The Mechanisms of the Role of Military-Industrial Complexes in the United States Foreign Policy

With the onset of World War II and the German invasion of Poland and France, Roosevelt, under the pressure of military companies, provided the Allied countries with financial and military assistance via the Lend-Lease policy to prevent the collapse of France.

 

With the end of World War II in 1945, the United States as the leader of the capitalist system assumed a prominent role in spreading and sustaining that system throughout the world. The Chinese Communist Revolution, the United States’ involvement in the Korean War and the First Soviet nuclear test on 29 August 1949 showed that communism could be the predominant doctrine in any part of the world. Hence, the United States National Security Council, according to its 68th report, urged the President to confront communism through gaining military and nuclear superiority.

 

Consequently, during the Cold War, the United States concluded 43 bilateral and multilateral political and military agreements with other countries. Hence, given the national security concerns, the policy of concluding such agreements was closely linked to the military-industrial complexes that following their interests sought to increase the United States military budget after the World War II.

 

In fact, military pacts led to the United States' commitment to provide financial and military assistance, which increased each year, to the Allies. This indicates the need for more budgets for Pentagon and that larger contracts should be signed with military-industrial complexes. This process strengthened the role and influence of military-industrial complexes in the American economy, decision-making centres, and governmental structures, which we will discuss in the following.

 

The Military-Industrial Complexes and the United States Economy

 

The military-industrial complexes peruse their economic activities in American society in two ways. On the one hand, these complexes act as a stimulus to the American economy, and when the economic recession occurs, the government tries to help them increase their sales so that to create jobs and attract investments. 

 

On the other hand, the main purpose of military-industrial complexes is to gain economic profits and increase sales and revenue. To that end, they are trying to create conditions in which they could conclude large and numerous contracts with the Pentagon. 85,000 military-industrial complexes in the United States have created widespread employment opportunities. Surveys show that 2,011,320 workers are directly employed in only 25 large military-industrial complexes in the United States.

 

In fact, military products are the engine of the American economy, and the connection between the military-industrial complexes and the American economy had been so significant that any attempt to cut military expenditures certainly would affect the overall economic structure.

 

Therefore, the United States government always increases its military funding, especially in the post-Cold War era, to overcome the fear of an economic crisis. 

 

It is noteworthy that many civilian sectors in the United States also become dependent on these industries owing to their economic booms to the Pentagon orders. Therefore, any reduction in military spending will affect not only the military sectors but the entire economy. For example, the Pentagon proposed a delay on its procurement decisions involving the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey in the 1990s and consequently Boeing company declared that it will lay off about 2,200 of its 6,800 employees.

 

Likewise, the Raytheon company announced that it would lay off 1.5% of its 6,1379 employees within two years. Given the fact that only in 1969, 8.3 million employees in the United States were involved either in Army or military industries, one can estimate how much the United States economy needs military-industrial complexes.

 

The Influence of Military-Industrial Complexes on Decision-Making and Executive Organizations 

 

The military-industrial complexes have been able to obtain a large share of the state budget comparing to other sections due to their overlap and links with the United States’ government policymakers. The interactions between these complexes with the United States’ Congress and the government draw their attention towards obtaining economic benefits by raising funds and concluding the military contracts for military-industrial complexes. In addition to the two components of power and wealth to influence decisions, the relative alignment of interests between decision-makers and influential groups is also of importance. 

Since some of the members of military-industrial complexes are involved in the process of policymaking, therefore they may provide financial supports and establish propaganda campaigns for these complexes along with using the pretext of the threatened United States national interests in order to drive the foreign and defence policy of the country towards war and intervention.

 

For example, Edward Stettinius, who was responsible for the transfer of weapons during World War I, became director of the General Electric Company in the 1930s. He was also the administrator of the Lend-Lease program in World War II and served as Roosevelt’s secretary of state in the final years of the war. Charles E. Wilson the chief executive officer of General Motors and the chairman of the War Resources Board also served as United States Secretary of Defence under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He sought to create a defensive economy and played a huge role in pushing the United States into the Vietnam War. He always used to talk about the occurrence of a great victory.

 

The Influence of Military-Industrial Complexes on Government

 

In addition to supplying the United States Department of Defence and paramilitary forces, the United States arms contractors, also known as military contractors, are providing logistic services, technical as well as training and communications supports. 

 

The relationship between the United States arms industry and the United States government and the Congress is of importance, and the armament lobby has always had a great deal of influence in both Congress and the White House which had increased when George W. Bush came to power and declared war on global terrorism.

