Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld Holds Out Against Buy America Weapons Policy
London Financial Times | October 17, 2003 | Marianne Brun-Rovet

Posted on 10/17/2003 5:29:58 AM PDT by SLB

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, yesterday reiterated his opposition to a controversial proposal that would force the Pentagon to buy all essential weapons parts from US manufacturers.

His remarks could undermine attempts by the White House and both houses of Congress to find a compromise that would allow the passage of this year's defence authorisation bill.

"I'm personally a free trader type," Mr Rumsfeld told a press briefing, adding that the administration had to "be careful" not to hurt relations with its allies.

The Buy America legislation - contained in the House version of the defence authorisation bill but not the Senate version - is the subject of tense talks between the White House and both houses of Congress, which must reconcile their two bills.

The European and US aerospace industry oppose Buy America, arguing that its protectionist language could undermine transatlantic defence relations.

The European Commission warned Congress of a fresh potential transatlantic dispute earlier this month.

A letter from the Commission to John Warner, chairman of the Senate armed services committee and Buy America opponent, warned that "the European Commission will consider the most appropriate action to take" if the defence authorisation package included "WTO-incompatible provisions".

The controversy over Buy America could endanger the whole package. Unlike appropriations bills, which allocate funds to government areas, the defence authorisation bill - which sets guidelines on how the Pentagon spends its money - is not mandatory.

Mr Rumsfeld denounced the provision in July, saying he and other senior advisers to President George W. Bush would recommend that he veto the bill if the final version included the provision.

But since then Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, has tried to hammer out a compromise with Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House armed services committee and author of the provision. This would dilute Buy America by giving the Pentagon wide waiver authority over contracts.

These attempts at a compromise have been interpreted as a sign that the Defence Department had softened its stance.

"We had an understanding with some members of Congress that we would sit down to work out a compromise," Mr Rumsfeld said, referring to Mr Wolfowitz's attempts. "But the rest of the administration has to agree as well."

So far, the State Department, the office of the US Trade Representative and other government agencies are thought to oppose the compromise. It has also been challenged by Mr Warner, who has asked the administration to clarify its stance on Buy America.

TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: buyamerican; rumsfeld

1 posted on 10/17/2003 5:29:58 AM PDT by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SLB; Poohbah; rdb3; Long Cut; Chancellor Palpatine; 1rudeboy; Texas_Dawg
Oh, boy, Rumsfeld's just asking for it...
2 posted on 10/17/2003 5:36:13 AM PDT by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
While I believe the government should buy American, this is one area I can make an exception for. I don't give a damned who makes it as long as we're giving our troops the best.
3 posted on 10/17/2003 5:38:20 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz; Wally Cleaver; Valin; archy; Cannoneer No. 4; Matthew James; Lion Den Dan; ...
How many bits and pieces of Abrams and Bradleys do we now have that are made offshore? How many parts of the Stryker are actually made in the good old US of A?
4 posted on 10/17/2003 5:42:57 AM PDT by SLB ("We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us." C. S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
The problems with military buying outside the US is strategic rather than economic. If the Swiss or Swedes or Chinese want to they can interrupt the supply chain. In addition, if US technology is exported to foreign plants, security is nonexistent.
If the next large war is not fought with nukes and lasers by remote control, where will we get the merchant and capital ships to fight? If we use NATO weapons made in Germany and they turn on us, then what?
Resistance to BA is very shortsighted.
5 posted on 10/17/2003 5:50:51 AM PDT by steve8714 (They were still better than my team.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SLB; 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub; Travis McGee; mhking; rdb3; aristeides
Rumsfeld is wrong on this one.

There are some things that logic dictates be made INSIDE our OWN country.

Parts for our OWN weaponry is one of those things. If that requires the parts to cost a bit more, then so be it.

In the middle of a war, you don't want spare fighter parts overseas in Japan. You want them in your own back yard.
6 posted on 10/17/2003 5:52:09 AM PDT by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Ditto. We should not be dependent on Italy or China for our own defense by buying things like Beretta handguns for our troops.
7 posted on 10/17/2003 5:54:05 AM PDT by tom paine 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

The country we buy our weapons from will be the country that controls our military.
8 posted on 10/17/2003 6:14:07 AM PDT by doc30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
It is absolutely crucial that we have the ability to manufacture our own weapons here in the US. If ever there were an industry vital to national security, weapons manufacturing is one. We simply must make it in the USA.
9 posted on 10/17/2003 6:18:54 AM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
I agree that this is crucial, but if we don't make the best I don't want it for the troops. I remember going to Nam with an M-16 that if you put more then 18 rounds in the magazine you were almost sure to get a jam; besides the many other reasons why the damned thing jammed.

Within a week I had traded my M-16 to an ARVN for his M-14. And I wouldn't have cared if that M-14 had been made in Hanoi by Jane Fonda.

