Posted on 02/08/2006 8:15:08 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
The United States of America has historically enjoyed self-sufficiency in times of both war and peace but in order to better assess its present place in the world as concerns its military and economic strength, it is important to reflect on its foundation. There is daily talk from Wall Street to Capitol Hill with respect to spread sheets and global policy, but it perhaps falls short when it comes down to addressing the average U.S. wage earner, and how both will ultimately affect jobs and the country’s national security and defense. It is important to note, that as our forefathers were fighting for independence from England during the Revolutionary War, seldom do we hear about the underlying and overwhelming task they endured in order to supply an army without an industrial base. In order for success, the Colonies depended upon France and the Netherlands for everything from blankets and clothing to gunpowder, muskets, munitions, and food. Benjamin Franklin bartered a deal with France to ship across the Atlantic Ocean by way of the Netherlands’ St. Eustatius Island, in order for George Washington and his troops to have the means to defend themselves.
In light of the French Revolution at the turn of the 18th century, when the Netherlands were seized by Napoleon and President John Adams came close to war with France, a primary U.S. ally just years earlier, self –sufficiency was the order of the day. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was asked by President George Washington and the U.S. Congress to officially document U.S. policy on industrial and military self-sufficiency. It read, “Not only have the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic: to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society.”
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century secured the U.S.policy of self-sufficiency, transforming it into a global power. Due to the strength of its industrialization the U.S. was able to defeat its enemies in World War I. With the advent of the automobile, which Henry Ford learned to mass-produce, weaponry and machinery produced for World War II benefited from the automobile factory. Production of Sherman tanks, Army jeeps, airplanes and PT boats evolved from such civilian U.S. factories. And in the 1950’s the industrial base was modernized for the Korean War effort.
The industrial base and manufacturing for the U.S. military were necessarily intertwined. But following the end of the Cold War there has been a deliberate decomposition of U.S. industry, unprecedented in American history. There are a number of factors which have contributed to U.S. dependence on foreign trade, primarily with India and China, which has not only led to millions of U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs permanently lost, but paints a grim picture for the long term stability of the U.S. military supply line.
The dependence on foreign oil and the subsequent OPEC oil embargo in the 1970’s, the U.S. policy of deregulation of corporations of the 1980’s, the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 allowing China to become a member, collectively accelerated U.S. dependence on cheap labor offshore. Thus, dependency and reliance on suppliers from all over the world for military equipment and machinery components and parts, required for their manufacture, leaves the U.S. vulnerable.
The Defense Department runs a program called the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortage (DMSMS) at the Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). Its purpose is to identify shortages of parts, processes and materials necessary to procure for military buyers. A problem for military acquisitions has been procuring weapon system metal castings as a direct result of plant closings. The majority of castings now come from China and other third-world countries. Along with the foreign dependence on metal castings manufacture its research and development also followed the foundry industry offshore.
DMSMS program managers are aware that there are problems in finding sub-parts and components. Not only have replacement parts started to rapidly diminish, but the chemicals needed in their manufacture have as well. Without specific chemicals certain processes cannot be done. For example, there is only one company left in the U.S. that produces a roller cutter for armored plate or heavy steel which was an indirect consequence of supplying armor kits for U.S. Humvees in the War in Iraq. When the Pentagon learned there was an immediate need at the end of 2004, it called for expediency in their manufacture. Sadly, it took almost a year due to the limited facilities producing such.
Another issue arose when a foreign corporation purchased the only U.S. company which produced a chemical used for a common binder which secures windows and aluminum panels in aircraft. The company eventually folded when it could not meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Now the U.S. must depend on the company’s offshore subsidiaries.
Similarly, the bearing industry which produces ball-bearings, roller-bearings and anti-friction bearings is an endangered U.S. industry, key to the production of military gear and plays a part in homeland security. They are components necessary to produce electric motors for conveyor belts such as in factories, steel mills, in airports, in mining, and with the equipment used to manufacture automobiles. And bearings are critical to the mechanical components of major weapons systems. Losing bearings manufacturing to foreign shores directly impacts the capabilities of weapons manufacturing should there be a change in the geopolitical landscape and a cut-off from U.S. suppliers, whether through war, terrorism, or Mother Nature.
With the military build-up of China over the past decade by benefit of applying commercial technologies to military weaponry and its having become the largest offshore manufacturing base for U.S. corporations, the U.S. continues a delicate balancing act with a Communist nation as its biggest trade partner. With a U.S. trade deficit with China reaching over $200 billion in 2005, multi-national corporations, once U.S. companies operating in the U.S., are now just based in the U.S.
And with a demand by China for foreign direct investment as their incentive to buy U.S. products, companies like Boeing are acquiescing by not only building major portions of airplanes in China, but also creating Research and Development opportunities for Chinese engineers, in order to show its commitment. Intel and Microsoft have also followed suit with major investment in directly hiring engineers in China.
Endless conflicts of interest abound when it comes to foreign dependence in order for the U.S. to maintain its infrastructure, electrical grid, military weaponry and supplies, air travel and homeland security, to name a few. When smaller U.S. specialty industries vital to the industrial base become extinct on our shores, they now appear huge in a world where alliances are tenuous at best. A global economy at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, security and standard of living is something that the Colonists would not have stood for. They would have found another way. Maybe America still has time to do the same.
We have been involved in two large-scale conflicts recently where the effort to destroy the enemies assets has been somewhat small compared to the effort to build them (Iraq Wars I & II). But there have been (relatively) recent conflicts where a large amount of effort was expended and it was still difficult or impossible to eliminate the enemy and his assets. We learned that lesson the hard way in Vietnam, the Soviets learned it in Afghanistan. I don't want us to forget the lessons of history. We need to be able to wage either kind of war successfully. The downside risks of failure are just too great.
That's bad because our ports are working at maximum capacity right now. 25 skilled terrorists in each major port city could shut down all our ports and cripple our imports and exports.
From a military standpoint, the biggest difference between the 1940s and the 21st century is that the U.S. was only capable of closing that technology gap with Germany because the world was much "bigger" back then. Germany did not have the means to mount any kind of serious military threat against our R&D and production facilities. The age of transontinental flight and space travel has basically made the physical separation between advanced developed nations far less meaningful in a military context.
And I'm saying that industrial capacity to produce weapons is meaningless if those weapons aren't used properly anyway -- which makes Vietnam a bad example in this case.
Not any argument or example, but a damned silly one. If we were discussing a football game between an NFL team and a high school football team, anyone who suggests that the high school team might win because their starting left tackle is bigger and stronger than the NFL team's wide receivers is making an inane statement that has no relevance to the topic.
Only because it is so obvious will I say how terrorists could cripple America.
Our railroad system is 100% unprotected. Attack and destroy the cranes in the ports that unload the CONEX boxes from the ships and we are sitting high and dry without the ability to resupply. Attack the pumping stations that transfer fuels to and from ships and we are done for in a matter of days.
Can't Mexican/Hispanic laborers make all this stuff?
Yes, but that's always been the case. The biggest threat to the U.S. war effort in the 1940s was not the military might of Japan or Germany, but potential sabotage of key elements of our transportation network (Ports of New Orleans, Baltimore, New York, the Pennsylvania Railroad mainline, etc.).
Since the military keeps things in use FAR beyond the normal product cycle (i.e. the B-52 flying since the 1950s) what this group does is look for alternative suppliers of parts and equipment the Civilian Sector has evolved BEYOND. It has NOTHING to do with the Buchannite's paranoid fears about foreigner making things.
***First and foremost how do we defend ourselves in time of war if our defense materiales are made overseas***
Didn't you get the fake Memo?
If you listen to Liberals, when THEY are in charge, there won't be a NEED for war materials, so why worry?? Everybody wil join hands round the fires of our Bibles and Rush Limbaugh books singing Kumbahyah......
Having the ability to produce and defend "traditional" military hardware is a must if you want to win.
All of the major components (the large transformers, the high-voltage circuit breakers, etc.) were manufactured in foreign countries.
Were we to be invaded, we would have no ability to replace these items at all.
Imagine fighting a war here on the home front with no electricity. That would mean no fuel and no communications. We'd be sitting ducks.
Cold War - our national life was at stake for the entire time until 1991. Thank G*d we won.
How many years has our government basically done the sloppiest job tolerable at enforcing immigration laws. Today America probably has thousands of illegal immigrants from dozens of nations who would love to set a wooden rairoad trestle on fire. Yes we still have hundreds of them, wooden rairoad trestles.
Why are you giving Buchanan free press? He was never mentioned in the article.
People have been dumbed down so bad that it's not even funny. The MSM always have these news stories about jobs going overseas and there's the obligatory interview with the poor fella who have to learn new skills. Blame the tax code, the regulations, and our non-existant energy policy. The solution to these problems are as plain as the noses on people's faces.
I don't think US corporations realize that if we lose a war, they lose their company. Unions long ago overplayed their hand and now the pendulum has swung the other way and corporations have overplayed their hand by getting NAFTA rammed through congress. The liberal union thugs don't even realize that Slick Willie sold them down the river. We can't afford to lose a war, but this is a quick ticket to that possibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.