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  complex’s  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  America’s  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  1860’s,  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  Marshall’s  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  administration’s  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  War’s  
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  America’s  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  Pentagon’s  
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.   Eisenhower’s  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  regime’s  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.  America’s  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  
that’s  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  America’s  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  aren’t  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  alliance’s  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  America’s  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  MIC’s  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  that’ve  been  chosen  for  the  people  by  the  people.  
The  MIC’s  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.  It’s  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  America’s  
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.  America’s  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  America’s  fingertips.  As  the  U.S.  is  by  far  the  largest  arms  producer  in  the  world,  
it’d  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,  I’d  say  we’ll  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.