 

The arms industry lobby in the United States, based on the structure of the aforementioned industries, consists of three smaller lobbies: the aerospace industry, the electronics industry, and the various arms industries, each operating in their respective sectors and as a lobby taking actions so that the military-industrial complexes would achieve their goals. These lobbies use the following methods to exert leverage:

 

Financial Aid to the Candidates

 

Military-industrial complexes have always been a supporter of candidates and tried to gain leverage in the government by providing the candidates with financial aids. While such activities have been varied at different times, depending on the political situation, yet they were more favourable to Republicans.

The following table shows how much the armament industry lobby has given to the two Democratic and Republican parties during the different elections in the United States:

 

Assisting the Republicans (Percentage)	Assisting the Democrats (Percentage)	For Repubs	For Dems	Assistance from Political Action Committees	Individual Helps	Total ($)	Election Period
63	37	624005	36377	98244	6835	989275	2016
60	40	15086439	10127062	20454910	4763675	25312610	2014
60	40	16816639	11153876	18442296	9608768	28400855	2012
47	53	11070173	12495496	17102514	6608984	23834298	2010
48	51	12561360	13328173	14534092	11359505	25921597	2008
61	39	11209427	7236125	14534092	6823379	18782037	2006
61	38	11494671	7205929	10673083	8054506	18740089	2004
65	35	10847073	5785595	8987822	2921825	16643869	2002
65	35	9989325	5258675	7575091	3058412	15289780	2000
67	33	6831420	3303474	6235641	1729408	10143382	1998
67	33	8704647	4281225	7744740	1871387	13006119	1996
41	59	4137647	5943326	7548324	1458251	10092735	1994
46	54	2720771	1102433	3506200	1632509	5968482	1992
52	47	3344353	3344353	6393568	788743	7182311	1990
57	43	125437950	93070388	142139379	60686187	220207439	Total

 

Influence on the Cabinet

 

After World War II, the owners of military-industrial complexes realized that they need a direct presence in decision-making and executive organizations to sustain their economic growth. Since then, they have tried to be part of the government so that they can change the decisions in their favour. To that end, they have put their agents in key organizations driving the foreign policy forward in a way that suits their goals.

 

During the Roosevelt administration, they helped Edward Stettinius to become the Secretary of State who played a key role in pushing American foreign policy toward interventionism. They also managed to create the United States National Security Council through their proximity to the Truman administration, which greatly influenced the American movement in subsequent decades.

 

The following table shows the most important and influential members of the military-industrial complexes in United States governments after World War II.

 

Name	Corresponding Government	Corresponding Company
Edward Stettinius	Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt	General Electric
Harry S. Truman	United States Secretary of War	General Electric
John Raskob	Member of United States Council on Foreign Relations	DuPont- General Electric
Bernard Baruch	chairman of the War Industries Board	General Electric
Huff Johnson	Chairman of the National Construction Council (New Deal Project)	General Electric-Member of United States Council on Foreign Relations
William Averell Harriman	Harry S. Truman/United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom	Member of the United States Department of Commerce- General Electric Board Member
Robert Strange McNamara	United States Secretary of Defence under President Dwight D. Eisenhower	Consultant at Ford Motor Company and Military companies
Paul Henry Nitze	U.S. Secretary of the Navy under President Bush	Operational Assistant at Lockheed Martin
Lynne Cheney	Clinton	Board Member of Lockheed Martin
James Rush	Bush	Northrop Grumman
Nelson Frederick Gibbs	Bush	Northrop Grumman
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz	Bush-Clinton	Northrop Grumman
Dave Zakaym	Bush	Northrop Grumman
Douglas Jay Feith	Bush	Northrop Grumman
Gordon Richard England	Bush	General Dynamics
Richard Armitage	Bush	General Dynamics
Donald Henry Rumsfeld	George Herbert Walker Bush & George W. Bush	Military companies consultant& Shareholder of Military Companies as well as Pharmaceutical Companies

 

Penetrating the Pentagon

 

Many United States foreign and defence policy-makers are shareholders of or have jobs in companies and factories affiliated with military-industrial complexes. Also, in the case of being an advisor, their interests lie with these complexes. Moreover, these complexes hire influential veterans and retirees in order to easily influence the military forces who are defence policymakers.

 

For example, the Boeing Company hired the veterans and those retired employees of the Department of Defence to conclude the contract of producing tanker aircraft with the Department of Defence. 

