 |
| Perpetual war represents perpetual profits for the ever expanding business and government interests |
In January 1961, US President Dwight D Eisenhower used his farewell address to warn the nation of what he viewed as one of its greatest threats: the military-industrial complex composed of military contractors and lobbyists perpetuating war.
Eisenhower warned that "an immense military
establishment and a large arms industry" had emerged as a hidden force in
US politics and that Americans "must not fail to comprehend its grave implications". The speech may have been Eisenhower's most courageous
and prophetic moment. Fifty years and some later, Americans find
themselves in what seems like perpetual war. No sooner do we draw down on
operations in Iraq than leaders demand an intervention in Libya or Syria or
Iran. While perpetual war constitutes perpetual losses for families, and ever
expanding budgets, it also represents perpetual profits for a new and larger
complex of business and government interests. The new military-industrial complex is fuelled by a
conveniently ambiguous and unseen enemy: the terrorist. Former President George
W Bush and his aides insisted on calling counter-terrorism efforts a
"war". This concerted effort by leaders like former Vice
President Dick Cheney (himself the former CEO of defence-contractor
Halliburton) was not some empty rhetorical exercise. Not only would a war
maximise the inherent powers of the president, but it would maximise the
budgets for military and homeland agencies. This new coalition of companies, agencies, and lobbyists
dwarfs the system known by Eisenhower when he warned Americans to "guard
against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial
complex". Ironically, it has had some of its best days under President
Barack Obama who has radically expanded drone attacks and claimed that he alone
determines what a war is for the purposes of consulting Congress.
Good For US Economy?: While few politicians are willing to admit it, we don't
just endure wars we seem to need war - at least for some people. A study showed
that roughly 75 percent of the fallen in these wars come from working class
families. They do not need war. They pay the cost of the war. Eisenhower would
likely be appalled by the size of the industrial and governmental workforce
committed to war or counter-terrorism activities. Military and homeland budgets
now support millions of people in an otherwise declining economy. Hundreds of
billions of dollars flow each year from the public coffers to agencies and
contractors who have an incentive to keep the country on a war-footing - and
footing the bill for war. Across the country, the war-based economy can be seen in
an industry which includes everything from Homeland Security educational
degrees to counter-terrorism consultants to private-run preferred traveller
programmes for airport security gates. Recently, the "black budget"
of secret intelligence programmes alone was estimated at $52.6bn for 2013. That
is only the secret programmes, not the much larger intelligence and
counter intelligence budgets. We now have 16 spy agencies that employ 107,035
employees. This is separate from the over one million people employed
by the military and national security law enforcement agencies. The core of this expanding complex is an axis of
influence of corporations, lobbyists, and agencies that have created a massive,
self-sustaining terror-based industry.
The Contractors: In the last eight years, trillions of dollars have flowed
to military and homeland security companies. When the administration starts a
war like Libya, it is a windfall for companies who are given generous contracts to
produce everything from replacement missiles to ready-to-eat meals. In the first 10 days of the Libyan war alone, the
administration spent roughly $550m. That figure includes about $340m for munitions - mostly cruise missiles that must be replaced. Not only
did Democratic members of Congress offer post-hoc support for the Libyan
attack, but they also proposed a permanent authorisation for presidents to
attack targets deemed connected to terrorism - a perpetual war on terror. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers an even steadier profit margin.
According to Morgan Keegan, a wealth management and capital firm, investment
in homeland security companies is expected to yield a 12 percent annual growth
through 2013 - an astronomical return when compared to other parts of the
tanking economy.
The Lobbyists: There are thousands of lobbyists in Washington to
guarantee the ever-expanding budgets for war and homeland security. One such
example is former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff who pushed the purchase of the
heavily criticised (and little tested) full-body scanners used in airports.
When Chertoff was giving dozens of interviews to convince the public that the
machines were needed to hold back the terror threat, many people were unaware
that the manufacturer of the machine is a client of the Chertoff
Group, his highly profitable security consulting agency. (Those hugely
expensive machines were later scrapped after Rapiscan, the manufacturer,
received the windfall.). Lobbyists maintain pressure on politicians by framing
every budget in "tough on terror" versus "soft on terror"
terms. They have the perfect products to pitch - products that are
designed to destroy themselves and be replaced in an ever-lasting war on
terror.
The Agencies: It is not just revolving doors that tie federal agencies
to these lobbyists and companies. The war-based economy allows for military and
homeland departments to be virtually untouchable. Environmental and social
programmes are eliminated or curtailed by billions as war-related budgets
continue to expand to meet "new threats". With the support of an army of lobbyists and companies,
cabinet members like former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, are invincible in
Washington. When citizens complained of watching their children groped by the
TSA, Napolitano defiantly retorted that if people did not want their children
groped, they should yield and use the unpopular full-body machines - the
machines being sold by her predecessor, Chertoff. It is not just the Defense and DHS departments that enjoy
the war windfall. Take the Department of Justice (DOJ). A massive
counter terrorism system has been created employing tens of thousands of
personnel with billions of dollars to search for domestic terrorists. The
problem has been a comparative shortage of actual terrorists to justify the
size of this internal security system. Accordingly, the DOJ has counted everything from simple
immigration cases to credit card fraud as terror cases in a body count approach
not seen since the Vietnam War. For example, the DOJ claimed to have busted a
major terror-network as part of "Operation Cedar Sweep", where
Lebanese citizens were accused of sending money to terrorists. They were later
forced to drop all charges against all 27 defendants as unsupportable. It
turned out to be a bunch of simple head shops. Nevertheless, the new internal
security system continues to grind on with expanding powers and budgets. A few
years ago, the DOJ even changed the definition of terrorism to allow for an
ever-widening number of cases to be considered "terror-related".
Symbiotic Relationship: Our economic war-dependence is matched by political
war-dependence. Many members represent districts with contractors that supply
homeland security needs and our on-going wars. Even with polls showing that the majority of Americans
are opposed to continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new
military-industrial complex continues to easily muster the necessary support
from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is a testament to the
influence of this alliance that hundreds of billions are being spent in
Afghanistan and Iraq while Congress is planning to cut billions from core
social programmes, including a possible rollback on Medicare due to lack of
money. None of that matters. It doesn't even matter that Afghan President Hamid
Karzai has called the US the enemy and said he wishes that he had joined the
Taliban. Even the documented billions stolen by government officials in Iraq
and Afghanistan are treated as a mere cost of doing business. It is what Eisenhower described as the "misplaced
power" of the military-industrial complex - power that makes public
opposition and even thousands of dead soldiers immaterial. War may be hell for
some but it is heaven for others in a war-dependent economy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public
Interest Law at George Washington University and has testified in Congress on
the massive counter-terrorism budgets and bureaucracy in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment