Wackerfuss

1
Annelise Wackerfuss
American Foreign Policy
November 1, 2016

MILITARY- INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I.
Introduction

Since the formation of the United States of America, the military has been establishing
itself as a priority in U.S. domestic and international policy. This prioritization has led to a
powerful Military-Industrial Complex that exercises great influence on American Foreign Policy.
As a result, policy initiatives of peace and disarmament have become clouded. Defense
industries seek to maximize profit by exporting weapons into the hands of U.S. allies and
enemies. The Military-Industrial Complex exists not tangibly, but as a buoy in the water to
identify and observe. Scholars are better able to explain and analyze the complexs effects on
foreign policy by defining a connection amidst the military, the defense industry and Congress.
Scholars refer this combination as the Iron Triangle.
The arms industry spends tens of billions of dollars a year lobbying congress to raise
defense budgets and stabilize demand for weapons. This cancer of diplomacy seeps into
alliances and partnerships with foreign governments and escalates Americas propensity to use
force. Former President and Army General, Dwight Eisenhower felt strongly that U.S. citizens
had a right to understand the potential of the MIC before he left office. During his Presidential
Farewell Speech, he advised that the American people must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

II.
Quilt of Money and Influence

To understand the relationship between the national military, the defense industry and
U.S. domestic representation one must look to history to unweave the quilted aspects of the
MIC. The relationship between a national military and Congress was set in place by the
founding document of the United States, the Constitution. The document places the president
of the United States as Commander in Chief of the armed forces while designating war powers
to the Senate. An evolution of war blossomed the military into specialized branches- the Army,
Navy, eventually the Air Force for intelligence and air offensives, Marines, CIA, FBI. This created
a stratification of objectives and a need for the Department of War. A civilian agency created to
administer the U.S. Army.
During the American Civil War in the early 1860s, the Department of War handled the
recruiting, training, supply, medical care, transportation and pay of two million soldiers. Around
WW1, the civilian and military competition for limited supplies almost paralyzed U.S. industry
and transportation, especially in the North. President Woodrow Wilson, assisted by industrial
advisors, reorganized the supply system in efforts to control the bureaus and war industry. This
kept things running smoothly until World War II. The General Manager of the War Department,
General Marshall, was closely advising President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on military strategy
and expelled little effort in his administrative duties required of the General Manager.

Wackerfuss 2
Members of the department followed Marshalls lead, resulting in the entirety of the War
Department directing itself toward a global war. The National Security Act of 1947, signed by
President Truman, solidified a supply system to the military by creating the Department of
Defense. Whole new industries and defense-dependent firms were bred in lock step with a
permanent bureau centralized in the newly constructed Pentagon.
Policy wise, major pushes to advance sheer military strength were set in motion. The
Eisenhower administrations Doctrine of Massive Retaliation politically and financially backed
the research & development of new weapons and destructive force. Another push occurred in
1957, when the Russian government succeeded at placing Sputnik in space. This brought
aerospace technology into the dreams of military and industry men alike. The Cold Wars
implications were seen monetarily with Pentagon funding that created an influx of mass
produced capital and consumer goods. As well as politically when U.S. foreign policy took a
sharp turn from confronting communist related aggression to an anti-communist containment
strategy. This is the first premonition of Americas role as what scholars some call the global
police force. Since that time, the United States has successfully promoted regime change in Iran
(1953), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1960-2015), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). When
sustained, this savior-type narrative is expensive to fund and pushes military spending beyond
purely strategic concerns.
Due to claims for national security and the vastness of the organization, the Pentagons
spending has never been audited by the IRS. This makes it impossible to verify military dollars
and channels. Repercussions of such autonomy can be viewed in the use of Pentagon dollars to
create industrial complexes across America as a means of supplying the expanding military.
Prosperous land in California orchards, Arizona and New Mexico deserts, on Utah salt flats, in
the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and in Florida swamps has been purchased and converted
into resource super sites for military use. The inverse lack of research and development dollars
in the non-military economy had a hand in creating industrial wastelands out of cities that had
once been the industrial core of America- Detroit, Michigan for example. Defense industries
and contractors allow the United States military to circumnavigate policy, free from diplomatic
and democratic restrictions.

