Section 518; Bio-Diversity
Section 519; “No Cost” FMS
Section 520; Modernization
“Southern Region Amendment”
“No Cost” FMS (Excess Defense Articles--EDA)
Arms Export Control Act
DOD 5105.38-M, Security Assistance

Myths and Misconceptions
US Sells Arms For the Bucks
US Sells Arms Because a Manufacturer Wants to
US Sells Arms Because We Can

Reality Check
FMS Promotes Peace and Security
FMS Protects US National Security
FMS Has Oversight and Accountability

Egyptian maintenance practices are very poor. As part of the “Total Package Approach” we contract for logistics and maintenance. This involves training Egyptians to conduct maintenance. In theory they are to be trained and then train the trainers in Egypt, “growing” their own fully capable maintenance staff. In reality, they train and then leave the service. This means heavy turnover. There is also the culture of “my turn.” My Turn means that regardless of need and job, if it is my turn to go to the states, I go. Doesn’t matter if I am not working on a particular piece of gear, I go. This means the training is basic, never advanced, and they will never truly become autonomous in their maintenance capability. So, bottom line, our tech reps keep them flying/rolling, but if anything went south and we pulled our tech reps out, they would stop ops within a matter of days (hours in some cases).

No threat.

Interesting personal web page. Are you majoring in communications? What sort of show is your radio broadcast?

Oh. . .>>The US is not only providing the equipment, but knowledge as well.<<

Knowledge is considered a "defense service" and subject to ITAR 120.10 & 121.8.

Oversight and regulation is in full play here.

Reminiscent of the Tomcats for Iran fiasco.

Fiasco in what way? Were the Tomcats ever used against us or our allies? Does anyone here actually believe that Egypt will attack Israel with helicopters?