 

In fact, the Pentagon is placed at the heart of military-industrial complexes. The decision-making structure of this military organization is sometimes referred to as a powerful triangle. One side of this structure belongs to civilian staff that formulates the United States military policy. They include the Office of the President, the National Security Council, and both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives Committees on Armed Services as well as the intelligence services such as the CIA.

On the other side, there are military institutions, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top generals of the Air Forces, Ground Forces, and, Naval Forces, the United States Marine Corps, and the Headquarters of the Regional Commanders, with veterans including the American Legion and former participants in overseas wars acting as supporters. Finally, at the base of this triangle, 85,000 private companies make huge profits via the contractors which work with the United States Department of Defence.

 

This Triangle, which comprises the military-industrial complexes, was able to infiltrate Congress through the Pentagon and approve its intended plans. The Pentagon’s relationship with these complexes goes beyond the key committees and includes most of its members who have become increasingly accustomed to receiving financial assistance during the election campaigns from the military-industrial complexes. In 2003, the Boeing Company, the Northrop Grumman Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Corporation in total won contracts worth $50 billion. 

 

In 1992, under the leadership of Dick Cheney, who advocated the idea of privatization of the military’s logistical support, the Pentagon allocated $3.9 million for Brown & Root Industrial Services to carry out research in the field of how private companies could contribute to the military support in war zones around the world. After 1995, the Pentagon allocated another $5 million to update the report. Cheney quit the Pentagon after the 1992 election and from 1995 to 2000 served as the chief executive of Halliburton Company. At that time, the company won the $23.8 ​​million worth contract of rebuilding Iraq’s oil infrastructures.

 

Also, Cheney appointed David Spears Addington, his Chief of Staff in the Pentagon, as the head of the Halliburton Lobbying Board. In 2001, Cheney returned to Washington and became the Vice President. During Cheney’s administration at Halliburton, the company jumped from the 73rd ranked Pentagon contractor to the 18th.

 

This example illustrates the influence and domination of military-industrial complexes on the United States defence policy as well as the interrelation between the high-level decision-makers in the United States with the arms industry which seeks war and militarization.

 

Influence on the Defence Policy Board

 

Sydney Lens, the author of the book military-industrial complex, states that many people who used to work in Pentagon would start working with the private sectors after retirement, and hence such companies will easily exploit their information regarding the Pentagon.

 

Ander Verloy and Daniel Politi, in their report on the relationship between the Defence Policy Board, that is a government-selected group for negotiating with the Pentagon and its contractors, have shown that during 2001 to 2002 at least 9 of the 30 members of the Board were linked with the contractors changing the contracts worth more than $76 billion in favour of their counterparts.

 

The main task of the Board is to offer advisory services to the Secretary of Defence and influence long-term policy issues such as the political-defence implications and tactical considerations, including how the military should develop weapons. 

 

The companies with ties to Defence Policy Board members include prominent firms like Boeing, TRW, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and smaller players like Symantec Corp., Technology Strategies and Alliance Corp., and Polycom Inc.

 

The following table lists some of the affiliations of the Defence Policy Board members to the large arms manufacturers.

 

Name	Military Industry Contracts in 2002	Corporation	Career	Military Industry Contracts in 2001	Military Industry Contracts in 2002
Harold Brown	146335573	Philip Morris International	Board Member	153388337	146335573
	83512278	Rend	Member of the Board of Trustees	64423257	83512278
Ronald Robert Fogleman	87821945	A.A.R	Board Member	65803654	87821945
	13725437	Derco Aerospace, Inc.	Board Member	13883258	13725437
	49120	ICN Pharmaceutical Inc.	Board Member	30000	49120
	474293940	Mitre	Board Member	440641017	474293940
	624385094	North American Airlines, Inc.	Board Member	4889880	624385094
	266433147	Rolls-Royce	Board Member	345065274	266433147
	115280830	Rytan Inc.	Board Member	3894808	115280830
	1110574	World Airliner	Board Member	692986	1110574
David Paul Jeremiah	674013008	Alliant Techsystems Inc.	Board Member	493830461	674013008
	54016945	Digital Net Government Solutions	Board Member	44085906	54016945
	410213983	Mantec International	Member of Advisory Board	166059013	410213983
	474293940	Mitre	Member of the Board of Trustees	440641017	474293940
	8732668154	Northrop Grumman	Member of Advisory Board	8152610683	8732668154
	60578	Technology Strategies and Alliance	Chairman	1304810	60578
	14056103	Wackenhut Services Inc.	Chair of the Board	3208308	14056103
Philip Merrill	461776483	Charles A. Hopkins University	Board Member	267143496	461776483
William Owen	5470165	MicroVision	Board Member	7508869	5470165
	271423	Nortel Networks	Board Member	1680610	271423
	178773	PolyCam	Board Member	365853	178773
	1069086	Simon-Tech	Board Member	95741	1069086
	54623408	Viasat	Board Member	27442414	54623408
James Rodney Schlesinger	474293940	Mitre	Board Member	440641017	474293940
	12490379	Henry M. Jackson	Board Member	11326982	12490379
Shih hen	17325629858	Bechtel	Senior Vice President	643633530	17325629858
Chris Williams	8732668154	Boeing	lobbyist	13979871122	8732668154
	2026546041	Northrop Grumman	lobbyist	5152610683	2026546041
	6875553097	T.R.W	lobbyist	1903297527	6875553097
R. James Woolsey	6695847236	Booz Allen Hamilton	Vice President	435015273	6695847236