III.
Eisenhowers Warning


In his farewell speech in January of 1961, President Eisenhower, former Commander
and Chief of the Allied Forces in WW2, took a moment to shed light on a force he feared would
manipulate policy to the disservice of the American public. In his speech he warned
Americans to, guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the Military-Industrial Complex. The president identified a potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power. Power that is the total strength of the United States of
America misplaced in the hands of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry that reap benefits from creating conflict. Eisenhower may have been anticipating the
influence the United States would have in the New World Order after WW2. A World Order that
would strive for global prosperity, peace and disarmament.
The most legitimate enemy of that peace may be MIC and their potential to mislead
foreign policy decisions. Defense industries are responsible for the manufacturing and sales of

Wackerfuss 3
weapons, military technology and equipment. The industry is comprised of civilian companies
like Intel, Raytheon, The Boeing Company and General Dynamics. Companies are involved in
the research and development, engineering, production, and servicing of military material,
equipment, and facilities. The U.S. has seen arms sales increase by 35 percent, or nearly $10
billion, to $36.2 billion in 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service report.
Revenue generated is partly used fund candidates or initiatives in return for larger
military budgets and confidentiality. A 2012 study, found that 70% of retired three and four-star
generals took jobs with defense contractors or consultants. At the individual level of analysis-
this career path allows Generals to use the knowledge and connections from their time in the
service to facilitate business relations and maximize revenue. The double-dipping between
enticing industry salaries and pensions provided by the American tax payers, provides another
clue as to why so many Generals pursue a career change. From the system level- This common
career path may establish an indestructible alliance between the military and industry in the
United States. As should be expected, according to Armin Krishnan, a scholar who suggests that
the primary goal of a bureaucracy is to expand. Eisenhower must have also understood this
characteristic of a bureaucracy when he warned against the influence of such an actor in
foreign policy.

IV.
Implications for America

Along with resource attainment and threat containment, modern day U.S. military
strength is projected over issues of International human rights. To fully comprehend the
conspiracy of the Military-Industrial Complex, it is relevant to examine the validity and bias of
narratives that are presented to the public. International human rights organizations (Most of
which, align with western ideology) like Amnesty International, the U.N. Human Rights Council
and Human Rights Watch issue objective reports from primary sources. Objective reports are
then referenced by interest groups, military personnel and congressmen alike to gain or
degrade support on an issue.
Viewing conflict through a lens of Supply and Demand may help to better observe the
narratives at work. In Syria for example, the United States utilized numerous reports
condemning the Assad regimes barrel bombs, starvation sieges and torture prisons. Reports
were used to justify the Covert funding and provision of weapons and other material support
to opposition groups for strikes against the Syrian Government. An act which provoked a
military reaction by Assad, according to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a
group of current and former officials of the intelligence community. Americas public position
was that the actions of the Syrian government forces far outweighed the rebel violations. Thus,
justifying the United States involvement on the side of the rebel forces. In this instance, one
could observe the United States behaving like imperialists, imposing their point of view on
poorer countries. Nevertheless, the savior narrative skillfully camouflages the repercussions
of such a strategy. Behind the media, interventionist policy creates demand for profiteers, and
the MIC has the supply. By lobbying and funding for an interventionist (arguably imperialist)
military policy, defense contractors ensure a need for weapons and ammunition from the side
thats shooting and the side shooting back.

Wackerfuss 4
In the meantime, the American citizens are the ones getting short changed. Mass
amounts of American tax dollars get funneled into wars that in hindsight may be more
meddlesome than originally understood. American ideals of democracy are met with hostility
by being the police force of the free world- a job that the U.S. alone cannot continue to fulfill.
The burden of realizing global prosperity must be shared in equity between the other 193
members of the world order. Burden sharing is unequal in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization as well. An article from the Peace Research Institute Oslo explains NATO funding:

NATO sums up the total defense budgets of its members and counts that as its
resources. By that measure, the United States represents about 72 percent of NATO. But
that hardly captures Americas role because its defense budget is shaped by factors
outside of Europe. On the other hand, NATO has common military expenses around $2
billion a year. The U.S. share of that is about 22 percent. But those dollars exclude the
vast spending it takes to sustain American forces, equipment and bases across Europe.
And even those expenditures arent solely for the benefit of Europe. Although professor
Gordon Adams clarifies, "You could not fight a war with the $2 billion, I have to say
defining (the NATO budget) that way is, to me, both irrelevant and meaningless."

This vast majority of American presence in NATO is telling of the alliances use and
expansion. NATO allows the U.S. and its allies to militarily proceed despite Russia and China
Veto in the United Nations Security Council, while still retaining validity within the international
community. A policy decision which yet again, creates demand for Americas MIC. the U.S.
exports twice as many arms per year than the next largest arms exporter, Russia, followed by
China. This fact helps to understand why the United States would have intentions on
maintaining a hegemonic position in the global arms race and world order.

