The Concept of Military Industrial Complex - Essay Example

?   Is the military-industrial complex a result of the reliance of the capitalist economy on military production as a stabilizer? The concept of military industrial complex has a close relationship with the Defense contractors and the Military during the periods between 1950s and 1960s. During these periods, the military was awarded contracts by the Department of Defense to acquire weapons, aircrafts and ordnance. US president Eisenhower was the first person to use the concept of Military industrial complex, when he was leaving office in the year 1951. President Eisenhower used the term to refer to the close ties between the military and industrial sectors. The origin of military industrial complex can be traced during World War II period, when many companies came into contact with the state. Majority of the companies started manufacturing armaments and tanks for the government on a large scale. During the world war, the Department of Defense granted many private companies military contracts in aerospace and the production of military weapons, tanks and vehicles. The US government was not producing weapons like other countries, but contracted private companies to supply the needed military material. As a result of the cold war tensions, many con-agglomerates won valuable defense contracts. This contributed to the rise of stock prices in the year 1960 (Geisst 2006, p.272). The private companies relied on government contracts to get their revenue. The government also appointed high rank officials in the military as executives and consultants. This gave rise to a close relationship between the military and private corporations, which received a lot of criticism. In the recent years, the military-industrial complex terminology has fallen out of use. However, it is still used in reference to the relationship between governments and armaments producers, who spend enormous amount of budget on the defence sector (Geisst 2006, p. 273). Many governments prefer to buy military equipments and supplies from local private companies at an additional cost. This is what yields the label military-industrial complex, which is an established relationship between the defense establishments and the domestic industries. Military hardware accounts for the largest expenditure on total government equipment expenditure. Contracts awarded by department of defense provide suppliers with competitive advantage in financial, technological and commercial terms. The reliance on supplies and armor produced by a state own factory is thought to reduce the dependence on private supplies and the vulnerability of a nation to arms embargo. The production of arms by government can help reduce overpricing, abuse and long term dependence on foreign arm producers and private corporations in a country directly (Schiavo-Campo and Hazel 2008, p.271). The United States has become the powerful and incontestable power that has emerged from the centuries of the development of capitalistic economies. The US takes a center stage on the international economic structure, which relies on the economies of the underdeveloped counties. The U.S internal economy is tied to the world economic system through its continued dependency on its military expenditures and its extended exploitation of third world countries. The emergency of U.S as a world power dates back in mechanical production and technological innovation in the years before 1914. Before the year 1914, America had made access to its expansive natural resources and exploited them, which stimulated foreign trade outlets. This also led to the establishment of a flexible protective tariff system making U.S to benefit from financial assistance from older nations. This made it possible for U.S to develop a good network of transport and communication. During the World war I, U.S business increased as it move in to take advantage of the markets in the post war era (Cannon and Emile 2011, p.15). During this time, Latin America formed a main target for U.S because it was impossible for it to compete with U.S in iron and steel industries. The population of Latin America was also unable to satisfy the demand of iron and steel. The US imperialistic greed was clearly indentified in the control of major raw materials in the global market. After the world war came to an end, US capitalistic leaders embarked on a program to integrate U.S domestic productions demands with third world countries, which increased America’s reliance on its foreign relations with other countries for the stability of their economy. The different third world countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa provide various imports to US. Latin America provided wool, silks, cotton, fibers, mineral ores, hides, tea, coffee, cocoa and fruits (Cannon and Emile 2011, p.15). U.S has also controlled the markets for manufacturing goods through large investments in the foreign companies requiring such raw materials. America purchases essential raw materials from third world countries and sells them to these counties as non-essential or semi-luxury manufactured goods. As the debt of third world countries increases, the more is the increase in purchase of the U.S based products. The U.S grants loans to third world countries to enhance their purchasing power and make them buy more commodities from America (Cannon and Emile 2011, p.15). The pattern of America’s economic dependency has also been reinforced by militarism. US military expenditure forms part of the national budget, and U.S provides military consignments to third world countries in the form of economic aid. Third world countries are required to encourage the continuous flow of foreign investment and production so as to receive the aids. The financial aid received is not supposed to be used in industrial development. The US military programs provide equipment and training to third world countries while providing that these countries make strenuous contribution to areas of defense from their limited resources. Thus, the enhancement of the war machines actions by US are meant to make the capitalists nations commercially and technologically ahead of other countries (Cannon and Emile 2011, p.16). The corporate interests and the intersection of the state during war times rely on the process of war making. Most of the capitalist states rely on the production in the private sector to produce war weapons. During World War II, the major automobile production companies refocused their efforts to the civilian production to serve the needs of the war as the speculation of emergence of the military-industrial complex heightened. The automobile companies resorted to producing tanks, missiles and guns instead of cars. After the world war came to an end, the introduction of a permanent war time economy made providers of logistical and weapons supporters’ regular recipient of U.S government contracts. These included companies such as Boeing, General Electrical, lockhead Martin and Betchel group. The connection between the state and the corporate sector in the production and procument of war weapons revolves around the power elite and the capitalists (Rothe 2009, p.19). War has had an influential effect on US affairs. The integrated interest between the private corporations and U.S government is increasing as more executives from many military contracts fill appointed or elected government positions. The September 9, 2001 attacks, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the persistent wars on terror have also strengthen the corporate-state strategy in war-making in America (Rothe 2009, p.19). The bush administration in U.S had its basis on the economic and political aspects of the military-industrial complex, particularly emphasizing on the energy sector. The reliance on the security apparatus was influential in the filling of positions in organizations in the making of the gas industry the main economic base of U.S. In Russia, the Siloviski, which is made up of security, police, and the military occupy the top positions of power in the gas industry. The Russia’s state capitalist and Siloviski have also monopolized other great companies such as the shipbuilding, nuclear, automobile, and metal production. On the financial matters, the Sberbank and Vneshtorg bank (VTB) dominate with VTB holding assets $ 58 billion and Sberbank controlling 50 % of all the deposits by banks. The rebuilding of power in Russia is related with their involvement in the world economy (Harris 2009, p.44). The US military receive services from arms manufactures and the defense contractors. These contractors and manufacturers supply software, weapons and consultation among other services. Many of the corporations involved with US defense industry supply numerous army products. The corporations depend on the federal government, which cannot supply the products without operations of the large companies. The federal government manufactures arsenal, but in limited numbers. Therefore, in case of any conflict, the federal government turns to private suppliers for the supply (Pavalec 2010, p.8). In the American civil wars, the US government dependent upon private companies such as the Remington Arms Company, the Colt firearms company and the Winchester Repeating firearms company. Other companies such as the Spring Armory company continued testing and producing new armory for the military until 1968. The rapid improvements and developments in military technology in the 20th century made the U.S government arsenal to inadequately supply the military with weapons during war. This is clearly evident from US entry into World War I in the year 1917 (Pavalec 2010, p.8). The World war necessitated for a continuous supply of weapons by civilian arms manufacturers. The Springfield company, which had been contracted by US government was only able to supply 300, 000 rifles for the American soldiers that were participating in the war. The number of arms supplied was inadequate to arm the two million soldiers, who were shipped to Europe. In the war, heavy weapons and vehicles did not reach the battle field as they were not manufactured. This made many of US based corporations to resort to manufacturing of weapons (Pavalec 2010, p.9). The DuPont chemical company manufactured explosives and chemical weapons that were used by allied forces on the western front. During the period of interwar, companies changed their business to weapon production. This sparked a boom in the US economy after the post war period. Springfield company took a center stage by coming up with needed innovations in the productions of arms. This company provided weapons specifications that the private owned companies could supply the American military during the World War II (Pavalec 2010, p.9). America participated in World War II without prior preparations and having a small military force that was undersupplied with equipments. To equip the military with adequate weapons, the private corporations aligned their productions to meet the war time needs. The War production Board selected private corporations to participate in the production of weapons. The War production Board allocated priorities to scarce natural resources such as rubber, plastic, iron ore and fuel. The private corporations lobbied for the production contracts so as to be allocated the natural resources. The US government also converted most production companies to wartime productions. Most Private companies including General motors, John Deere Company and the Ford motor companies produces different battle tanks of the M4 Sherman model, which the US Army Ordinance Deparment had designed. The increased manufacturing ability of US led to production of more than 48,000 Sherman tanks between the year 1941 and 1945 (Pavalec 2010, p. 10). The US government also provided finances that led to the establishment of factories that specialized in the production of complex war weapons. With US government funding, companies such as Consolidated Aircraft Company, North America Aviation and Douglas Aircraft Company produced Bomber aircrafts. During the World War II, the aircraft companies produced 18,000 units of bomber aircraft each costing $ 300,000. The largest defense project in US was the production of atomic bomb. The Manhattan project researched and produced three atomic weapons in a period of four years. The project cost US approximately $ 2bilion. The end of World War II made private corporations to return to production of civilian products (Pavalec 2010, p. 10). The industries in post World War II concentrated on technological advancement, which provided US a good trade relation with other countries on technological expertise. The reliance on high technology by US has led to providing of federal funds to support research between the industries, military and the education sector (Pavalec 2010, p.10). The 1967 Israel- Palestine war made Israel invest in the security department by increasing security allocation by 10%. The increase in allocation comprised 14 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). This led to building up of a strong army. The size and armament of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) was increased so as to be able to secure their boundaries. In the pre-1967 offensive by Israel, the IDF used the ideologies of offensive and defensive. This ideological strategy required the expansion of artillery, air force and armor. The build up of the army led to emergency of a complex set of services and industries that supported the military, and were provided materials by the military. The military industries provided Israel with the ability to produce independent weapons following France imposition of a weapon embargo on Middle East after the war broke out (Levy 1997, p.120). The military industries provided a channel for growth of economy and the creation of employment in the military industries. Israel also embarked on additional projects that produced tanks, missiles and jet warplanes. The Israel government encouraged private firms to participate in military productions through the provision of finances. This led to emergency of new industries such as EL-OP and EL-BIT that increased Israel efficiency in production of Military weapons. The strengthened military productions made Israel a major exporter of military equipments. Most of Israeli political leaders supported the policy on exporting military equipments (Levy 1997, p.121). The main beneficially of Israel military projects were the IDF, business entrepreneurs, managerial groups and organized workers. In Israel, a military industrial complex was created that comprised of senior executives and military officers. A high number of the officers were appointed from the IDF to the military industries. Israel military productions were financed by U.S following the war. U.S provided $ 77 millions in year 1968, $950 million in year 1973 and $1, 2 50 million in the years 1974-80 to Israel military projects (Levy 1997, p.121). Pakistan as a country has had a strong army that is centralized. The Pakistan army has had a significant influence on the nature and course of military industrialization. The Pakistan government officials offer a lot of support in establishing an indigenous Pakistani military industry. The support includes the ability of the military to concentrate on skilled manpower and establish major investments, encourage the civilian industries to produce more materials, parts and military products. The officials also supported the utilization of trained military scientist in the running and advising of civilian industries. The involvement of the military in internal affairs of Pakistan politics has the probability of giving rise to a more developed aspect of military industrial complex in Pakistan (Arnett 1997, p. 165). The South Korean government began its industrial drive in the year 1973. This was after the adoption of a new law on defense tax and the promulgation of a specialized law on defense industries. The specialized law on defense industries provided incentives to private companies to engage in production of goods for the military (Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. 1997, p.59). The interest of North Korean military operates its own economy that is parallel to that of the state. The military has its own trading firms and has preferential access to any foreign technology and imported goods. The Korean army control many conglomerates that were modeled in East German or South Korea. The Korean economic and political policies reflect the idiosyncratic interests of the army because of doctorial rule in North Korean. The manner in which the Northern Korean military and the defense industrial complex take part in the reform process always affect the nature and success of economic developments and the relationship with foreign countries (Haggard & Marcus 2007, p. 218). References List Arnett, E. (1997). Military capacity and the risk of war: China, India, Pakistan and Iran. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press. p.165 Cannon, K. G., Townes, E. M., & Sims, A. D. (2011). Womanist Theological Ethics: A Reader. Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 15-16 Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. (1997). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. Vol. 53, No. 1, p.59. Geisst, C. R. (2006). Encyclopedia of American business history. New York, Facts on File. pp. 272-273 Haggard, S., & Noland, M. (2007). Famine in North Korea: markets, aid, and reform. New York, Columbia University Press. p.18. Harris, J. (2009). The Nation in the Global Era: Conflict and Transformation. London, BRILL. p. 44 Levy, Y. (1997). Trial and error: Israel's route from war to de-escalation. Albany, NY, State Univ. of New York Press. pp. 120-121. Pavelec, S. M. (2010). The military-industrial complex and American society. Santa Barbara, Calif, ABC-CLIO. pp.8-10 Rothe, D. (2009). State Criminality: The Crime of All Crimes. London, Rowman & Littlefield. p. 19 Schiavo-Campo, S., & Mcferson, H. M. (2008). Public management in global perspective. Armonk, N.Y., M.E. Sharpe. p. 271 Read More