When conflict and war become an openly and unabashedly lucrative private marketplace, we as a nation have a problem. In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in no uncertain terms outlined the perils of an unchecked military industrial complex[1]. Acknowledging the need for a strong defense, he issued an eloquent yet stern warning against the merging of private, profit driven industrial forces with the newly created international superpower and it’s mighty military forces. Yet less than fifty years later we find that this warning has gone unheeded as the influence of the United States defense industry has saturated nearly every aspect of our government and policy.
Until the United States involvement in World War One, her military forces were primarily defensive in nature, with limited influential combat deployments overseas, however upon recognizing the gap between the German war machine and their own offensive capabilities, an effort to bolster the armed forces went into effect. By the beginning of World War Two the US’s military forces had grown considerably and with America joining in the fight against the Axis powers in Europe and Asia, it became obvious that a greater system would be required for adequate military hardware production. Looking to the private industrial and manufacturing base which had been in serious need of assistance after the troubles of the stock market crash and dust bowl depression, the government reached out and formed a bond which would last for decades to come.
Beyond the Springfield Arms company who in large part produced the bulk of the conventional small arms used, other companies that one would not often think of as “military contractors” assisted the war effort as well, with La-Z-Boy halting production of recliners and instead making seats for tanks and air planes. Though a great deal of patriotism was involved in the corporate efforts to support America’s fighting forces, another prime factor was the profit potential that a constant and urgently needed production request would garner. As the war came to an end and the Cold War tensions began their half century lifespan, the arms buildup experienced during World War Two would soon be dwarfed by the arms race which was to come.
Seeking to battle back the Communist Russian empire and establish an unquestioned dominance in the world of it’s own, the United States began expanding it’s weapons and defense programs to cover not just the present threats but any potential threats lurking in the future. As this desire for blanket security and universal military superiority continued, the collusion of the military and it’s private sector industrial support base flourished. By the nineteen sixties the billions of dollars being spent on national defense got yet another boost when the United State’s presence in Vietnam escalated into full on war.
As the business of the defense industry increased, it soon found as many industries do, that a certain level of influence comes with top dollar government contracting. Between the billions of dollars appropriated federally, the massive labor and production bases they created as well as the increasing intimacy with elected officials, the military industrial complex is a political creature born of bloodshed, corruption and good wholesome capitalism.
Today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the reach and influence of the defense industry and it’s peripheral support industries is greater than ever. Eisenhower’s worst fears have become reality, as the United States of all other precedents, currently holds as one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers. On a daily basis missiles, strike fighters, bombs and small arms are sold to foreign nations through the United States government and produced by way of cost-plus-fee-award[2] contracts to the very defense contractors who broker the requests in the first place.
CIA documents and declassified foreign affairs records show that these such foreign sales can be made and finalized regardless of political, regional or humanitarian issues and unless an active state of war is declared, they can and often are also brokered with enemies. The first Iraq war, known as Desert Storm, officially began it’s military operations in theatre on August 2nd, 1990 and came as little surprise to those paying attention. However what was less apparent during the run up to war was that the United States had continued selling Saddam Hussein weapons, including helicopters with chemical weapon delivery systems, short and medium ranged missiles and even surplus Soviet hardware purchased on the open market after the fall of Communism in the Eastern block of Europe.
As it was, Hussein had previously been an ally. Set up in the midst of Operation Gladio[3], Hussein had previously worked for the United States as a secular military power block set in a region populated by unfriendly Islamic nations. After assisting him in the seizing of Iraq by way of a coup, the United States began flooding Iraq with weapons technologies for the proxy war with Iran. Turning a blind eye as Saddam turned those weapons on his own people, these considerably arms contracts continued throughout the nineteen eighties, until the beginning of the United State’s war in Kuwait and Iraq.
In a region with as much conflict as the middle east, one would wonder why in the midst of over three decades of attempted peace negotiations, that the United States would see fit to flood the area with so much military technology, yet still in addition to Israel, the US continues to sell weapons to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, many of whom have less than sterling human rights records.
Now it is widely known that in American politics money is the root of influence and with the millions of dollars forked over by major industries for the funding of political campaigns, the power and influence of those whose industries are tied to national interests becomes greater with every dollar. Currently Congressman Thomas Davis from Virginia’s 11th Congressional District is being billed as one of the top defense industry campaign contribution recipients with over $165,280 having been accepted from the defense aerospace, defense technology and other defense related industries for an incumbent congressional campaign in a district of 444,234 registered voters. Of the companies contributing, BAE Systems stands as both one of the largest contributors, as well as one of the largest employers in the area, with more than eight facilities statewide. Among the others who were likely donors were undoubtedly Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing.
