Military Industrial Complex - Essay Example

The US Military Industrial Complex Since the old days, those people with financial and social interest in war have always had disproportionate influence on the policies of governments. For instance, in the days of the warrior-kings, they were the government. In the ancient times, soldiers share the spoil of ransacked cities. The shogun made a puppet out of the Japanese emperor because of his military power. These examples underscore the fact that the military establishment and its influence is not new to human experience. The MIC The concept of the “military-industrial complex” (MIC) was first introduced by the relatively conservative American President Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell speech. To quote: We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions… The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government… 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. (Eisenhower, 1961) What this Eisenhower speech underscored was that the link between economics and war is a real one especially that the connection operates in contemporary capitalist society through money- making and globalization. Hence, its influence crept up to the highest echelon of the government influencing policy-making to the extent of war-mongering in order to profit. Unfortunately, Eisenhower’s warning is starting to be lost amid the rapid and numerous economic and political developments not just in America but in the global stage. This is not surprising at all. The highly capitalist society of the US and its dominance in the world stage tempered this issue that today, only the left-wing critics tend to advance the cause against the military industrial complex. Indeed, according to the imminent economist, Joseph Schumpeter (1991), the orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes and the influence of those who stand to gain individually from a war policy. (p. 188) Support After the Second World War, the US was the unrivaled power throughout the capitalist world. In addition, the US provided a military security for the West with the existence of a credible threat embodied by the USSR. However, in the 1970s the Soviet Union collapsed and the US security umbrella was no longer needed. The US power began a long decline as the economies in Europe and Japan recovered. This was alarming since according to Richard Appelbaum and William Robinson (2005), the MIC is the structural heart of the US superpower status. (p. 141) Washington, hence, is compelled to exaggerate and even fabricate non-existent threats for economic reasons as well as to justify the US defense expenditure which is pegged at $80 billion. (Harvey 2004, p. 120) Amid the political developments and the global economic changes, there also remained a powerful nationalist wing within the US capitalist class that retained a solid base of support in the military establishment. (p. 141) This sector would eventually help form the viewpoint that the defeat of the USSR created an opportunity for a unilateral empire. For example, a pivotal policy paper was published in 1997 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and signed onto by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and other top White House officials. One of the most important statements of the paper reads: Having led the West to victory, America faces an opportunity and a challenge… Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? What is requires is a military that is strong… a foreign policy that boldly and purposely promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities… at present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible… [This rests on] unquestioned US military preeminence [preventing] others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests. (cited in Gerteiny 2007, p. 102) The abovementioned viewpoint served as a blueprint of the Bush administration’s foreign policy which reflects an aggressive interventionist political mentality. Conspiracy To those who suspect conspiracy, the military industrial complex engages in more than business collusion. For instance, there are those who argue that the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States were the work of the military industrial complex. Or, they can track the post-9/11 anthrax scare to weapons-grade anthrax linked circuitously to the CIA and the Department of Defense. The most extreme suggestions of those who believe in conspiracy theories see the MIC as preparing a coup, a switch from behind-the-scenes control to outright takeover of the United States government. (Salinger 2005, p. 538) The Iraq War Lobbying and propaganda are the most effective tools that the military establishment uses to prop the image the military industry and pander, yes, war. At present, their storyline include appeals to 9/11 terrorist attack and patriotism, free markets, job creation and the supposedly level playing fields of global democracy. During the 1990s, a campaign augment military budgetary allocations for rearmament would have lacked even a superficial credibility and so plans for the promotion of global American leadership through the strengthening of the military took place behind the scenes. This was manifested in the creation of the Project for the New American Century, of which the main advocacy was, as previously mentioned, rearmament, with specific calls for the US military to embrace revolution within its ranks and to forego older, obsolete strategies based on outmoded technology – meaning, to purchase new weaponry and hardware that are technologically advanced. The tragedy of 9/11, however, provided the necessary political circumstance for the implementation of the Bush administration’s policy which greatly aided the MIC as well as propitious psychological environment that made the public embrace and endorse the increase in military spending and the Iraq War. The US invaded Iraq with the aim of removing Saddam Hussein. The caper took the mantle of global coalition as it supposedly was ridding Iraq with weapons of mass destruction that posed threat not just to the US but the Gulf and the world as a whole. As it turned out, no such weapons were found. But the aftermath of the Iraq War saw the benefits the MIC amassed: The Center for Public Integrity documented that 30 members of the Defense Policy Board (non-elected formulators of defense policy in the Pentagon) had ties to companies that received over $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002 alone. Bechtel made hundreds of millions dealing with the Iraqi regime then got hundreds of millions in non-competitive and open-ended rebuilding contracts. Haliburton, another top contractor, reaping millions from the Iraq War, once employed Dick Cheney. The spoils of war could top $100 billion. (cited in Salinger 2005, p. 538) What these disturbing facts tell us is that, the decision to spend large amounts of government money for military purposes, while is still a political decision, has been infiltrated by the military-industrial complex influence. The military industrial complex, however, is not entirely evil when utilized appropriately. This is the case when transnational capitalists (as opposed to the nationalist capitalists) control the state apparatus and, henceforth, the military establishment. For example, during the Clinton administration, there were military engagements in Haiti, Somalia and Kosovo – areas where there were no vital US economic interests. Here, the general interest of global stability was at stake. The army wrote Appelbaum and Robinson, has become a rapid reaction for the global village and that the US was not seeking global hegemony in the interests of the MIC. (p. 143) All in all, as long as crucial international conflicts are to be resolved by force and threats of force, governments of nations likely to be challenged by others seem to have little choice but to try to make their military forces stronger. However, as with the case of the US, once the military-industrial complex is created to produce the military hardware for such end, it tends to be self-sustaining especially amid the backdrop of capitalist economy. It thrives and works its way to encourage attitudes and policies which will work to its own advantage. And so the MIC contributes to the existence of arms race and to the outbreak of limited wars. In the present US administration’s experience, with its close ties to MIC and susceptibility to its influence, war became an extension of policy. The military industrial complex is enriched, along with their direct and indirect beneficiaries including their employees. However, the result, as we see it today, is disastrous for the US. Public opinion not just in America but in Iraq says that majority are in favor of the American troops leaving. In a poll, more than half of the Iraqis surveyed believe that it is okay to kill Americans. (Solheim, p. 192) To say that that the US presence in Iraq or its aim in being there is misplaced is not the issue here. In the point of view of this paper, the Iraq War was deliberate and unilateral on the part of the US. And that its goals were not what it appears to be. The military industrial complex was at work here. The war was wanted because the MIC will profit from the increase of the Pentagon budget, Middle East arms sale would thrive and the military contracts would shot up. In the end, Eisenhower was prophetic: The MIC exists and persists. References Applebaum, Richard and Robinson, William. Critical Globalization Studies. New York: Routledge, 2005. Eisenhower, Dwight. Peace With Justice: Selected Addresses. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Gerteiny, Alfred. The Terrorist Conjunction. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. Harvey, Frank. Smoke and Mirrors: Globalized Terrorism and the Illusion of Multilateral Security. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. Salinger, Lawrence. Encyclopedia of White-Collar and Corporate Crime. SAGE, 2005. Schumpeter, Joseph and Swedberg, Richard. The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism. Princeton University Press, 1991. Solheim, Bruce. The Vietnam War Era: A Personal Journey. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Read More