Have you ever felt the United States was in a war you did not support? Do you wonder why we sacrifice American lives (and resources) to benefit foreign nations when we cannot afford to meet the needs of our own people? In other words, do you believe United States foreign policy reflects the will of the people?
I don’t — and I think I know why: the military industrial complex has a tremendous influence over US foreign policy – and its motives generally don't align with those of the American people. As a result, when it comes to war, our “representative democracy” generally does not represent the will of the voters, and instead represents the will of the MIC. For example, only 39% of Americans supported the United States’ invasion of Iraq, less than 1 in 3 Americans approved of our involvement in Somalia, and an overwhelming majority (72%) believed Vietnam was a mistake.
Things were not always this way. In World War II, 67% of Americans supported going to war with Germany and 97% supported going to war with Japan — so what happened between then and now?
Follow the money. In the early 1900s, United States arms production represented one percent of annual GDP — and thus, our economy did not depend on war. In World War I, defense spending rose to 22% of GDP — but even though arms manufacture represented over one fifth of the economy, production was diversified: a large part of American artillery was produced by large military-owned and operated factories and many smaller arms manufacturers — while vehicles such as tanks and planes were contracted out to an assortment of domestic companies. Many of those companies — Smith and Wesson and Colt for example — did not depend on war to survive. However, by the end of World War II, defense spending had almost doubled to 41% of GDP — the industry (like many if all not industries) was consolidating — and the largest car manufacturer in the US at the beginning of WW2, General Motors, had become the largest military contractor on earth; producing everything from ammunition to tanks, planes, engines and more. In other words, arms manufacturers were now in the business of war.
All to say, by the early stages of the Cold War, the military industrial complex — which President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned against in his farewell address — had gained an even stronger “unwarranted influence” on American politics than he feared 63 years ago. “From World War II through the Cold War…As an arguably ‘architected’ result, the American domestic economy became tied to the success of its defense industry, and thus overwhelmingly to the interests of the prime contractors...” Thus — there was now a huge financial incentive to go to war for both the MIC AND the US government.
This incentive was amplified by the fact that the election campaigns of government officials who made the decision to go to war — or in any case to buy weapons — were often funded by the MIC — a trend that continues to this day: “The arms industry…has donated more than $83 million to political candidates in the past two election cycles… heavily concentrated among members of the House and Senate armed services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees.”
At the same time the MIC has increased their influence over elected politicians, they have also increased their influence over other parts of the government and society at large.
Look at the CIA. It was created by President Truman to consolidate agencies that had been established during World War II and serve as “a sort of daily newspaper, informing the president of developments around the world that could impact American policy.” But by the time President Kennedy took office, the CIA’s mission had changed from informing the president to in effect “lobbying” the president to go to war. More simply put, the CIA had become de facto advocates for the military industrial complex.
The primary reason for this is pretty simple: every CIA Director since 1961 has worked for the MIC — either before or after joining the government. Thus the CIA has aligned itself with a sector of the economy whose interests often were — and are — misaligned with those of the American people.
The MIC’s influence goes well beyond the government. A recent brief from the Quincy Institute stated that more than 75% of the top foreign policy think tanks in the United States are either partially or fully funded by defense contractors — many of whom donate millions of dollars to think tanks — who in return publish articles and reports strongly favoring further government defense spending.
Furthermore, the same report found that “mainstream media outlets disproportionately rely on commentary from experts at just such think tanks. That forthcoming Quincy Institute report, for example, found that they were more than four times as likely as those without MIC funding to be cited in New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal articles about the Ukraine War. In short, when you see a think-tank expert quoted on questions of war and peace, odds are that his or her employer receives money from the war machine.” Thus the media’s reliance on “experts” funded by the MIC helps the MIC influence public opinion.
In addition to these think tanks, the MIC’s influence extends from the media to war-friendly movies that glorify the war machine. For example, the recent blockbuster Top Gun was not only a win for the filmmakers and Tom Cruise, but also a massive victory for the Pentagon and the MIC. They worked closely with the filmmakers to provide “‘equipment—including jets and aircraft carriers—personnel and technical expertise,” and they even had the opportunity to make script revisions, according to The Washington Post.” In addition, the CEO of Lockheed Martin — one of the largest military defense contractors – touted the fact he “partnered with Top Gun’s producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen.” Top Gun is just the latest example — the Pentagon and MIC have had their finger on the pulse of Hollywood for decades. Roger Stahl — a professor at the University of Georgia – has published research stating that “The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television shows.”
In other words, the MIC and the government are natural allies — and their interests don’t necessarily align with the American people’s. The MIC and the government thrive on war — but the public pays for war in lives and diminished opportunities at home. Furthermore, the public doesn’t necessarily know why they are willing to make this sacrifice: the MIC funds foreign policy “experts” who in turn influence public opinion through the press and movies — or in other words, the MIC essentially brainwashes voters. All the while at the same time, the MIC influences government decision makers by funding their campaigns and offering lucrative employment in exchange for their loyal (to the MIC) government service.
As long as this alliance continues, the wars we fight will never reflect the will of the people — and the foundational principle of American democracy: government by, of and for the people — will forever be perverted.
Works Cited:
Allen, T. Jodie, “Polling Wars: Hawks vs. Doves”, Pew Research Center, November 23, 2009, https://www.pewresearch.org/2009/11/23/polling-wars-hawks-vs-doves/
Saad, Lydia, December 5, 2016, “Gallup Vault: A Country Unified After Pearl Harbor”, Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/vault/199049/gallup-vault-country-unified-pearl-harbor.aspx
“FY 2024 Defense Budget”, US Department of Defense, https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/FY2024-Defense-Budget/
“The Factories That Fed The Front in the First World War”, IWM, https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-factories-that-fed-the-front-in-the-first-world-war
Chantrill, Christopher, “Recent Defense Spending”, USGovernmentSpending.com, March 17, 2024, https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history#:~:text=Big%20War%20Spikes&text=It%20spiked%20at%2022%20percent,years%20in%20the%2020th%20century.
Huq, Yameen, “Big mouths for weapons spending are mum on industry backers”, Responsible Statecraft, May 29, 2023, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/29/think-tanks-pushing-for-bigger-dod-budget-dont-disclose-industry-funding/
Freeman, Ben, “Defense Contractor Funded Think Tanks Dominate Ukraine Debate”, Quincy Institute, May, 2023, https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/QUINCY-BRIEF-NO.-41-MAY-2023-FREEMAN.pdf
Eisenhower, Dwight, “President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)”, National Archives, January 17, 1961, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
“Establishment of The CIA”, National Archives, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/establishment-cia
Powers, Thomas, “Inside The Department of Dirty Tricks,” The Atlantic, August 1, 1979, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1979/08/inside-the-department-of-dirty-tricks/305460/
Stahl, Roger, “Op-Ed: Why does the Pentagon give a helping hand to films like ‘Top Gun’?”, LA Times, May 30, 2022, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-maverick-memorial-day-tom-cruise-pentagon-propaganda
Miller, Jonathan, “Who’s Your Ally? Part 3: Meet the Primes – The origins of the U.S. military-industrial complex”, MIT Office of Innovation, March 18, 2024, https://innovation.mit.edu/blog-post/whos-your-ally_3
“Defense Sector Summary”, Open Secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/industries//indus?Ind=D
Qi, Wang, “US arms sales hit record high in FY2023 as diplomacy 'kidnapped by military-industrial complex”, Global Times, January 30, 2024, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202401/1306371.shtml
Comments