Dubai takeover of US defense plants OK'd!

[Ned]

It's Port's World all over again, but this is far worse in my opinion. I don't know about you, but I don't want a foreign government, any foreign government, control the sole source manufacturing of crucial military hardware.

Reuters reported today that "President George W. Bush approved Dubai's $1.24 billion takeover of Doncasters, a British engineering company with U.S. plants that supply the Pentagon, the White House said on Friday.

The decision, announced by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, followed a congressional uproar over security fears that scuttled another Dubai state-owned company's plan to acquire operations at major U.S. ports."...

..."President Bush said Friday morning that the deal "has been looked at very carefully, has been analyzed by a CFIUS committee. I signed off on it this morning because I'm convinced at the recommendation of the CFIUS committee as well as our military that it's a sale that should go through," when he asked about the deal during a White House news conference."...

..."Among Doncasters' units is a plant in Georgia that is the sole supplier of turbine fan parts for U.S. Abrams battle tanks. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States sent its confidential recommendation on the Dubai takeover of Doncasters to Bush on April 13."...

[mercwyn]

I'm going to step out onto the limb here and ask why didn't you object to Doncasters being owned by a British company? If the only piece of the defense pie that Doncasters is getting is making the turbine fan for the M1 tank then I have no objection to the being bought out by anyone. That is hardly secret technology and there are lots of companies that would love to get that contract. From my perspective it doesn't make much difference if you allow a British, German, French, Arab or Russian company to own a company that produces a turbine.

Personally I'm more concerned with our licensing agreements with Israel who turns around and sells our technology to the People's Republic of China. This is direct violation of the licensing agreements and end user agreements. So far Israel has sold artillery tubes that are based on US specifications and according to our licensing agreement Israel is the end user. They attempted to sell a AWACS aircraft to the PRC however the US government refused to permit that technology to be transferred. The scary part is that Israel continues to try to sell technology that it isn't supposed to be selling and only when we threaten them do they agree to honor the license.

That's my two cents and I full expect to be flamed for it. :)

[BarkingLeopard]

I really don't see the problem here, Ned.

Think about it- would YOU go to war with a country that accounts for much of your exports and financial capital? There goes all your wealth and physical assets (manufacturing facilities, etc) in that country.

And if you're afraid of a foreign company holding the US hostage- please! If we ever get into a "serious" war we can add another plant or two for such crucial parts. Sure, the company(ies) may charge slightly more for the defense parts, as defense companies sometimes do in war, as they need to add in capacity and it takes money do that. Would an American company behave the same way? You betcha!

I agree with mercwyn- why is it okay for a British company to own or produce "vital defense parts" (there goes that protectionist rhetoric again), but not an Arab one? For example, Rolls Royce jet engines are about as vital as you can get to our vehicles, jets, and such, but no one seems to complain about them.

"But- wait!- an ARAB company wants to have some economic ties to the US, or get a defense contract to employ Americans to make defense parts on American soil?! We can't let that happen!" Am I the only one who finds this thought process and rhetoric extremely hypocritical?

We need stronger economic ties to the rest of the world, especially the Arab world, not less, and if that means that an Arab company from a country which we are currently friends with just happens to make defense parts in the USA that we need, so be it. To end where I began, it's hard to hate the people who you're selling your products to, especially when you're making money in the process.

In the end, the only thing protectionism will "protect" us from is a higher overall standard of living than that which we could have achieved had we not given into it.

[Ned]

Hi Mercwyn and BL,

I'm going to step out onto the limb here and ask why didn't you object to Doncasters being owned by a British company?...

Actually, Doncasters a very old British Company (1778) produces many parts for our military and that of NATO as a whole, especially for military jet engines. It's hard to object to Doncaster selling this part along with others because they developed it in the first place. I also have less a problem with a British company because they are a well known proven ally and a pretty stable country of this world.

Personally I'm more concerned with our licensing agreements with Israel who turns around and sells our technology to the People's Republic of China.

I too am deeply concerned about Israel's loyalty to agreements with our country. There are numerous examples of Israeli companies and its government attempting to make a lot of shekels by selling our hard work and secrets, sometimes even to rogue nations and countries I would count as our friends. This is one of many problems I have with the Israeli government, which as a Jewish American, I have not particularly supported for many many years. I visit Israel every chance I get to explore the country of my ancestors and visit friends. There is something extremely powerful and wonderful about standing where Moses stood, or Aaron or David, or Rachel, of Sarah. I strongly support Israel, the country, and the people, and the right of Jews to have this homeland back after centuries of only a diaspora, but I have found the Israeli government for some time to be considerably lacking in quality and integrity, essentially since Menachem Begin retired, and that's a very long time ago. I didn't like Begin's politics, but I felt he had real integrity.

Were I president I would be definitely reining them in. To me this was a major failure of an generally good Clinton administration and has been one of many major failures of a generally poor Bush administration.

That's my two cents and I full expect to be flamed for it.

If you think you'll get flamed, think about a Jew saying Israel isn't perfect.

All that being said, I don't trust Dubai one bit, nor the other Arab nations. These are unstable countries who have within them the constant beat of the drums of hate for our country and our principles of justice, and freedom, within reasonable limits, for all (Yes, I know we don't exactly live up fully to our own principles.). These are nations where their religious leaders preach our destruction and obliteration from the face of the earth every day. These are nations which regularly break our laws and have no respect for us as a country, save for our money and military power.

Would I want to go to war with them? No. I don't want to go to war with anyone. Do I want to continue to buy their oil and petrochemicals? For now. Do I want them investing in the US? Sure, but not in everything.

I think there should be limits. If we put limits on them will they walk away? I don't think so. They have too much to loose. I like foreign investment, but I don't think we have to allow foreign investment into every area of our economy, and I do think we can and should place limits on it.

[mercwyn]

Ned, I do appreciate your views and I agree that you are taking a bold stand by being Jewish and questioning some of Israel's actions. Luckily for both of us, I think that the majority of the individuals posting here are mature enough to respect differing viewpoints and act accordingly.

While I don't trust any foreign government or entity to put America's interests first, I do think that if we are to help moderate Arab governments we must treat fairly with them and that would mean that we allow a foreign owned company to be purchased by another foreign owned company. My fear is that if we don't allow Dubai to purchase Doncasters is that we give more ammunition to the radicals. From my time of living in Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait I came to know that the radicals are not our friends and that they have instilled fear into many moderates. Everytime we say No to the moderates, the radicals point to it and say to the masses that we don't think that the Arab is human and that the US is just looting the resources. We cannot afford to allow these charges to go unanswered nor can we afford to give more ammuntion to the radicals. Foreign investment is extremely important to the US economy however I believe that moderate Arab states are even more important to our national security.

I believe that this is one of those places where you and I will continue to disagree however I'm glad we can do so in a civilized manner.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mercwyn@May 3 2006, 05:03 PM
Ned, I do appreciate your views and I agree that you are taking a bold stand by being Jewish and questioning some of Israel's actions.* Luckily for both of us,* I think that the majority of the individuals posting here are mature enough to respect differing viewpoints and act accordingly.

While I don't trust any foreign government or entity to put America's interests first, I do think that if we are to help moderate Arab governments we must treat fairly with them and that would mean that we allow a foreign owned company to be purchased by another foreign owned company.* My fear is that if we don't allow Dubai to purchase Doncasters is that we give more ammunition to the radicals.* From my time of living in Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait I came to know that the radicals are not our friends and that they have instilled fear into many moderates.* ...* ...Foreign investment is extremely important to the US economy however I believe that moderate Arab states are even more important to our national security.

I believe that this is one of those places where you and I will continue to disagree however I'm glad we can do so in a civilized manner.
25537

One of the best attributes of Tripso is the quality of people who have formed the core group and most of the other members of Tripso. I'm happy to be counted among them.

I have traveled extensively in the Palestinian territories on the West Bank, though not in Gaza. I have also traveled extensively in Jordan as well. Clearly I have spent a great deal of time in Israel and have many friends who live there. I know many of the politicos there. Netanyahu went to my high school and although he was behind me and I didn't know him well, his politics even then, arrogance, self importance and ruthlessness were easy to see.

My problem is that other than Turkey and Egypt I don't see truly moderate Arab governments in the Middle East. Lebanon is still under the thumb of Syria and while we count Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emerites, and Kuwait as our friends it's hard to characterize them in my mind as moderates. I look at the "Moslem Law" used to run their countries, at least the way they interpret it, and wonder how I could characterize that and them as moderate. It seems more realistic they are very much orthodox out of the dark ages, with international views which don't seem moderate either, to me, but seem practical instead. That practicality or pragmatism could change at any time when, as and if the advantages to change out-weigh the disadvantages. I don't think they'd think twice before turning their politics in a 180. Due to this I have no trust of them and believe we have to be extremely cautious when if comes to our security. That is my take.

Even with this I don't want to stop them from investing in our country, however, I'm concerned that we pretty much are looking to allow unfettered and unlimited investment. I see no reason not to limit the investment, though we must spell out what limits are in place far better than we alreay have.

[clarkef]

I'm one of the people in favor of the Dubai deal. Basically, I see the terror war as primarily a war for the hearts and minds of the middle east. Will they see the US as the Great Satan a la Iranian Mullah-speak, or a friend and ally.

As long as the jihadist get to define American in the minds of the Muslim world, we stand at greater risk for terror attacks

America has always had a love hate relationship with foreign investment. When the Japanese went on a real estate buying spree in the late '80, it made front page news. Yet when Europeans bought neighboring properties, it barely hit the business section. I believe this is the same thing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by clarkef@May 12 2006, 02:56 AM
I'm one of the people in favor of the Dubai deal.* Basically, I see the terror war as primarily a war for the hearts and minds of the middle east.* Will they see the US as the Great Satan a la Iranian Mullah-speak, or a friend and ally.

As long as the jihadist get to define American in the minds of the Muslim world, we stand at greater risk for terror attacks

America has always had a love hate relationship with foreign investment.* When the Japanese went on a real estate buying spree in the late '80, it made front page news.* Yet when Europeans bought neighboring properties, it barely hit the business section. I believe this is the same thing.
26145

Clarke, I agree that as long as the jihadists get to define America in the minds of the Muslim world we definitely do stand at a very high risk for more terror attacks.

The problem is that I don't see that allowing these business transactions, which have to do with our security, or any transactions with companies and governments from "unfriendly" countries, are going to change a thing, are going to allow these countrys' moderates to retake the hearts and minds of the Muslin world.

Having witnessed the goings on in the middle east first hand, and having spoken to some of the few moderates in the middle east personally, I have concluded that many of these "unfriendly" nations are in great fear of the jihadists themselves, and have decided that their course of action is to back off to save themselves. As a result the hate mongering in the mosques continues to escalate and continues to control the hearts of minds of enough of the Islamic world, that the terror will continue to escalate. These "hate America, hate everything not Muslim" mullahs continue to lie, misuse their own Koran, and misue Islam with impunity.

These jihadists are very smart and very good at infiltration. Hence my opposition to "unfriendly" country's transactions which have to do with our security.

If these countries would show some backbone by actually trying to work to rid their countries of these jihadists and the jihadist mullahs then I could reconsider my position. Of course, this is a "catch 22" situation to a large extent, and therefore there are no clear answers here.

[clarkef]

Originally posted by Ned@May 12 2006, 05:44 AM

The problem is that I don't see that allowing these business transactions, which have to do with our security, or any transactions with companies and governments from "unfriendly" countries, are going to change a thing, are going to allow these countrys' moderates to retake the hearts and minds of the Muslin world.
26148


Except Dubai is not an unfriendly nation, nor is port security being compromised by this deal. Security is provided by the Coast guard, not the dock operators. Dubai has been one of America's best friends in the region. Also, can you imagine how this is being reported in the Muslim World. People who are on the fence about the US will be convinced that we hate Muslims. Already large segments of the Muslim World see us as engaged in a holy war against Allah and his Prophet.