When I read this article I couldn’t help but think to myself whether or not this would qualify as an example of positive globalization or negative. The first part says that we are selling Iraq these planes to “build a modern post-war airforce”. Which in itself makes sense, but are we in fact arming our enemies for the future? Is it ethically relevant that we are selling these planes to a government that is not in complete control of its entire area? The article even acknowledges that the original contract that was written by the Pentagon and the State Department had to be frozen because of protests that happened in the spring. So can we really say, yes this is a good idea? These weapons will absolutely be used for good? The Pentagon sends the clear message that they believe this is an ethically sounds decision.
I think that this decision is positive and negative in different ways. It is negative in how we are arming an unstable government. There is no way that this government can be entirely controlled because this form of war is so different than the classic war scenario. Guerilla warfare is undermining the government and not allowing it to become dominant in the country. I think it is a hard sell to say this is an ethical decision, to sell modern aircrafts to the Iraqi government.
In a different lense, Kelly’s article she spoke about how globalization can bring economic development and fiscal stability to developing regions. In this case we are bringing more economic development to a developed nation. The planes are made by Lockheed Martin in the United States, specifically Texas, which will bring more money into the United States which actually a great idea. More economic stability in the United States could lead to more stability in the international markets and therefore increased investor confidence. I do think that selling US made planes is a good idea especially when it can bring in high revenues, but do we end up selling our security?