Air Force deal helps U.S.

When the U.S. Air Force awarded a contract on Feb. 29 worth $35 billion, I doubt they expected so much backlash.

But because the company chosen to build a fleet of tanker airplanes that can refuel military planes in midair flies a French flag over its main office, some politicians and American citizens have been complaining about the outsourcing of a defense contract to a foreign company.

Instead of awarding the contract to Boeing, Air Force officials gave the contract to Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., which is based in France. According to The Associated Press, Air Force documents show that the Northrop/EADS tanker proved to be better for the job.

Plus, EADS wants to build a plant in the U.S. - Mobile to be exact - to assemble the planes, which would create thousands of jobs for Alabamians.

Boeing filed a protest on March 11, challenging the contract awarded to EADS, and the government has 100 days to review the contract for 179 planes that the Air Force has already awarded.

Then on Thursday, in a move that will only draw out this drama, Northrop and the Air Force filed separate motions to dismiss large chunks of Boeing's protest against the contract.

Maybe I have read Thomas Freidman's book "The World is Flat" too many times and have actually started to believe that whole global market idea, but how is this Air Force contract a bad thing? And why does it require this much complication and review?

If a company can build the tankers for the Air Force so that they are the most efficient and the best for the job, I would rather have that company building tankers that will be flown by American pilots instead of having to settle for second-best - no matter if it is a foreign company or not.

Besides, a foreign company that wants to come into the U.S. to build a factory, hire workers and pay taxes cannot be a bad thing. Yes, it is outsourcing. But now a foreign company is outsourcing into the U.S. instead of an American company outsourcing out of the U.S.

As Freidman and many other authors, journalists and analysts have pointed out, the U.S. is part of a global marketplace, whether we want to be or not. And if that is the case, I think the best choice would be to embrace this fact and work with foreign companies instead of having congressmen and citizens refer to the deal as "unpatriotic" because it gives an American contract to a foreign company.

If there is a member of Congress who has not read "The World is Flat," then they could read it in a congressional book club and toss around ideas about what Freidman says about the global economy the world is becoming.

Along with other slightly misguided ideas about how to keep all American government contracts in the U.S., Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas, wants to ban foreign manufacturers from military contracts if their governments do not spend at least two percent of gross domestic product on their own defense, according to The Associated Press.

But Tiahrt represents Wichita, where Boeing has a large plant that would have worked on the Air Force tankers.

Just as Sen. Richard Shelby praised the EADS deal because of the potential economic boost for a district he represents, Tiahrt was looking out for the interests of his constituents.

At the end of the day, what I hope that Congress and every other official involved realizes is that the Air Force awarded a contract because they thought EADS would do the best job.

Whether they are a French company or not, the job they can do is all that matters.

Amanda Peterson is community news editor. Her column runs on Fridays.