Though it could be argued that the participation in our democratic process and the providing of stable, high paying jobs within American industry are the actions of good corporate citizens, the fundamental quid-pro-quo aspects of the defense industry’s relationship to government and the means in which these jobs and contributions are used as a manner of securing corporate interests can also be seen as a great deal less than ethical. This is best demonstrated in the way in which their research and development (R&D) and production bases have been broken up and the labor diffused throughout the country. For nearly every contracted developmental weapons technology program put into production, each corporate contractor who participates will generally break up the work which they are given and spread it out among numerous facilities nationwide.
This broad based industrial labor force would be a wholly beneficial nuance of the defense industry, were it not for the manner in which it is used. As a great number of jobs depend on the industry’s ability to keep production running, the amount of leverage that an individual defense contractor can exert on a member of congress when the question is jobs in his or her district, combined with the financial dependency which campaigning politicians have for soft money assistance, speak strongly as to whether our elected officials see the production of arms and weapons technology as a matter of civil interest or simply big business.
It is by way this balance of political capital and soft money that a good number of defense industry proposals are fast tracked. From international sales of aircraft, missile and small arms technology, to the funding and perpetuation of wasteful multi-billion dollar pet projects, such as the V-22 Osprey Gunship, billions of dollars are sunk into the pockets of executives for what is often sub-par performance.
With missed deadlines, cut corners and sometimes even outright fraud on behalf of the developmental research teams, many times defense industry projects will become embattled when brought into the light of public discussion. Often times the projects themselves will come under scrutiny simply for their effectiveness and usefulness. A recent debate over the purposed missile shield in Europe has begun rehashing an old debate within the guided weapons R&D crowd as to whether or not multiple kill vehicles and kinetic energy interceptors are even feasible. Many of the detractors will point out that with anything less than a one in four hit rate for missile to missile testing usually denotes a broken system and a money pit.
Now up until this point the focus has been primarily set on the more conventional aspects of the Military Industrial Complex, however since the events of 9/11, a considerable amount of fear has driven the nation to passively accept and in some cases even actively support an enormous expansion of the private sector role in America’s national defense. Whereas once the military industrial base was relied upon primarily for R&D and production, it has more recently adopted a new role providing on the ground logistical support for military forces in theatre. As yet another new war arrives, so does yet another new war profiteer.
From delivering supplies to out of the way outposts to the very bathing and feeding of the troops, nearly every non combat support role has either already been privatized or is in process of doing so currently. And while US soldiers and marines risk and often lose their lives while safeguarding KBR or Halliburton cheesecake convoys, the US State Dept. currently relies on contracted, civilian para-military security teams for the protection of their diplomats and employees. In essence the current, unspoken position of the US Government is one in which the “heroes” of our armed forces are brave and respected enough to guard corporate commodities, yet either regarded as either lacking in the skill or the trust required to protect US State Dept. envoys.
Now though once again on a theoretical level, much of this would seem a prudent approach to assisting the military in streamlining combat support operations, the depth and diversity of controversy and sometimes downright corruption surrounding these emerging enterprises causes one to stop and ponder the nature of outright profiting from international conflict. With the recent controversy and resulting media scrutiny of Blackwater USA, a private contract security firm whose methods and personnel amount to what many feel is a mercenary outfit, questions regarding the government’s vetting of military support contractors and beginning to enter popular discussion. Yet even these questions and concerns only serve to scratch the surface as it is the type of contract and manner in which they are awarded which leaves the impression that the overall vetting process relies mainly on reviews of who scratched who’s back during a given election season.
But with such corruption, or at the very least with such exertion of influence, one must not look solely at the elected federal government alone. With a rather extensive list of retired or otherwise separated military officers serving as corporate executives and board members, the defense industry carries significant clout within the armed services themselves. Often time weapons platforms or other proposals for new defense projects are made to congress directly by the pentagon. Many times such proposals are floated initially from the private sector through the military by senior officers or even commanders, who after receiving final approval for funding, will often abruptly retire from the military and accept civilian jobs making millions of dollars as executive advisors to the same companies who are awarded the development contracts.
Duty, honor and service not withstanding, in the Army’s 2008 budget appropriations request, over half a billion dollars has been requested for the aforementioned V-22 Osprey (p. 256 – House 2008 DoD Appropriations Bill), while at the same time requesting zero dollars for laundries, showers and latrines (p. 199 – House 2008 DoD Appropriations Bill). It would seem that in their haste to support the very troops who fight the wars, they found an overpriced, aerial gunship which in test after test has been shown to neither shoot, nor fly straight, to be more valuable than a soldier’s ability to stay clean and sanitary. In addition to the Osprey, a whole host of expensive and often baffling project proposals were submitted in the request.
Among them are;
• $75,754,000 for High Energy Laser research and development (laser guns), which was awarded in full.
• $78,704,000 for Advance Military Spacecraft (space fighters), which received twenty million more than the initial request.
• $3,035,222,000 for classified DARPA projects, the most recently declassified of which includes remote control moths and neural implant impulse control technology. (Mind control and remote control bugs.)
These are but three of hundreds of long term, cutting edge productions contained within the House DoD Appropriations bill which serve no immediate purpose and yet still no contracts have been secured for the procurement of Dragonskin body armor, which has been shown in conclusive tests to be both more tactically wearable as well as greatly resistant to the standard 7.62 mm rounds fired by the AK-47. Nor for that matter has the military begun mass scale production requests for the new Barrett M468 assault rifle, which though retaining the technical and structural aspects of the M4 and M16 rifles, has been shown to has greater stopping power, accuracy and range as it uses a 6.8 mm round as opposed to the 5.57 mm round used currently.
As these billions of dollars in defense contracts are brokered, additional millions are spent in operational costs for the Air Force and Air National Guard training exercises in which F-22 and F-35 advanced strike fighters are sent to do battle with imaginary Soviet bomber wings and Mig-21 escorts. Though the intense training of our airmen is how we maintain dominance in the air, the long distance engagement of phantom Soviet threats could seem almost as wasteful as the Pentagon’s expensive desire for laser guns and space fighters, and as we send soldiers to fight what is unanimously referred to as a “new kind of war,” we send them out lacking the innovative and cutting edge technologies offered by the smaller manufacturers like Pinnacle Armor, largely as many suspect, due to their outsider status in the realm of mainstream industrial defense contracting. In essence, while missile projects which are still in development are bought multi-million dollar tech upgrades, the upgrading of rifles and body armor for the actual troops are put on the back burner.
Ultimately the issues surrounding the Military Industrial Complex are those of priorities and values. As the leading superpower in the world, we do have an inalienable need to maintain a strong defense and with the threat of international terrorism looming on the horizon, this is even more so. However as the business of warfare and war machine technologies has changed from a vital national interest to financial one, the motivations of those at the top remain highly suspect and given the close ties to legislators, military brass and even the intelligence community, the potential for a corporate push to war to increase market shares is something that must be examined closely. As a matter of principal, war should always be a nation’s last resort when in conflict with other nations, yet as long as there are those in power who’s pockets grow fatter as innocents die, the influence and power of this industry will remain frightening at the very least.
Cabalena, Juan. “Congressional Contact Listing.”
November 27, 2007 http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/downloads/ContactingCongress.txt
House of Representatives. “Alphabetical Member Listing.”
November, 2007
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Pinnacle Arms. “Dragonskin Body Armor”
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
© 1998-2007 Pinnacle Armor. All Rights Reserved.
Barrett Arms Co. “M-468 Assault Rifle”
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx
©2006 Barrett Firearms
Why We Fight. Dir. Eugene Jareki
BBC Storyville. 2005
Specialist Sorensen, Jared. United States Army – Interview with Nicholas Goroff. 29 Nov, 2007.
Wikipedia. “Military Industrial Complex.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
27 Nov, 2007
House of Representatives.
“2008 House of Representatives Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.”
July 30, 2007
Maplight.org. “Congressional Campaign Contributions.”
http://www.maplight.org
28 Nov, 2007
Borgen Project. “Comparitive Spending Data.”
http://www.borgenproject.org/defense_spending.html
18 Nov, 2007.
________________________________________
[1] Initially written as military-industrial-congressional-complex, the term was reduced in an effort to placate the legislature.
[2] Cost-plus-fee-award – A style of government contract wherein the net profit expectations of the contracting corporation(s) are paid in full in addition to cost expenditures which are also paid for in full with tax revenue.
[3] Operation Gladio – A massive CIA operation which promoted foreign regime change by way of false flag operations, political and military coups and even on occasion assassinations.
Nicholas Goroff: The Wizard of Cause 