 

Making Influence on Congress

 

The huge amount of the United States military funding over time has made millions of citizens to be dependent on such money. Because of this economic dependency, many citizens who may be opposed to militarism for intellectual or ideological reasons often find themselves in a position to demand increased military funding, due to the high economic influence and the employment opportunities that these complexes create in American society.

 

Influencing the Congress

 

Such a high rate of employment opportunity has even allowed those complexes to infiltrate the Congress as members of the Congress, apart from their political orientations, would compete for winning the Pentagon contracts for their congressional districts. 

 

For example, two senators from Washington, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, voted yes for a bill based on which $30 billion would be allocated in the 2003 budget to be spent for renting the Boeing 767 aircraft and converting them into Flying Tankers so that they could refuel the United States Air Force aircraft. 

 

It should be noted that the bill had not even been included in the Air Force Priority List or its procurement plans for the next six years. 

 

The federal government’s purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, international sales contracts, and removing the statutory restrictions are all subject to the approval of and co-operation between the United States Congress and Senate, which indicate the significance and position of the legislature concerning the lobbying within the arms industry. That is why this lobby spends millions of dollars on election campaigns. The main focus of the arms industry lobby in Congress and Senate is the members of the Federal Spending Subcommittee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services, which determine the United States military policy and its arms’ needs. The military-industrial complexes offer financial aids to the election campaigns in such a way that the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the individuals, would receive the money.

 

In large projects like the production of Northrop B-2 Spirit, all of 48 states received the production order so that any objection would result in losing the seat in the next election.

 

In fact, the situation is such that if a representative supports the projects of these complexes, his political position is guaranteed. For example, Kennedy Duke Cunningham, who was used as a pawn by military-industrial complexes and represented North San Diego for 14 years, 2008 approved a $612 billion defence spending bill for 2009 in the House of Representatives.

 

The defence bill included $68.8 billion allocated to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a 3.9% increase in salaries of military forces and $5 billion to be spent on local projects to influence the local votes which even the Pentagon had not requested.

 

Accordingly, the Members of Congress that represent the western and southern electoral districts, because of the existence of large military-industrial complexes, are trying to enact laws that can serve the interests of these complexes so that the employment opportunities and public satisfaction will be increased in their congressional districts and financial assistance and media advocacy from the complexes will be continued.

 

Influencing the Academics and Decision-Making Centres

 

The military-industrial complexes have created a wide network of various institutions and organizations that are funded by the Ministry of Defence or the private sector and involved in research and advisory activities as well as mobilizing the lobbies and pressure groups.

 

The 2002 report of the Association of American Universities shows that about 350 colleges and universities are working on research projects funded by the Pentagon and that 60 percent of the fund of these universities is provided by the Department of Defence.

 

Nowadays, the military-industrial complexes not only influence the traditional non-military universities but also have established a vast network within the military universities and colleges. These universities include National War College, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Security Training Institute, Joint Forces Staff College, Information Resources Management College, Naval College, and Marine Military Academy. Moreover, the military-industrial complexes have been able to infiltrate into American intellectual centres, thereby putting their strategies into action. The most important think-tanks in which the military-industrial complexes had managed to have a bold presence include the Content Security Policy Institute of which 22 members used to work closely with the Bush administration and one-sixth of its revenue comes directly from arms production companies, and the American Enterprise Institute, which is an influential lobby in Washington and a lobbying force for exerting pressure in favour of the military-industrial complexes and the Likud Party.

Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution