The Military-Industrial Complex of America - Essay Example

The Shaping of America: The Military-Industrial Complex "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." President Dwight David Eisenhower Ever since President Eisenhower gave his 1961 farewell address and warned the public of the looming Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), the issue of the civilian industrial component of the national defense system has had the nation's attention. The phenomena began in Europe in the late 1800s as modern warfare found the necessity for more complex and heavier armament. Historians also place its American roots in the late 19th century as the country turned to civilian shipbuilders to supply the Navy with a new class of warships. The Military Industrial Complex is more than just a weapons supply system. It is a unique partnership that continues to exert substantial power and influence, has sustained America's arms superiority, and reshaped the American landscape as well as its economy. The beginnings of the expansion of the MIC can be attributed to Captain A.T. Mahan and his book The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783 (Liu 2). The book, published in 1890, was a series of lectures that Mahan had given at the Naval War College. Mahan's book initiated the beginnings of an expanded civilian shipbuilding business to supply the Navy with warships. Subsequent to the publication of Mahan's book, the first US battleship was built in 1893. Under the leadership of President Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1909, an advocate of Mahan's theories, American civilian shipbuilders built 129 battleships under his administration (Liu 10). This major military buildup is generally viewed as the beginning of the MIC. World War II and its reliance upon the MIC had a profound effect on America both demographically and economically. During World War II, the Department of Defense spent in excess of $70 billion on civilian aerospace and defense contracts of which most were directed into California and the Southwest ("The Rise of the Sunbelt"). This increased spending in the region gave rise to the areas massive migration and sowed the seeds of the decline in the 'Rustbelt'. With the reliance on new technology, the military depends on civilian contractors for research and production. The nuclear buildup of the Cold War was an example of the MIC at work. It has been estimated that during the Cold War, the MIC employed 1 out of 3 research scientists and engineers in the US and spent 60% of the research and development dollars available (Cypher 37). This spending in the civilian sector by the Pentagon forms the backbone of the modern MIC and fuels the powerful influence it holds and creates the anxiety that it generates. The MIC is often viewed as a partnership that was formed during the Cold War in an effort to maintain "...peacetime defense spending to 'wartime' levels" (Bruntin). The fear through the Cold War and Vietnam was that this self-interested group would promote their own agenda at the public's expense. Reports of corruption, bribery, and fraud have served to maintain this image in the minds of many Americans (Bruntin). As the Cold War wound down the public anticipated a peace dividend that never arrived. The MIC has been subsequently put to use against new international enemies and the war on terror. The MIC is a cooperative effort between the military, industry, and the government. Sometimes called the iron triangle, the alliance between these groups is a necessary factor in America's arm superiority. The military has the motivation to keep an ongoing civilian supply of weapons research and development, even in periods of peace. The contractors have a need to continue to receive tax dollars to maintain their revenue stream. Politicians have an interest in maintaining a strong military, and contract dollars are fought for as politicians seek to increase military spending in their home district. The military requests weapons, industry requests dollars, and the politicians sell the program to the public. Major contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrup-Grumman, and Boeing dominate the industrial side of the MIC equation. In 2005, almost 50% of the federal civilian contractor budget, which includes domestic emergency and infrastructure funding, was concentrated in the top 10 military contractors ("Top 100", Shane and Nixon). The total spent by the top 10 was $185 billion dollars. These companies rely on defense spending that accounts for between 50% - 100% of their total revenue. Lockheed Martin is solely run on military contacts while Boeing also has a civilian aircraft division. It is this reliance on military spending that threatens the prudent judgment of the government. The nation may be forming foreign policy based on the economic needs of our industrial base. With a decline in the civilian aircraft demand in the wake of 9/11, the aerospace industry has been especially dependent on military spending. According to a Lockheed spokesman, the recent $4 billion contract that they were awarded for the production of 60 C130J aircraft will "...ensure that the plant's 7,000 employees retain their jobs" ("Defense Spending"). Many of these contractors have excess capacity and the defense spending, though not increasing employment, is forestalling the necessity of layoffs (Defense Spending). During recent decades this economic benefit has been a major argument in favor of defense spending. The economic effect of the MIC and the resulting political support for it is also contingent on several other factors. Bruntin sees the MIC as a collection of societal forces. One of the driving forces that Bruntin describes is the "revolving door". This is the effect of people leaving military service and entering the civilian contractor workforce. People also cycle between government service and military contractors. It is sometimes difficult to see where the military ends and the civilian component begins. A recent notable example is Vice President Dick Cheney. He is the ex-CEO of Halliburton, the nation's 10th largest defense contractor ("Top 100"). People are routinely cycled between the Defense Department and the civilian industry component. There is also the necessity of a public willingness to maintain a state of preparedness. Bruntin contends that this has become, "... an institution in the sense that the idea that during peacetime the country should be constantly prepared for war has become a habit of thought". This habit is constantly refreshed by "defense pressure groups" that lobby on behalf of the MIC to heighten the public's awareness of increasing threats to national security (Bruntin). In the 6-year period of 1998-2004, defense lobbyists spent $2 billion dollars in an effort to sway public opinion and curry political favor (Knott). The passing of the Cold War has turned the efforts of these lobbyists to focus on other global threats. This massive spending has had immeasurable effect on the US economy. Critics have pointed out that the money spent on military armament is drawn out from, and therefore reduces the civilian economy, but others claim it is not that simple (Cypher 37). The loss to the civilian economy can be stated as the opportunity cost. Cypher argues that when military research and development declines as a percentage of GNP, it is accompanied by an overall reduction in our nation's productivity (38). If the opportunity costs to the economy were greater than the military spending we would expect to see the opposite effect. The military has also fueled innovation and new industries. Military research and development invests heavily in new products and is initially the only market for them. This has been true with aerospace, semiconductors, and computers (Cypher 44). As these products find their way into commercial applications, they spawn industries that may not have been developed outside the MIC. Our space program, and the products that it has initiated, was largely the result of a perceived military application. As has been demonstrated, MIC spending not only creates jobs, in many cases it saves them. On a regional and local basis, there can be no doubt about the positive effect that contractors have on the local economy. However, on a national basis the money might be better spent to provide more jobs than through military contractors. The average military contractor spends $104 per employee hour, which is roughly double the amount spent "...on the pay and benefits of a comparable federal worker" (Shane and Nixon). However, Lockheed Martin's spending of $285 per employee hour is roughly equal to Dresser-Rand Corporation, which manufactures commercial heavy equipment ("At a Glance, Dresser-Rand). Spending these dollars building roads, providing education, or improving the infrastructure could add twice as many jobs but not provide the same product type. In conclusion, the MIC is a vital part of our nation's ability to maintain military superiority. It is capable of developing and producing the most advanced weapons systems in the world. It also has the political clout to sway public opinion and peddle political influence. America needs to stay vigilante against the self-interest of the contractors becoming our nation's foreign policy. Contractors may also have a motive for influencing foreign governments in an effort to open up new arms markets around the world. We may be able to create more jobs by spending the money on services instead of guns, but defense is necessarily an expensive business. America needs to maintain our fine balance between defensive needs and corporate greed to assure that we will maintain the superior military position that the free world has come to depend on. Works Cited "At a Glance." Lockheed Martin. 2005. Lockheed Martin. 14 Apr. 2007 Brunton, Bruce. "An Historical Perspective on the Future of the Military-Industrial Complex." Social Science Journal 28.1 (1991). EBSCO. 14 Apr. 2007. Cypher, James M. "Military Spending, Technical Change, and Economic Growth: A disguised Form of Industrial Policy." Journal of Economic Issues 21.1 (1987): 33-59. EBSCO. 14 Apr. 2007. "Defense Spending Flies High in the Southeast." EconSouth. Summer 2003. 14 Apr. 2007 . Dresser-Rand. Annual Report 2006. Houston: Dresser-Rand, 2007. Eisenhower, Dwight D. "What Is the Military-Industrial Complex." Ed. Christopher Ball. History News Network. 22 July 2002. George Mason University. 14 Apr. 2007 . Knott, Alex. "The Pentagon's Stealth Rainmaker." Outsourcing the Pentagon. 29 Sep. 2004. The Center for Public Integrity. 14 Apr. 2007 . Liu, Elson. "Alfred Thayer Mahan-Father of Sea Power." Academic Portfolio. 18 Mar. 2003. University of Michigan. 14 Apr. 2007 . Shane, Scott, and Ron Nixon. "U.S. Contractors Becoming a Fourth Branch of Government." International Herald Tribune 4 Feb. 2007. 14 Apr. 2007 . "The Rise of the Sunbelt." Digital History. 2006. 14 Apr. 2007 . "Top 100." Defense News. 27 Feb. 2006. Army Times Publishing. 14 Apr. 2007 . Read More