V.
Giving up the Upper Hand

A seemingly impenetrable flow of money and influence gave rise to MICs nickname, the
Iron Triangle. The Iron Triangle completely dismisses the power of the American people.
Just as Eisenhower had prophesized. Even though, it could be argued that the electorate is
included within Congress- representatives thatve been chosen for the people by the people.
The MICs influence corrupts even the basis of the electoral system by funneling billions of
dollars into campaign funds. According to opensecrets.org, the National Rifle Association(NRA)
alone reportedly spent more than $3.6 million in lobbying activity in 2015. Amidst the Age of
Information, this should irk the American electorate. The nickname exemplifies a complete
disregard for the rights that every American citizen naturally bears. A voice that can be
educated on the honest goals of American foreign policy and rise up against unjustness done in
their name- no matter how tightly woven the issue may seem. In American foreign policy, an
invasion of sovereign states can be met with massive retaliation. Ironically, that is precisely the
policy decisions the U.S. is choosing around the world.

Wackerfuss 5
Our technological reality now supplies electorates the means to change policy instead of
allowing policy to change them. Its no wonder the military wants to keep a monopoly of its
goods. One can imagine the power that would be torn from the hands of the defense industry,
if it was no longer prioritized in foreign policy decisions. The more illuminating thought is the
potential relocation of abused power into the appreciative and needing hands of efficient
energy, education, small business and innovation for welfare instead of warfare. Recently, the
U.S. invests around 80 billion dollars annually to defense R&D. (See graph) This investment
shines through in Americas
high quality combatants and
superior technology.
Innovation is essential to
maintaining an advantage on
the battle field. But efforts
and dollars spent on the MIC
rob the American citizens of
the technology and goods
developed by their tax dollars.
This is especially the case as
the possibilities of applying
MIC innovations to social
welfare are exponential.

VI.
Conclusion

Changes in the military mission of the United States coupled with quickly evolving
technology have cut a path for the Military- Industrial Complex to thrive. Defense industry
relies on the benefits of lobby efforts to stabilize demand for its goods. It hooks policy makers
by ensuring the economic value of defense spending. Finally, congress is reeled in by the
pressures created from the industry and electorate. Americas military may be the best in the
world; and many great men have contributed their lives to keep it that way. But one could not
say the same about the U.S. health, energy, agriculture, education, or textile industry. With the
latest innovations to apply and grow upon, America could give rise to state sponsored works of
art and architecture unmatchable to anything the world has ever seen in reality!
America could fulfill its full capitalistic potential by budgeting money into small business
and local industries and supporting career specialization, free from the chains of military
contracts. The fulfillment of that full potential can only come after a diffusion of knowledge
supported by the media and government. With the internet, it is possible! Yet, fair and honest
reporting cannot be realistic until the algorithms made from search history are realized as a
form of institutionalized indoctrination. This technique of online censorship insures that citizens
are continually being exposed to information that most agrees with their existing beliefs.
Change is at Americas fingertips. As the U.S. is by far the largest arms producer in the world,
itd be wise for elected officials to ensure that the change is acknowledged and respected.
It is doubtless at the margin military-industrial pressures have influenced key foreign
policy decisions. Decisions that directly contribute to the U.S.s perceived role as a conflict

Wackerfuss 6
escalator and arms supplier. These roles create tension surrounding American ideals of
democracy and freedom, and military missions become all the more dangerous when
confronted by a spirited and armed opposition. The controversial aspect of the MIC is the
morality of its consideration when human lives are on the line. In theory, each individual on
American soil has the equal freedom to follow their dreams within the bounds of the law. This
is the great American utopia, and it is being undermined by the military- industrial complex.
Instead of providing local opportunity to citizens, the federal government massively funds the
MIC. A complex that rewards persons for signing away their birth given freedom in order to
fulfill the initiatives of whom-ever is calling the shots. The entity calling the shots could be the
President- With a temporary military freedom from the restrictions of democracy, Congress-
Looking to create their lasting mark on the institution, the Defense Industry- Using military men
and women as necessary casualties to keep their books in the black, or the National Military- A
untamed vine growing on America, syphoning the best for itself. It may be for the best that the
electorate never fully understand. But, in the age of information, Id say well find out sooner or
later.

Wackerfuss 7

VII.

Works Cited

Eisenhower, Dwight D. "Military-Industrial Complex." Public papers of the Presidents (1961):
1035-1040.

Markusen, Ann R. The rise of the gunbelt: The military remapping of industrial America. Oxford
University Press on Demand, 1991.

Leslie, Stuart W. The Cold War and American science: The military-industrial-academic complex
at MIT and Stanford. Columbia University Press, 1993.

Nincic, Miroslav, and Thomas R. Cusack. "The political economy of US military spending."
Journal of Peace research 16.2 (1979): 101-115.

Burke, Terry. "U.S. Peace Activists Should Start Listening to Progressive Syrian Voices." In These
Times. N.p., 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.

SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2013. Print.

Hastedt, Glenn P. American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, Future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1991. Print.