Military-Industrial Complex Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The term military-industrial complex refers to the intricate relationship between the governments, militaries, and defense firms of the United States, Europe, Japan, and other developed states. The phrase was popularized by U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961) in his 1961 farewell address, in which he warned of the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” that had created unheralded ties between the military and large defense manufacturers. Eisenhower asserted that the result was a security establishment that was compromised by the private sector and lacking an emphasis on national defense. The outgoing president warned that the social-economic-political triangle at the core of the military-industrial complex was seeking to develop weapons and armaments to benefit itself, rather than the nation it was supposed to serve. Many commentators would later see Eisenhower’s remarks as a broad condemnation of bureaucracies that grew beyond the control or understanding of the citizenry.

Origins Of The Military industrial Complex

The rapid advance of military technology during World War II (1939–1945) resulted in a dramatic expansion of the defense-industrial base in the wartime powers, especially in the United States. By the end of the war, the defense sector employed more than 20 percent of the U.S. civilian workforce. Although there was a significant decline in military output after the war, the onset of the cold war led to new weapons programs and renewed defense expenditures.

Industrialized states responded to the increased military needs in one of two ways: In most western European states, defense firms were either state-owned, or the government had significant economic interests in them. For instance, Finland, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal to some degree owned national defense companies. The result was that the interests of these corporations became inexorably intertwined with the fortunes of government. Increased production by arms manufacturers meant corresponding increases in employment and wages. Countries such as France, Italy, and Germany actively encouraged arms exports and weapons transfers to benefit the domestic defense sector. Meanwhile, governments also became deeply involved in weapons production and military systems planning.

Within the United States and countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, governments did not have the degree of direct influence or ownership common among western European nations; however, significant connections emerged between the military and private industry as new requirements emerged for increasingly sophisticated weaponry and military technology. Through the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. defense industry steadily grew. In the post– Vietnam War (1959–1975) era of the 1970s, cuts in military spending prompted the defense sector to become more organized. President Jimmy Carter sought to reduce the ties between the defense companies and the national security establishment, but his overall defense strategy emphasized new weapons systems concurrent with reductions in man power, thereby continuing the importance of research and development of new systems and weapons. Meanwhile, firms created new lobbies to promote increased military expenditures on programs such as the American League for Exports and Security Assistance (ALESA). Defense corporations in the United States and Europe expanded in the 1980s. For instance, from 1981 to 1986, U.S. defense expenditures increased by $1.6 trillion. The end of the cold war ushered in an era of mergers and acquisitions. By the end of the 1990s, the three largest U.S. companies—Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Raytheon— accounted for almost one-third of all defense contracts in an industry that domestically employed 2.2 million people.

Potential Dangers Of The Military-Industrial Complex

Critics in the United States assert that the military-industrial complex has led to the emergence of an iron triangle—the U.S. Department of Defense, Congress, and corporations. Members of Congress and government officials support procurement programs that provide jobs or support industry in their home states or districts. Meanwhile, defense companies provide significant financial support for reelection campaigns—sometimes pay outright bribes—while cost overruns and delays plague the sector. Military officers and defense department officials offer broad support for new weapons and defense systems to improve capabilities or to gain lucrative jobs in the private sector. Scholars and reporters such as economist and industrial engineer Seymour Melman, sociologist Gregory Hooks, and journalist Andy Pasztor wrote about the problems and dangers of the military-industrial complex. Later critical works, including those by political scientists Rachel Weber and Chalmers Johnson, often linked the defense-industrial sector with increased militarism and an aggressive foreign policy.

By the late 1980s, there were more than fifty ongoing investigations into fraud and waste by defense firms in the United States alone. In addition, there was a series of sensational stories that emerged about cost overruns, including extravagant prices charged for common products—$40 for hammers and $600 for toilets. In response, the U.S. Congress enacted a series of procurement reforms in the 1990s and early 2000s designed to cut waste in procurement. The administration of U.S. president Bill Clinton promoted consolidation among defense contractors to preserve capabilities. The administration also embraced arms exports and weapons transfers to protect the industry and bolster U.S. exports. In 1995, Clinton made arms sales a national security priority and further stoked the debate over the role of the military-industrial complex. The wave of mergers within the industry spread beyond national borders as U.S. and European firms acquired companies from other countries or from rivals. The result was the rise of large multinational defense firms, such as European Aeronautic Defense and Space (EADS), a joint Franco-German company, with British, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, and Polish subsidiaries and projects with a number of other countries.

Increases in military spending following the 2001 terrorist attacks drew attention to the military-industrial complex in the United States. U.S. vice president Dick Cheney’s ties to the defense firm Halliburton highlighted the complex. In the 1990s, Halliburton was fined for illegally supplying dualuse nuclear technology to Libya and Iraq. Still, between 2003 and 2006, the corporation received contracts in excess of $18 billion to supply products and services for the occupation of Iraq. The iron triangle of the military-industrial complex will continue to influence policy formulation and implementation until there are stronger barriers between industry and individual national security establishments.

Bibliography:

Hooks, Gregory. Forging the Military-Industrial Complex; World War II’s Battle of the Potomac. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991.
Johnson, Chalmers. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004.
Melman, Seymour. Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Pasztor, Andy. When the Pentagon Was for Sale: Inside America’s Biggest Defense Scandal. New York: Scribner, 1995.
Weber, Rachel. Swords into Dow Shares: Governing the Decline of the Military Industrial Complex. Boulder: Westview Press, 2001.

This example Military-Industrial Complex Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.