The Role of Military-Industrial Complexes in American Foreign Policy

The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
The Role of Military-Industrial Complexes in American Foreign Policy

Although the history of using mercenaries for defence and security reasons dates back to the Achaemenid Empire in Iran and the ancient Greek and Roman Empires, the first private military companies emerged during the Hundred Years’ War (1453-1337) when Europe was engaged in wars and lacked political stability. In fact, the main basis for the formation of military-industrial complexes was the security concerns and the perception of the existence of the peripheral security challenges. At first, the real needs of the countries formed the basis of such complexes, but later on, the economic interests of a particular group were chosen over the interests of the majority in these complexes and as a result of their negative performance, a set of artificial needs replaced the actual ones to justify the legitimacy of the complexes or their necessity for accomplishing the economic interests. This cycle is called “militarism” which has a long history in various countries, including the United States.

 

However, the founders of the United States, despite their expansionist tendencies, opposed the preservation of large armies during peacetime. George Washington said: “a large standing army in time of peace has always been considered a threat to the country’s freedoms.”

 

In fact, the military-industrial complexes did not initially have a decisive role in American foreign policy. However, political and security developments inside and outside the United States gradually led to the strengthening of these institutions and increasing their influence in American foreign policy.

 

In 1941, when the United States officially entered World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt talked about the relationship between military and industrialists, but he did not use the term military-industrial complexes.

 

In World War II, United States military leaders directly and decisively influence the major political decisions more than ever, and gradually a direct and continuous relationship between the two sectors of the private economy and the military-state system was developed in this country. This relationship became stronger after the end of World War II, and especially during the Cold War. What caused the military-industrial complexes to flourish was the idea of supporting the American empire in the world. In fact, the United States needed the enormous force of military-industrial complexes to maintain its dominance in global markets and spread the values of liberalism so that to control the markets and prevent the emergence of a powerful rival. Hence, after the end of the Cold War, the military-industrial complexes were not eliminated and even they simply reorganized themselves.

 

Given the importance of the role of military-industrial complexes, the discussions of the political economy of militarism of great powers have been addressed in academic circles, and the existing research has elucidated some of the hidden aspects of these countries’ military policies. 

 

The results of such research indicate that military-industrial complexes played an influential role in American society and had a profound influence on the American economy, politics, and Congress because of the wealth and power they gained during World War II and the Cold War respectively. Thus, one cannot fully understand the patterns and trends governing American foreign policy without considering the role of military-industrial complexes and the way they influence the government.

 

However, there are still many ambiguities concerning the relationship between politicians, the military, and military-industrial complexes in the United States. Also, the quality and quantity of the role they play in American foreign policy require far broader and deeper research. Accordingly, the key question is what is the role of military-industrial complexes in American foreign policy? In response to this question, it is argued that the influence of military-industrial complexes on institutions dealing with American foreign policy has driven this policy towards interventionism and war.

 

We would address this hypothesis through three contexts. First, we will examine the process of formation and evolution of the role of military-industrial complexes in American foreign policy and different perspectives in this regard, then identify and explain the mechanisms through which the military-industrial complexes play a role in American foreign policy and finally we will examine the role of such complexes in pushing American foreign policy toward interventionism in different regions and countries.

 

The Influence of Military-Industrial Complexes on American Foreign Policy: Views and Opinions

 

The expansion of the influence of military-industrial complexes as the new emerging powers in the United States and their influence in the American decision-making and executive structures gradually attracted the attention of many political and international experts. In response to this situation, some opposed the expansion of the role and influence of such complexes whereas others emphasized the benefits of these complexes highlighting their positive role. In the following, while referring to different arguments in favour of and against such complexes we try to gain a more accurate understating.

 

The intensification of the militarization of the American economy and society

Charles Wright Mills was one of the first to address the role of these complexes in American society and political system in his book “The Power Elite” which was published in 1956.

 

By carefully examining the relationship between executive organizations with big business owners and industrialists and analyzing the effects of such a close relationship on the process of militarization of the American economy and society, C. Wright Mills concluded that the confrontation of powerful military elites and their counterparts in the field of the economy would push the American political system towards destruction.

 

Mills believed that the development that led to the militarization of the United States capitalist economy had been made by linking the interests of powerful elites in industrial and economic sections with the military ones. Thus, in his view, “the intensification of private relations between the military forces and powerful and influential economic groups not only accelerates and facilitates unilateral and lucrative contracts but also reflects the characteristics of the structures of American capitalist society.” “Behind the increasing United States budget and the changes that have been made by this factor in the political-economic leadership of the country, there is a fundamental shift in the contemporary United States capitalist system towards a continuing war economy,” he adds.

 

The military forces, according to Mills, that constitute partly the powerful elites, control the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and through the various agencies of the armed forces or by their agents within the legislative and executive organizations, they control the political policy and the state budget directing them towards serving their interests. 

 

Of course, the views of all those who have studied the role of military-industrial complexes in American foreign policy are not so negative, since many experts have highlighted the positive role of these complexes. In the following, some of these positive aspects will be mentioned.

 

Saving Economic Costs and Increasing National Security

 

Delivering part of the security and military duties to military-industrial complexes, on one hand, has raised objections and on the other hand, has many supporters. Responding to the question of the need to delegate some of the security and military tasks to military-industrial complexes, Deborah C. Kidwell said: “Supporting formal forces with contracting forces can potentially spur costs, political frustration and increase national security and would cause greater effectiveness of the military forces.”

 

For S. Makki, military-industrial complexes have gained an important position within the national security structures of powerful countries by providing specialized personnel and forces as well as advanced services and equipment. In his view, using these institutions would facilitate the process of deploying the troops abroad, expand the geopolitical and technical influence of the major powers, allow the governments to escape parliamentary controls, and protect them from the unfortunate consequences of carrying out operations with dubious legitimacy. Finally, these institutions that require fewer facilities and costs are gradually replacing the national armies.

 

According to these arguments, military-industrial complexes, above all, appear to be more economically viable. While contractors’ pay may seem high, it is cost-effective because they are paid only when needed. In other words, unlike official forces that are always military, contractors are hired only when they are needed. On the other hand, in military-industrial complexes, there are fewer employees than the official ones, which is another factor that reinforces the possibility of cheaper and more profitable military-industrial complexes. Duff Layer compares the costs of the Agztyv Atkam military-industrial complex with that of United Nations peacekeepers in Angola and Sierra Leone and estimates that the total cost of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Angola was $626 million, while the costs of the Agztyv Atkam military-industrial complex were just $60 million. ‌

 

Increasing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Official Military Forces

 

According to this argument, the reason for using the military-industrial complexes lies in the efficiency and effectiveness of official military forces. There are two main reasons for this claim: First, using these complexes frees up the military to concentrate on its core missions. Second, the privatization of military logistics will pave the way for investing in modernizing and streamlining the operational divisions of armed forces.

 

The Flexibility of the Complexes and the Rapid Mobilization of Forces 

 

The third argument in favour of using the military-industrial complexes is that they can be mobilized on short notice to add to existing military capabilities. These complexes can provide a wide range of military services whereas the formal military forces have to undergo various training to be prepared for carrying out operations in different situations and conditions. Therefore, military-industrial complexes play an important role in national and international security through being rapidly mobilized in emergency situations. In addition, they would strengthen the defence and security capabilities of the country.

 

The Political Advantage of Escaping the Parliamentary Controls and The Pressures of Public Opinion 

 

The fourth argument in favour of using military-industrial complexes is that contracting out ensures that governments do not have to risk incurring the political costs associated with sending their armed forces into situations that are little understood or supported domestically. Moreover, casualties among the employees of such complexes would not cause the same political problems that the deaths of a country’s armed forces do.

Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution

Comments

leave your comments