The Pentagon should avoid being dependent on foreign contracts for the tools that enable our military to defend America. Relying on contractors from other nations to provide critical infrastructure for our military makes no sense, especially if those providing companies don’t even agree with American foreign policy.
Nations that are allied with us are important, but domestically produced military hardware avoids the problems associated with outsourcing. Allies, as the author Christopher Paolini writes, “may fight with us, but they don’t fight for us.” So while it is good to have foreign alliances that boost your striking power, it is important to maintain control of your own foreign policy, and especially your own weapon systems.
The most obvious risk, of course, is that a country with alliances may not have the weapons it needs when it needs them. For example, “Europe’s countries are militarily dependent on the United States,” Christopher Caldwell writes in the New York Times. “Since most of them have budgeted well under 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense for many years, they are probably more dependent than they were two decades ago.”
This reliance is harming the overall German economy, as the country has been compelled to break ties to Russia, which until 2022 supplied Germany with cheap gas and raw materials. Caldwell writes that the U.S. doesn’t much care about the German economy. We are focused on Russia instead.
Another risk is that an ally may not always be on your side.
For example, the French don’t necessarily agree with American foreign policy on some important issues. President Biden says the U.S. would defend the island of Taiwan if China invaded it. France wants to maintain some wiggle room: “The worst thing would be to believe that we Europeans should be followers on this issue and have to adapt to the American pace and a Chinese overreaction,” French President Emanuel Macron said earlier this year. “If there is an accelerated flare-up in the [China-U.S.] duopoly, we will have neither the time nor the means to finance our strategic autonomy and would become vassals.”
This is why it is a major problem that a French company, Airbus, wants to be a major American defense contractor. The company already has a presence here. It builds ‘copters for the Army, for example. But the Pentagon should refuse any future proposals from Airbus, such as its proposal to build a new tanker for the Air Force. Airbus wants to base that design on one of its French plane designs. Lawmakers should shoot that idea down right away since we simply can’t trust Airbus with such an important project.
As an example, consider the position Airbus takes on using titanium from Russia. After Moscow launched its invasion of Ukraine, the United States and most European countries quickly slapped sanctions on Russia. As noted above, Germany did so at great cost to its economy. Airbus, however took pains to argue that one metal in particular, titanium, should be exempt from such sanctions. That is because titanium is rare, and is necessary to build aircraft.
By the end of 2022, however, Airbus was ready to act as if it was coming into line with American norms. Last December the company announced it would stop using titanium from Russia. But that isn’t nearly the end of the tale!
By April of 2023, Airbus had modified that stance. “An immediate and full withdrawal of titanium sourcing from Russia would significantly damage the entire aerospace industry in Europe whilst the impact would be marginal for Russia, as titanium accounts for only a small part of its export revenues,” an Airbus executive wrote in a letter to investors.
It is interesting that Airbus is trying to back away from its promise that it will stop using Russian metal. It is also interesting that this most recent letter comes from the company’s “Head of Sustainability and Environment” rather than from someone involved in defense policy. Importing raw materials from Russia doesn’t touch on sustainability or environmental policy; it involves the economic use of military-grade materials.
In any event, the company is clearly more French than Franco-American. It shouldn’t even be in the running for future defense contracts. Those should go to American companies that fully support American policies. Let’s maintain our alliances, and our control of our weapon systems.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member