10 posted on 10/17/2003 6:22:19 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tom paine 2
Berettas last a good long while.
11 posted on 10/17/2003 6:29:09 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Well, I certainly agree our soldiers need only the best. The solution, then is to find the best and make it here.
12 posted on 10/17/2003 6:29:30 AM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Maybe "free trader" Mr. Rumsfeld should go buy our weapons in China?

And pray nightly that the guns don't blow up in our boys faces?

Or pray nightly that we don't go to war one day with a country that has up until that day been supplying our weapons?
13 posted on 10/17/2003 6:34:52 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Another good reason for buying our weapons here is that we can provide security, defense against attack or sabotage, for weapons manufacturers in this country - something we couldn't do for overseas plants whether they're in Switzerland, China, or Peru.
14 posted on 10/17/2003 6:37:37 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
You are spot on, bullseye.

Rumsfeld's a smart guy, he has some good ideas, but this isn't about "free trade," and he knows it.

He wants to stretch his defense dollar by buying cheaper overseas, but it's bad politics to say that, so he gives the "free trade" bull.

Security demands that our weapons systems be made here.
15 posted on 10/17/2003 6:49:13 AM PDT by xzins (Proud to be Army!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
That has been done successfully (although not exactly my idea of the best) with the Bereta, the Harrier, the Dolphin helo...
16 posted on 10/17/2003 6:51:18 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

How many parts of the Stryker are actually made in the good old US of A?

The Strykers is built in a GM Canadian factory in London, Ontario....

More info *here*

Being one of only seven women in a graduating class of 120 atthe University of Western Ontario was a good primer for Sylvie Farrell, P.Eng. Armed with an engineering education and a broad business focus, Farrell’s career shifted into high gearin 2000 when she became the first female engineering manager at General Motors Defense in London. Farrell has close to 100 design engineers, process engineers, logistics engineers and CAD modellers in the Concurrent Product Development(CPD) Engineering department reporting to her. The department, made up of seven teams, is responsible for all aspects of the design for the family of light-armoured vehicles (LAVs). One of these vehicles, the new eight-wheeled Stryker, bridges the gap between heavy and light units. The U.S. Army will require 2131 vehicles over six years–a hefty $6 billion (Cdn.). con-tract. Over 300 vehicles have been delivered to the army’s first brigade who are currently undergoing training. Reports are that approximately 3500 American soldiers will be set to deploy by May 2003.The Stryker can carry a total of 11 personnel, including the driver and vehicle commander. While the U.S. Air Force’s main C-130 aircraft can transport the Stryker at a maximum weight of 38,000 pounds (17.2 tonnes), the vehicle was designed for performance up to a weightof 18.5 tonnes. The vehicle, says Farrell,operates well in urban settings as well as rugged and steep terrain, can travel up to speeds of 100 km/h and is built to carry out combat missions in the battlefield with good tactical mobility.

Farrell recently had the opportunity to speak with American soldiers at a largemilitary tradeshow in Washington. The soldiers told her that front-line personnel training on the Stryker say they really like the product, which, Farrell says, is very gratifying to hear.Prior to her work on the Stryker, Farrell worked as a design engineer on Canadian military programs and the U.S. Marine Corps program, in addition to other international work. Developing the ballistic steel specifications and approving all drawings for materials, paint specifications, adhesive and rubber specifications were all part of a typical work day. She also had subsystem design responsibilities for the NBC (nuclear,biological, chemical) warfare protection system, fire suppression systems and other variant unique subsystems.In terms of recent Canadian projects,Farrell says that GM Defense just completed manufacture of 42 For ward Observation Officer (FOO) vehicles and that they are continuing to refit older units with the latest technology for the Department of National Defense. Moving in the right direction Farrell’s fascination and aptitude for math and science led her to pursue studies in engineering. Her father, a highly-educated teacher, and her mother, a university-trained nurse, encouraged her to set her sights high, says Farrell, and it was a high school guidance counsellor who suggested she apply to the engineering faculty. The thinking was that this was a profession where she could apply math and science and leave university with a degree that would qualify herimmediately for a job. During her time atWestern, Farrell spent a summer workingin the factory at GM and another summer as a sales engineer at GM Detroit Diesel. Shortly after graduating with a Bachelorof Engineering Science degree in materials science (similar to metallurgy but a broader discipline, where plastics, composites, etc. are studied in addition to metals), Farrell started working in the LAV division as an engineer. She became a licensed member of PEO in 1985. Her pursuit of new knowledge andexperiences eventually steered her to pursue further studies in an executive MBA program at the University of Toronto. Shecontinued to work full-time at GM in London, while studying part-time over a two-year span. “I studied and completed homework on the train,” says Farrell, who recalls making the four-hour London-Toronto round trip once a week along with a group of other students from London.In 1991, Farrell received her Master of Business Administration degree and became the engineering administration supervisor overseeing a group whose responsibilities included engineering schedules, budgets, and coordinating contractchange proposal activities.Lessons learnedFarrell became Chair of GM’s Local Women’s Advisory Council in 1991 andin 1995 chaired the General Motors of Canada National Women’s Advisory Council. While working on a subcommittee on the council, she helped create a personnel development workbook thatstaff can use to map career plans. Drawing on her career and life experi-ences, Farrell has been able to share valuable insights with many women and men,gained through her work on committeesand as chair to the advisory council. Shesays she often urges them to take advan-tage of opportunities for further educa-tion or training, stressing that qualifica-tions give credibility. Farrell says shebelieves breadth of experience is alsoimportant, and that experience in as manyareas of the business as possible is vital.“It’s a good idea to accept a position thatmay be offered to you. Although the valueof a job may not be immediately appar-ent, you will always learn something ormeet people whom you can learn from,”Sylvie Farrell, P.Eng., leads a diverse group of engineers responsible for the design of wheeled armouredvehicles at General Motors Defense in London, Ontario. Farrell is proud to be part of a strong managementteam at GM Defense which was recently acquired by General Dynamics, whose headquarters are located inFalls Church, Virginia. The Stryker, of which there are 10 different types, is pictured here with Farrell.

she says. “I think if someone has made theeffort to offer you a position, they’ve seensomething in you.”Farrell also urges young engineers todevelop coping strategies in tough situa-tions in order to maintain credibility in thework environment. When dealing withaggravating circumstances or people, Farrell suggests drafting an email response before frustration boils over: “It’s a good way tovent when you’re angry, but don’t send ituntil the next day when you’ve had a chanceto cool down and make appropriate revisions.” More sage advice from Farrell–don’tneglect your responsibilities in your current position, even if it’s not exactly where you want to be. What often happens, she explains, is that people set their sights on career advancement, while neglecting to do a good job in their current position, or they pay attention only to those aspects of their job they feel can help them advance.Continuously building on her own project engineering, planning and managementskills, while focusing on the job at hand, issomething that seems to come naturally toFarrell. And above all, emphasizes Farrell,treat everyone with respect: “It’s just theright thing to do.”

Team spirit

A career highlight for Farrell was when the first Stryker was shipped to the U.S. this past February. “It was definitely a team suc-cess and a proud moment. I think it’s a really neat product,” she says with typical enthusiasm. Working in a great organization with really good people goes a long way tobuilding positive outcomes, she explains.Farrell is quick to credit all team members for the vital role each plays in ensuring scheduling, budgets, and quality are on target. Prior to her current position, Farrell was manager of the business process improvement department. A task group charged with exploring ways to enhance processes ultimately found strategies to reduce costs and lead time. The end result was a shift to a multi-disciplinar yapproach that put designers, 3-D CAD modellers, process engineers and logistics engineers onto teams. The team was then able to develop more robust designs that required much less subsequent design modifications. Although this process takes a little longer, “ultimately what you end up with is a more reliable product that’s easier to build and easier to maintain,”says Farrell. Speaking engagements have also kept Farrell busy. She’s equally comfortable talking with children as part of “Take our Kids to Work Day,” or with military personnel about technical issues. Farrell, part of a panel speaking at a January 2003 meeting to celebrate the 20th anniversary of GM’s National Women’s Council, will talk about how participation with the council has affected her career. When she needs to unwind and re-energize, Farrell heads offto the golf course or, when time allows,stows away to an exotic island destinationwith her husband Ken.

17 posted on 10/17/2003 8:48:28 AM PDT by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Within a week I had traded my M-16 to an ARVN for his M-14.

That's a neat trick, considering that we never provided the ARVNs with M-14s. They had M-1s until about 70, and after that, M-16s.


Criminal Number 18F

18 posted on 10/17/2003 11:16:06 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F (The essence of life, I concluded, did not lie in the material. -- Charles A. Lindbergh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Sorry, but M-14s were very common over there.
19 posted on 10/17/2003 11:18:20 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
That's a neat trick, considering that we never provided the ARVNs with M-14s. They had M-1s until about 70, and after that, M-16s.


Criminal Number 18F

Many of their LLDB carried M14s with shortened buttstocks, particularly in and around the Iron Triangle. They could chew through a Michelin Forest rubbertree better than a M1/M2 carbine, yet were not as heavy as a BAR, and the LLDB were around Americans often enough that they could pick up ammo from any M60 gunner. That was circa early-mid '68.

The first South Vietnamese I saw with M16s [not A1s] were the ARVN Marines, who got the rifles traded in when US troops got M16A1s. Around April of 1968, I got a detail of using the bench grinder in a battalion motor pool shop to grind off the bayonet lugs from about 200 M16 rifles fitted with XM148 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers. During the Tet '68 festivities it seems one of their gunners with the just-issued weapons fired a 40mm round through his XM148 while the bayonet was also attached. Bad career move....


20 posted on 10/17/2003 2:33:54 PM PDT by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson