Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

“Our Allies Then Bent Over Backwards to Help Us, When Our Own Industry Would Not”

by March 11, 2024
March 11, 2024
“Our Allies Then Bent Over Backwards to Help Us, When Our Own Industry Would Not”

Colin Grabow

When push comes to shove, can foreigners be counted on to help meet US national security needs? The answer, according to a former deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy, is yes. In fact, they might be more responsive than American firms. It’s a reality that should call into question some premises of US trade policy.

In an op‐​ed last week, William C. Greenwalt recalls that during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts the US military had a pressing need to obtain specialized steel for its Mine‐​Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) program. Thankfully, the US steel industry rose to the occasion, right? Not exactly. In Greenwalt’s telling, the industry—a beneficiary of protectionist measures including tariffs on steel imports and “Buy America” preferences—was not interested in supplying the Pentagon with the necessary materials.

Instead, the US military obtained steel from companies in Australia, Germany, Israel, and Sweden.

“When [the Department of Defense] urgently needed more steel, the US industry basically told Uncle Sam to pound sand,” Greenwalt writes. “Our allies then bent over backwards to help us, when our own industry would not.”

Greenwalt—now a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—does mention that one US company, Oregon Steel, was an exception to this disinterest. The company, however, ran afoul of protectionist Buy America restrictions due to its use of crucial inputs from Mexico. That necessitated a waiver to obtain the needed materials—one that other US steel firms vigorously opposed. As he writes:

One US company did do something, and that was Oregon Steel. They had a process that could produce the quality of steel that the MRAPs needed but it would require the importation of steel ingot from Mexico to fuel their mills. This would require a waiver from Buy America restrictions that mandated that all steel DoD uses be not only produced, but smelted in the US. US steel industry lobbyists vehemently opposed any such waiver. DoD eventually granted the waiver, thereby increasing MRAP‐​relevant steel production by 40 percent. The brutalist of ironies: The company was purchased by Russians in 2007. The irony that the Russians stepped up to protect our troops while US industry did not was probably not lost on the Kremlin.

As his experience shows, being an American firm—an increasingly nebulous term in this globalized world—does not ensure a company’s willingness to meet US national security requirements. Conversely, being foreign doesn’t necessarily mean a company is unreliable.

This should help inform US uses of trade protectionism. An oft‐​invoked rationale for import barriers is that the US industry targeted for protection would otherwise become dangerously small or disappear. That, in turn, would lead to reliance on allegedly risky foreign suppliers with potentially dire consequences for the country’s defense.

Unsurprisingly, numerous industries employ such logic to their advantage, insisting they are not trying to pad their profits through run‐​of‐​the‐​mill protectionism but looking out for the country’s national security. The steel industry certainly does it. The maritime industry too. Even supporters of sugar protectionism have gotten in on the act.

In fairness, one can readily envision scenarios in which turning to foreign sources for certain items (e.g. military equipment from North Korea) would produce unnecessary and intolerable risks. But this does not justify a simplistic dichotomy in which domestic sources are deemed risk‐​free and foreign ones riddled with danger.

As Greenwalt’s column makes clear, such thinking doesn’t comport with real‐​world experience. Indeed, in some instances, the reverse may hold. To reflect this reality, numerous trade barriers—particularly with trusted friends and partners—should be reduced in scope or removed entirely. Repealing the Berry and Kissell Amendments, removing Section 232 tariff rate quotas on steel imports (at a minimum from countries such as Japan, the European Union, and South Korea), and at least reforming the Jones Act to allow the purchase of ships from allied shipyards all offer excellent potential starting points. The capabilities of US allies should be treated as resources to be harnessed rather than threats to be feared.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
It’s the experience that counts – ways to retain your customers
next post
GNG TV: Materials, Industrials, Financials, Oh My…!

You may also like

Backlash: Good Intentions Can Have Counter-Productive Consequences

August 31, 2023

What “Threads” Tells Us about Social Media Competition

July 7, 2023

To Close the Budget Deficit, Uncle Sam Should...

February 26, 2025

Just in Time for Valentine’s Day, Hegseth Takes...

February 12, 2025

Highlights from the Supreme Court’s First Week Back

October 11, 2023

Land-Use Regulations Make Housing Less Affordable

March 18, 2025

Conflict Over a “Citi Bike” Illustrates Popularity of...

May 31, 2023

Friday Feature: Homeschool CPA

July 19, 2024

How Subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act Undermine...

September 22, 2023

Seattle Transit Agency Doing the Two-Step to Get...

November 25, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • MARK HALPERIN: Democrats try to construct a Frankenstein candidate while JD Vance gains momentum for 2028

      June 6, 2025
    • ‘Gone too far’: GOP lawmakers rally around Trump after Musk raises Epstein allegations

      June 6, 2025
    • Democrats begin to embrace Musk amid Trump spat after party railed against him as a ‘dictator’

      June 6, 2025
    • Trump administration defends US and Israeli sovereignty with new sanctions against four ICC judges

      June 5, 2025
    • Musk unleashes wild Epstein claim against Trump after being booted from DOGE

      June 5, 2025
    • Three Charts Showing Proper Moving Average Alignment

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,011)
    • Politics (15,543)
    • Stocks (3,129)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved