I am a strong advocate of free trade. I also tend to pooh-pooh complaints about “unfair” Chinese trade practices. I even advocate unilateral free trade in the face of international protectionism as a better alternative to domestic protectionism. Despite all this, there might be a time where even I think free trade can be problematic – or more precisely, when other considerations might trump free trade – and that’s when it involves national security.

Two companies are competing for a contract worth up to a billion dollars to supply the Air Force with a new kind of plane designed for light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) missions. One of the companies is Hawker Beechcraft, a Kansas-based company, and the other is Embraer, which is Brazilian owned and operated. I won’t bother evaluating the relative merits of the two companies’ aviation production capabilities, because I wouldn’t know where to begin. I’ll limit my focus instead to the issues of trade and national security, topics of which I am more familiar.

If someone were to ask me if we should buy military equipment from overseas, I would be forced to give that favorite answer of academics and scientists: it depends. It depends on the equipment, on the country or origin, the available alternatives, and of course the various costs of each.

For instance, many might reflexively say it is better from a national security perspective (all economic considerations being equal for the sake of discussion) to build a plane in the U.S. than to buy it from overseas.  Sounds reasonable enough. But my knowledge of trade and globalization forces me to consider a related question: just how American are those American made planes?

Remember that whole auto bailout fiasco? There were many who justified the intervention on the grounds that there would be no American automotive sector without GM, Ford, and Chrysler.Let’s consider the assumption while setting aside the question of whether the companies would have died for good without government help. What about the cars made right here in America by Toyota or Honda? There is foreign investment in “American” GM, American investment in “foreign” Honda, American jobs created by Toyota, and foreign parts in Ford. In fact, Cars.com found a few years ago that the Toyota Camry was the most American vehicle, besting even Ford’s F-150 on the scale of ‘Americanness.’ So much for saving the “American” automobile sector.

Be skeptical of claims that simplify complex global economic systems into “domestic” versus “foreign.” It’s rarely so simple. The idea that we can construct something with as many working parts as a modern plane of war entirely within the U.S. is simply no longer practical. I’d bet money that even “American” Hawker Beechcraft will be using foreign parts.

Of course, this doesn’t exactly settle the question of whether national security dictates that normal economic considerations be overridden and domestic military manufacturing given special favor. For instance, buying a piece of an airplane from overseas is not exactly the same as purchasing the whole kit and caboodle. Unless the piece can only be purchased from that country, the producer really has no leverage over us, as we can always take our business elsewhere if they try anything fishy.

So where does this leave us? It depends. The issues of national security are grave enough, and the answers to these questions murky enough, that I’m willing to set aside my instincts for unfettered free trade and grant at least a slight home field advantage. I don’t think we should demagogue the idea of using the entire world marketplace to build our military forces where practical, but if it comes down to it, we should start the home team with some extra points on the board.