Posted on 08/25/2024 2:51:11 PM PDT by Jyotishi
Opinion
The American military-industrial complex, coined by President Eisenhower in 1961, has shaped US foreign policy and military strategy while perpetuating global conflicts The American military-industrial complex, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961, refers to the synergistic relationship between a nation's armed forces, its defence industry, and its political establishment. This complex has played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy and military strategy, leading to extensive global influence and numerous conflicts over the past century. While wars undoubtedly bring immense destruction and suffering, they have also generated substantial profits for certain American entities, fueling a cycle of conflict and economic gain. The roots of the American military-industrial complex can be traced back to World War II.
The massive mobilization of resources for the war effort transformed the U.S. into a leading military power, with a robust defence industry emerging to meet the demands of the global conflict. Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics became integral to the war effort, producing aircraft, ships, and weapons on an unprecedented scale.Post-World War II, the geopolitical landscape underwent significant changes. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union necessitated a perpetual state of military readiness, leading to sustained government investment in defence. This period saw the establishment of a permanent arms industry and the proliferation of defence contractors, further entrenching the military-industrial complex in the American economy and politics.
The U.S. emerged as a superpower with global responsibilities and interests, often justified by the need to contain communism. This new role required maintaining and expanding military bases worldwide, ensuring a constant state of preparedness.The Korean War (1950-1953) was one of the first significant conflicts of the Cold War era, where the U.S. engaged militarily to curb the spread of communism in Asia. This war marked the beginning of a pattern where military engagements, often initiated under the guise of ideological battles, served to bolster the defence industry. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) further exemplified this, as it became one of the most prolonged and controversial conflicts in American history. The war generated vast profits for defence contractors but at the cost of immense human suffering and domestic turmoil.
The Cold War Era: Sustained Conflict and Profiteering. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. participated in numerous proxy wars and military interventions, from Latin America to the Middle East. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the support for anti-communist regimes across the globe underscored America's commitment to combating Soviet influence. Each conflict provided a pretext for increased military spending and innovation in weapons technology, ensuring continued profits for the defence industry.
One of the most significant developments during this period was the arms race, characterized by the rapid development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) necessitated a continuous enhancement of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, benefiting companies involved in nuclear weapons production.
This period also saw advancements in missile technology, stealth aircraft, and other sophisticated weaponry, all funded by the American taxpayer.The end of the Cold War did not diminish the influence of the military-industrial complex. Instead, new threats emerged, and the complex adapted accordingly.
The Gulf War (1990-1991) showcased America's technological military prowess and reaffirmed the country's commitment to protecting its interests in the oil-rich Middle East. Defence contractors reaped substantial profits from the war, supplying everything from precision-guided munitions to advanced combat systems.
The attacks on September 11, 2001, marked the beginning of the War on Terror, a prolonged conflict that further solidified the military-industrial complex's grip on American foreign policy.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq resulted in a dramatic surge in defence spending, with companies like Halliburton and Blackwater (now Academi) securing lucrative contracts for reconstruction and security services.
In recent years, the military-industrial complex has continued to thrive, driven by ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, rising tensions with Russia and China, and the global war on terrorism.
The U.S. defence budget remains the largest in the world, with substantial funds allocated to developing next-generation weapons systems and maintaining a vast network of military bases. The recent assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, former Prime Minister of Palestine and head of Hamas, by Israel in Iran, with American support, underscores the enduring influence of the military-industrial complex. This act, and the subsequent American military buildup in the region, exemplifies how geopolitical manoeuvres often serve dual purposes: advancing strategic interests and ensuring continued profits for the defence industry. As Eisenhower warned, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." This cautionary message remains as relevant today as it was over six decades ago, reminding us of the intricate and often perilous relationship between war, politics, and profit.
(The writer is an assistant professor at Pondicherry University; views are personal)
related to Smedley Butler by chance?
The only thing we need is the Navy. We should reduce the size of our armed forces, there reduce the influence of the MIC.
ALL wars are Banker’s wars.
ALL!!!
The MIC is profiting so much that expenditures on defense are nearly at an all time low as a % of GDP, since WW2.
If you listen to Eisenhower’s speech, it was Big Everything he warned. Any collusion between big government and business.
He was warning of fascism.
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961, refers to the synergistic relationship between a nation’s armed forces, its defence industry, and its political establishment. <
No one has higher standing to comment on this issue than Ike. No one. And he thought the topic was important enough to discuss head-on. That’s telling.
Congressman: I will not vote for this bloated defense bill.
Lobbyist: There’ll be money in it for your home district.
Congressman: This bill must pass!
What’s the solution? Giving the president a line-item veto? I personally don’t think there is a solution. It will be borrow and spend until the whole thing collapses in a Weimar-like mess.
.
All time PERCENTAGE LOW of a BLOATED budget is still Fugly high.
All one needs to do is Observe profits of MIC corporations. I have 2 close relatives working in MIC corporations. It is Fugly obscene waste of taxpayers money.
Ok, post % profit numbers for recent years, for the industry as a whole, for sales to the USA.
I am not your secretary. Google it. You can find yourself.
Ferengi rule of acquisition #34. War is good for business.
Yup, the “F” word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VES2JiYNITM&t=6669s
Per this, the top 5 defense contractors earned $13-14,000,000,000.
Go to the 2:18:00 mark or so and they’ll start talking about the M.I.C., etc.
/obligatory warning about military guys, drinking, and foul words.
YOU are the person accusing the MIC of obscene profits. Back it up or get lost.
FINALLY THEY ARE GETTING IT!
Thanks for the find!
I will interject. Congress is bypassing the DOD and sending it directly to the Ukraine, Isreal, and other countries to buy war products from the MIC suppliers.
The U.S. is NOT the only customer. We the taxpayers pay through proxy countries.
Good job generals on that pullout from Afganistan. promotions all around. You will be as successful as the starting Soviet generals against Hitler.
No we should unilaterally disarm and become the compassionate nation the socialists want, where every one is equal except some will need more than others, but on the whole, equal when we stand in long lines, hoping the food item we need will still be in stock. We can be assured that the store will compassionately turn us away, even though we are singing praises to the most beloved female President we never elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.