From my initial PhD thesis proposal:
The defense industry/international arms trade via government-run foreign military sales (FMS) is not well understood. FMS is oft-times misrepresented in popular media and through agenda-driven reporting/monitoring organizations. Consequently, many people are unaware of the driving forces behind FMS and usually associate FMS with unrealistic but entertaining fantasy or simply object to such activities altogether. The subject is further confused by a myriad of Executive Branch FMS bureaucratic processes, laws, vague regulations, as well Congress.
President Eisenhower’s 1961 (often taken out of context) “military industrial complex” speech contributes to an enduring negative view of the defense industry. Indeed, President Eisenhower’s speech is cited as a warning about the defense industry and its growing influence among the “councils of government.” However, in context, President Eisenhower did not “warn” about the defense industry, he acknowledged the need for a robust defense industry and called on informed citizenry and politicos to “recognize the imperative need for this development.” (The “development” referred to a healthy defense industry). Consequently, far from condemning the defense industry, he was recognizing its vital role in advancing US political, economic and military goals.
I go on to write:
Oft times elected officials, NGOs, academics, Hollywood and media, as well as the general public have a skewed impression as to the defense industry and FMS international arms trade; who controls what and, more importantly in my view, why. They generally think it is all about greed. This is not supported by evidence.
When contrasted with nations such as France, Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, etc., the US places (relatively) onerous restrictions on the use and transfers of US arms.
More of my comments/research:
The US defense industry and the US government work to ensure they operate within the law, as oversight and reporting requirements are many and in plain view (except for classified programs, they come under different laws and reporting requirements and are beyond the scope of this proposed research effort). Indeed, US international arms sales are severely restricted by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), section 505, and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), section 3 (22 U.S.C. 2753) and section 4 (22 U.S.C. 2754). Additional controls are defined in countless other policy manuals and service-specific instructions, as well as mandated in the sales contract—LOA.
More. . .
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery and respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the EQUAL and opposite danger the public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. . .”
Comment:
I’ve worked in DoD where we worked with the defense industry. Also upon retirement, I worked for the defense industry. I found much ignorance about FMS and the defense industry. It seems “everyone” feels like they know what goes on in the defense industry, but what “they” know, they don’t really know, and with hollywood and TV making movies advancing nonsense, it is filling minds with conspiracy and sneaky wrong-doings when in fact, the defense industry is a very transparent process and most who work in the defense industry have friends and family still serving so they don’t push for wars because they have a personal stake at risk. Thus my motivation to pursue my PhD in International Relations, focused to the Defense Industry and Foreign Military Sales.
“the defense industry is a very transparent process and most who work in the defense industry have friends and family still serving so they don’t push for wars because they have a personal stake at risk.”
**************
Here’s my “thesis”…
Many of the leading companies in the defense industry are publicly traded companies that have millions of shareholders. Anyone who thinks these companies are not influenced by those owners is ignoring reality. Those companies, like all companies, are in business to make money.
Their profits and indeed their cost of capital is largely a function of their revenue growth, which is driven by demand for their products and services. That hard fact is not lost on the CEO, the board, the corporate officers, the shareholders, and the industry analysts who can affect the fortunes of a company.
Not saying they are warmongers but they obviously benefit financially from rising defense expenditures and have every incentive to contribute to the political campaigns of politicians who are supportive of their industry, which typically means they are sympathetic to U.S. engagements abroad.
So it’s not about being influenced by “Hollywood and TV making movies” but more by a recognition of the realities of politics and business. Even honorable people can be influenced in subtle psychological ways by events and things that are beneficial to them. And unfortunately, wars are good for business.
Comment:
I also worked in DoD and IN the defense industry for a period of time. Despite our similar experiences we obviously have different perspectives on the industry. With regard to your comment about the ignorance of “everyone” who doesn’t share your view, you don’t have a monopoly on the truth and should not be so dismissive of those who hold different opinions. Not everyone who see’s things different than you do is someone tryung to “fill minds with conspiracy and sneaky wrong-doings”.